‘Specifically, the issues of concern to the Traffic Commissioner are that it appears: a) You have breached the conditions on your licence, namely that you failed to notify a change of directors within 28 days; b) Since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder. The Traffic Commissioner will consider the possible links with Titan Haulage Ltd who have specified vehicle KX64 TKT on their application…Explanations will be sought for why the registered keeper of both vehicles currently specified on this licence ….is Kwiiikk Transport Ltd, a company of which the director is Rajinder Aujla. The Traffic Commissioner will consider Armarjit Singh Aujla’s addition the licence as a director in light of his previous licence history. Because of the matters listed above, the Traffic Commissioner is also concerned that the company may not be of good repute, be of the appropriate financial standing or meet the requirements of professional competence…… In addition, the Traffic Commissioner is also concerned that your nominated transport manger, Beant Kaur, may not be exercising continuous and effective management of the company’s transport activities……’
“The only issues that the Appellant was called to the Public Inquiry for were; 1) That they have breached conditions of their licence, namely that [they] failed to notify a change of directors within 28 days (section 26 (1) (b)); 2) That there has been a material change in the circumstances of the holder (section 26 (1) (h)); 3). Possible links with Titan Haulage”
“1. Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (e), (f) and (h) of theGoods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 andSection 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act the Operator no longer meets the requirements of Section 13A(2) of the said Act - good repute. Accordingly, Licence OF2010669 is revoked with effect from 23:45 on28 February 2022 . 2. No direction is made underSection 28 of the 1995 Act . 3. The good repute of Transport Manager Ms Beant Kaur is severely tarnished but not lost.”
‘Issues 12. There was no formal barrier to Mr Aujla becoming a statutory director of the Operator in June 2020. However, having had his good repute restoration application refused in 2018 Mr Aujla accepted at the Public Inquiry that he should have written in stating a positive case to provide assurances to compliance rather than just being added to VOL. Considering Mr Aujla's history, compliance since June 2020 is essential for two reasons. Firstly, it is a legal requirement and secondly the outcomes will demonstrate whether Mr Aujla now has a positive approach to transparency and lawful behaviours. It follows that the Transport Manager’s role since her appointment is a key part of that assessment. At the conclusion of my balancing exercise, it is for me to determine whether any action is appropriate.’ .. Consideration and Findings 14. At the start of the hearing on11 November 2021 , I gave a steer as to where I would want oral evidence to expand upon the written representations. I then adjourned for a period for Miss Evans to take instructions. I did so out of fairness to Mr Aujla to ensure that his evidence would not have to be interrupted as issues arose. I was satisfied on financial standing but the areas to be expanded upon were: - • A focus on how it is said that trust has been rebuilt. In November 2018 good repute was not regained. In 2018 a personal application was made for good repute to be restored but in 2020 Mr Aujla simply added his name to VOL. • The maintenance records are very similar to Titan Haulage Ltd namely, the maintenance contractor and drivers are picking up very few defects, erratic brake testing and no maintenance contractor ID. • Concerns with the driver defect sheets and the authenticity of defects recorded and whether the defects were repaired. • The driver records indicate that Mr Padda was a full time driver inducted into RAM on the20 September 2020 but it is clear that he is driving across all family businesses, for example week commencing5 April 2021 he is driving for Titan and Kwiiikk; week commencing22 March 2021 he is driving for Titan all week and week commencing 29 March he is driving for Titan for four days and RAM only for one day. • From all the records sent for the Public Inquiry there is very little evidence that they have been touched or even seen by the Transport Manager and therefore I need to understand how Mr Aujla and Ms Kaur work together.’
“(1). Subject to the following provisions of this section and the provisions of section 29, a traffic commissioner may direct that an operator's licence be revoked, suspended or curtailed (within the meaning given in subsection (11)) on any of the following grounds— … (b). that the licence-holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence; … (e). that the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of— (i). his application for the licence, (ii). an application for the variation of the licence, or (iii). a request for a direction under paragraph 1 or 3 of Schedule 4, a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false, or a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled; (f). that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled; … (h) that since the licence was issued or varied there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue or variation of the licence;”
“69. Turning back to sections 26 and 27 of the 1995 Act, I would conclude that for revocation to be possible under the former or mandatory under the latter, it is the commissioner who must be satisfied of the ground of revocation, and not the licence holder who must satisfy him to the contrary. That seems to me to be the natural way to regard both the language of those sections, and the situations contemplated in them. The context is that of a licence holder and the possible revocation of his licence. Revocation can only be done on some specified ground (section 26) or because one or other of the three fundamental requirements is no longer satisfied (section 27). Under section 26(4), the commissioner can only act if “the existence of” a ground comes to his notice. It is counter-intuitive to think of a licence holder being required to negative the existence of a ground raised against him. So with section 27. The commissioner must revoke if “it appears to him” that the licence holder is no longer of good repute or of appropriate financial standing or professionally competent. That seems to me to mean that the commissioner must be satisfied that the requirements are no longer fulfilled. If it had been intended to place the same burden on the licence holder as had been placed on the original applicant, then the same language as that found in section 13 would have been used.”
“In applying the Crompton case it seems to us that traffic commissioners and the Tribunal have to reconsider their approach. In cases involving mandatory revocation it has been common for findings to have been made along the lines of ‘I find your conduct to be so serious that I have had to conclude that you have lost your repute: accordingly, I have also to revoke your licence because the statute gives me no discretion’. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is that this two-stage approach is incorrect and that the sanction has to be considered at the earlier stage. Thus, the question is not whether the conduct is so serious as to amount to a loss of repute but whether it is so serious as to require revocation. Put simply, the question becomes ‘is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?’. On appeal, the Tribunal must consider not only the details of cases but also the overall result.” [Emphasis Added]
“The third point taken by Mr. Laprell was that the Traffic Commissioner gave no reasons for concluding that ‘the conduct was such that the Appellant company ought to be put out of business’. There will be cases where it is only necessary to set out the conduct in question to make it apparent that the operator ought to be put out of business. We are quite satisfied that this was not such a case. On the contrary this was a case which called for a careful assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing factors. In our view before answering the ‘Bryan Haulage question’ it will often be helpful to pose a preliminary question, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? If the evidence demonstrates that it is unlikely then that will, of course, tend to support a conclusion that the operator ought to be put out of business. If the evidence demonstrates that the operator is very likely to be compliant in the future then that conclusion may indicate that it is not a case where the operator ought to be put out of business. We recognise, of course, that promises are easily made, perhaps all the more so in response to the pressures of a Public Inquiry. What matters is whether those promises will be kept. In the present case the Appellant company was entitled to rely on that old saying that ‘actions speak louder than words’.” [Emphasis Added]
“44….The first instance decision is taken to be correct until the contrary is shown…An Appellant, if he is to succeed, must persuade the appeal court or tribunal not merely that a different view of the facts from that taken below is reasonable and possible, but that there are objective grounds upon which the court ought to conclude that a different view is the right one…The true distinction is between the case where the appeal court might prefer a different view (perhaps on marginal grounds) and one where it concludes that the process of reasoning, and the application of the relevant law, require it to adopt a different view. The burden which an Appellant assumes is to show that the case falls within this latter category.”
“Turning back to sections 26 and 27 of the 1995 Act, I would conclude that for revocation to be possible under the former or mandatory under the latter, it is the commissioner who must be satisfied of the ground of revocation, and not the licence holder who must satisfy him to the contrary. That seems to me to be the natural way to regard both the language of those sections, and the situations contemplated in them. The context is that of a licence holder and the possible revocation of his licence. Revocation can only be done on some specified ground (section 26) or because one or other of the three fundamental requirements is no longer satisfied (section 27). Under section 26(4), the commissioner can only act if “the existence of” a ground comes to his notice. It is counter-intuitive to think of a licence holder being required to negative the existence of a ground raised against him. So with section 27. The commissioner must revoke if “it appears to him” that the licence holder is no longer of good repute or of appropriate financial standing or professionally competent. That seems to me to mean that the commissioner must be satisfied that the requirements are no longer fulfilled. If it had been intended to place the same burden on the licence holder as had been placed on the original applicant, then the same language as that found in section 13 would have been used.”
“In AM Richardson v. BETR 2000/65 the Transport Tribunal accepted that the Traffic Commissioner is a public authority and thus subject to control bysection 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988 . The Tribunal also accepted that the nature of proceedings before a Commissioner involves the determination of civil rights and obligations and that a Traffic Commissioner constitutes an independent and impartial tribunal.”
“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), a person entitled to appear at an inquiry in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall be entitled to give evidence, call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses and to address the traffic commissioner both on the evidence and generally on the subject matter of the proceedings.”
“Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request;” “Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition;”
“10…The Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness and linked documents are well known within the industry as crucial in ensuring systems are fit for purpose. The Guide's importance features in DVSA New Operator Seminars: one day Operator Licence Awareness courses and Transport Manager Refresher Courses.”