“It appears that a change of entity has occurred in respect of the licence holder because it appears you have been trading in the name of a limited company for some years - TRANSPARES MOTOR PARTS LTD 09629477. An operator’s licence is not transferable and any change of entity necessitates a new licence application. You can apply for a new operator licence at www.gov.uk/apply-vehicleoperator-licence by no later than16/05/2024 . I must advise you that if a change of entity has occurred, continued operations carried out under the existing licence are unlawful from the date that the change of entity took effect and this licence must be surrendered, together with the vehicle identity disc(s). Similarly, the new entity cannot lawfully commence operating until it has applied for, and been granted, authority to do so by the Traffic Commissioner under cover of a new licence. You are also advised that registered services operated under your licence should have ceased from the date that the change of entity took effect. If the new entity succeeds in obtaining a licence, it can at that point apply to operate new registered services.”
“A traffic commissioner is not satisfied that you meet the requirement to have an effective and stable establishment as set out in Section 14ZA(2)(a) of [thePublic Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 ]. This is because the nominated operating centre is unsuitable as a PSV operating centre as it seems to require a reversing manoeuvre across a pavement next to a pedestrian crossing.”
“A traffic commissioner is not satisfied that you meet the requirement to have an effective and stable establishment as set out in Section 14ZA(2)(a) of the above Act. This is because the nominated operating centre is unsuitable as a PSV operating centre as it seems to require a reversing manoeuvre across a pavement next to a pedestrian crossing. As outlined in our previous letter, a traffic commissioner has invoked Regulation 6 of thePublic Service Vehicles (Operators’ Licences) Regulations 1995 . As you have not supplied the required evidence, a traffic commissioner has determined that your application has little prospect of succeeding. Therefore, is not offering you the chance to request a public inquiry to consider the application.”
“The traffic commissioner has deemed the proposed new operating centre inadequate as the vehicles are required to reverse across the pavement and there does not appear to be adequate space to conduct walkaround checks. The traffic commissioner therefore states that should you wish to apply for a new operator licence, a new operating centre will need to be established.”
“The Commissioner’s reasons for refusing to grant a stay 8. The Commissioner gave the following reasons for refusing to stay the licence revocation decision pending determination of the Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal: “It is natural that a Traffic Commissioner will consider the likelihood of success of an appeal to be low, otherwise why would the decision have been made in the first place. It follows that my primary concern when considering a Stay is road safety. This is a standard licence. EU Regulation 1071/2009, as adopted, requires an operating centre that is "technically suitable". The centre associated with the present licence remains, in my firm view, dangerous. I will not grant a Stay where such a decision signals my operating approval to a vehicle being driven entirely blind across a public footpath. Whilst the appeal appears to me entirely without merit given the operator's failure to supply information when requested, my refusal is based on the safety risk alone. The application for a Stay is refused.” 9. In the light of the guidance in the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Ptarmigan T/2009/513, I shall first consider the Traffic Commissioner’s reasons for refusing the Appellants’ stay application. 10. I am not satisfied that the Appellant’s stay application was adequately dealt with. The Commissioner’s reasons state that ‘it is natural that a Traffic Commissioner would consider the likelihood of success of an appeal to be low, otherwise why would the decision have been made in the first place’. This approach fails properly to consider the merits of an application for a stay. Evidently, grounds of appeal against a decision were not before the Commissioner when the licensing decision was taken. This apparent reluctance to countenance any flaw in a Commissioner’s reasoning is improper. For the stay process to operate as Parliament intended, a Traffic Commissioner must be capable of objectively reflecting on his or her reasoning. 11. I note the Commissioner’s road safety concerns. However, it seems to me doubtful that this operator did seek authority to operate from a different operating centre. All the correspondence provided to the Upper Tribunal, including that predating the refusal to grant a variation, describes the same operating centre at 155 Heysham Road. If the operator has always operated from 155 Heysham Road, as seems probable, that means a Commissioner must, at some point, have considered it suitable. In the absence of an explanation as to why the operating centre is only now considered unsafe, the Commissioner’s road safety concerns carry less weight. Analysis of prospects of success 12. In my judgment, while the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are briefly expressed, the appeal’s prospects of success are not low. This operator finds himself adjudged to have lost his good repute when none of the OTC correspondence that I have seen warned him that was under consideration. The Commissioner found that the operator lacked financial standing but gave no further explanation. I also think there is merit in the Appellant’s argument that there was not, in fact, any [material change of circumstances]. Reasons for granting a stay 13. I grant the Appellant’s application for a stay on the coming into effect of the decision revoking his licence. In combination, this appeal’s prospects of success and my doubts as to the propriety of the Commissioner’s reasoning when refusing to grant a stay persuade me that this operator should not be required to cease operating pending determination of his appeal to the Upper Tribunal.” “It is natural that a Traffic Commissioner will consider the likelihood of success of an appeal to be low, otherwise why would the decision have been made in the first place. It follows that my primary concern when considering a Stay is road safety. This is a standard licence. EU Regulation 1071/2009, as adopted, requires an operating centre that is "technically suitable". The centre associated with the present licence remains, in my firm view, dangerous. I will not grant a Stay where such a decision signals my operating approval to a vehicle being driven entirely blind across a public footpath. Whilst the appeal appears to me entirely without merit given the operator's failure to supply information when requested, my refusal is based on the safety risk alone. The application for a Stay is refused.”
“(b) that there will be adequate arrangements for securing compliance with the requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of [vehicles under the licence].”
“I am of good repute because I am professionally qualified in transport manager CPC for PCV and HGV. I have operated for nearly 40 years. There has been no changes and no variations. I was going to change it into my Limited company name but after speaking to my accountant this is staying solely in my name. I have a separate bank account as a sole trader, a CPC and public service vehicle insurance in the sole trader name. The school contract that I do is in my name only. The sole trader bank account has sufficient funds.”