Gwendoline Joyce Greenwood and David Greenwood (in partnership)
[2023] UKUT 229 (AAC)
Robert Brow
28 March 2023
[2023] UKUT 79 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Robert Brow wanted a trucking license but didn't provide enough proof he knew the rules or would maintain his trucks properly. He also wasn't entirely truthful about his plans. Because of this, the judge said he couldn't have the license.
Key Facts
- •Robert Brow appealed the Traffic Commissioner's (TC) refusal of his restricted operator's licence application.
- •Brow had a history of operating licences with previous companies that had lapsed or been revoked due to various issues, including maintenance failings and lack of clear separation of entities.
- •The TC found Brow had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating his fitness to hold a licence and satisfactory maintenance arrangements.
- •Brow's application involved significant delays due to a Deputy Traffic Commissioner's (DTC) absence and Brow's failure to submit required documentation.
- •Brow provided inadequate documentation, including a generic driver's handbook template and insufficient maintenance records.
- •Brow made inconsistent statements regarding his operating centre, demonstrating a lack of honesty and compliance.
- •Brow failed to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of key regulatory requirements, despite holding a transport manager CPC qualification.
Legal Principles
A Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied an applicant is fit to hold a licence and has satisfactory maintenance arrangements.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, sections 13B and 13C(4)
The Upper Tribunal's standard of review is whether the TC's decision was 'plainly wrong' or disproportionate.
Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The TC's decision was not plainly wrong. Brow failed to demonstrate fitness to hold a licence due to insufficient knowledge, inconsistent statements, and inadequate documentation.