Robert Brow
[2023] UKUT 79 (AAC)
Samoor Services Ltd
5 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 292 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A company's application for a license to operate goods vehicles was rejected because the owner had a bad history of ignoring transport rules. He appealed, saying he'd be better now. The judge said that past actions mattered more and the appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Samoor Services Ltd appealed a Traffic Commissioner's refusal of a restricted operator's licence.
- •The appellant, Mr. Samoor, is the sole director of Samoor Services Ltd.
- •Previous regulatory issues included revocation of a standard operator's licence due to multiple non-compliances.
- •The Traffic Commissioner found Mr. Samoor's conduct at public inquiry hearings unsatisfactory (poor preparation, misleading statements).
- •The Commissioner was unconvinced about the applicant's financial standing and vehicle maintenance arrangements.
- •The appeal argued Mr. Samoor's capability to comply with regulations, but failed to demonstrate legal error in the Commissioner's decision.
Legal Principles
A Traffic Commissioner must consider whether the requirements of sections 13B and 13C of the 1995 Act are satisfied, and if thought fit, section 13D.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Section 13(2)
If the Traffic Commissioner determines any considered requirements are not satisfied, the application must be refused.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Section 13(5)
A director's conduct can be treated as that of the applicant company when assessing fitness to hold a licence.
Vision Travel International Limited (2013/008)
The Upper Tribunal's role is to assess for legal or factual errors in the Traffic Commissioner's decision, not to reconsider the regulatory issues.
Upper Tribunal's decision
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant failed to demonstrate any relevant error of law or fact in the Traffic Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner's findings regarding the appellant's conduct and preparedness were largely undisputed, and new evidence of compliance was not relevant to the appeal.