(1) Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd; (2) Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jones |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] UKUT 16 (AAC) |
| Published date | 11 March 2024 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
(1) Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd; (2) Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd
[2024] UKUT 16 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA/2023/001324-T
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
(TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)
ON APPEAL from a DECISION of the DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for
the North West of England Traffic Area.
Appellants: (1) Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd;
(2) Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
Decision dated: 11 September 2023
(Public Inquiry on 16 August 2023)
Appeal to Upper Tribunal
dated: 22 September 2023
Reference no: PC0004176
Date of Upper Tribunal Hearing: 5 January 2024
Form of Hearing: In-person: Field House
Before: Judge Rupert Jones: Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Stuart James: Member of the Upper Tribunal
David Rawsthorn: Member of the Upper Tribunal
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
The appeal is allowed. The decision to revoke the Appellants’ operating licences is
quashed. The matter is remitted to a different Traffic Commissioner to rehear and
determine after issuing a calling in letter and holding a reconvened Public Inquiry in
accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.
(1) Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd; (2) Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd
[2024] UKUT 16 (AAC)
2
SUBJECT MATTER
Financial standing – whether the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance is consistent with
Article 7 of the relevant EU Regulation 1071/2009; Procedural fairness; Revocation of
Operators’ Licences.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is the appeal of (1) Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd; & (2) Rigby’s Executive
Coaches Ltd (“the Appellants”) from a decision of a Deputy Traffic Commissioner
(the ‘DTC’), contained in a decision dated 11 September 2023, to revoke each of
their standard public service vehicle operator’s licences. The Deputy Traffic
Commissioner revoked both the Appellants’ operator’s licences on the basis that he
determined that neither operator satisfied the requirements of i) Good Repute, upon
breaching undertakings, and ii) Financial standing. The full details are set out in the
Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision.
2. The Appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal in a notice of appeal on 22 September
2023. Their representative subsequently provided four amended grounds of appeal
dated 27 October 2023 which were as follows:
Ground 1
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner erred in finding that financial standing was not
met in the operating companies, and further was plainly wrong on the evidence to
find that the Appellants were at an unfair competitive advantage in view of those
financial arrangements.
Ground 2
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner erred in deciding that the maintenance
arrangements, at the date of the public inquiry were such that the operator must be
put out of business.
Ground 3
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner erred in determining that the operating entity was
not the Appellants in each case (paragraph 39 final bullet point of the decision), and
as such this went to the repute of the Appellants.
Ground 4
The final ground is that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision was
procedurally flawed, in that, for the reasons set out in various grounds above (so not
repeated here), the Deputy Traffic Commissioner made a significant part of his
adverse determinations against both Appellants on issues which were not identified
as an issue at all within the calling in letters and documentation. This is a
fundamental procedural flaw and particularly significant when the Appellants, as
here, were not represented.
3. On 9 October 2023 the Upper Tribunal granted the Appellants’ application for a stay
of the revocation decisions pending the outcome of their appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial