An operator is only professionally competent if its Transport Manager is of good repute, Upper Tribunal finds
Refusal by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Richard Turfitt to grant the third application by Carmel Coaches Ltd for a standard international O-Licence following revocation of its original licence has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal.

Sole director of the company is Anthony Hazell. In 2014, its international O-Licence for 40 vehicles was revoked because of severe maintenance shortcomings. Mr Hazell was disqualified for 18 months from acting as a director and Transport Manager (TM). An appeal against those decisions was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal.

Carmel Coaches was granted an international O-Licence for 15 vehicles in December 2016 after TC Kevin Rooney found that Mr Hazell’s good repute was restored.

That licence was subsequently revoked for substantial maintenance shortcomings. TC Rooney found that Mr Hazell had lost his good repute as a TM and disqualified him from acting as such until he retook and passed the TM CPC qualification.

Further applications
An application for a 10-vehicle international O-Licence by the company, one director and the TM of which was Mr Hazell, was refused by TC Rooney.

A subsequent application for a three-vehicle licence by Mr Hazell based at the company’s Okehampton premises was also refused by TC Rooney. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Upper Tribunal.

On 18 October 2023, Carmel Coaches applied for a standard O-Licence to authorise the use of a single vehicle based in Bristol. The application proposed that Mr Hazell would act as designated TM, devoting 10 hours per week to those duties.

Mr Hazell gave several assurances about the time he would be able to give to his responsibilities as TM, and he noted that he would have no staff to supervise. He added that the current application was for one vehicle whereas his previous O-Licences were for 40 and 15 vehicles, respectively.

That would mean a very much smaller business to manage, and Mr Hazell would be outsourcing maintenance to an experienced and well-established contractor of good repute rather than relying on his own staff.

Improper use
TC Turfitt noted how in the  decision on Mr Hazell’s attempt to pursue an application as a sole trader in 2022, TC Rooney had recorded that, even after the Upper Tribunal rejected Mr Hazell’s appeal, he found that Mr Hazell was reluctant to embrace change and had given no demonstration that he was a changed person. TC Turfitt shared that view.

The longer the hearing went on, the worse Mr Hazell made his position. While saying that he was deeply sorry for what had happened in the past, he gave the distinct impression that the real cause of regret was the hardship that had been caused to his business.

Mr Hazell continued to view it as bad luck. He viewed obtaining an O-Licence as a way of “clearing his name.” That was not a proper use of the licensing system.

At his previous attempt to gain an O-Licence, Mr Hazell had the sense to nominate an independent TM who TC Rooney described as credible. However, Mr Hazell failed to persuade TC Rooney that the proposed TM would be able to exert sufficient control.

In the case of the application in front of him, TC Turfitt did not even have that modicum of assurance. It was proposed that Mr Hazell would be the sole director, TM, and driver. Mr Hazell had failed to satisfy TC Turfitt that he met the requirements for good repute and professional competence through a TM capable of exercising continuous and effective management.

Mr Hazell’s apparent inability to acknowledge the past failings so that he might avoid them going forward confirmed for TC Turfitt that he should refuse the application.

At the hearing of this appeal in front of the Upper Tribunal, Mr Hazell argued that it was simply wrong for the TC to have found that he lacked good repute given his many years of experience running a PSV business, during which he had an excellent reputation with staff, customers and suppliers.

Mr Hazell alleged that TC Turfitt failed to have proper regard for several references provided on the day of the Public Inquiry (PI). They supported his case that he and Carmel Coaches were of good repute.

The TC wrongly found that Mr Hazell lacked professional competence, he continued; since he had retaken and passed the necessary TM CPC qualification, TC Turfitt was bound to find that he had professional competence as a TM.

Mr Hazell also argued that previous regulatory decisions in respect of him and Carmel Coaches were flawed. However, the Upper Tribunal reminded Mr Hazell that the only decision before it was the refusal to grant the O-Licence applied for on 18 October 2023.

Tribunal rules
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that an operator satisfied the requirement to be of professional competence if its TM was both professionally competent and of good repute. A company could not meet that requirement by reference to a TM who was professionally competent but not of good repute.

TC Turfitt’s decision had described a significant regulatory history associated with Carmel Coaches and Mr Hazell. The Tribunal did not accept that the TC wrongly determined that Mr Hazell, as designated TM, lacked good repute.

Mr Hazell’s argument was made by reference to assertions about his many years of operating a well-respected transport business. However, the TC’s determination flowed from a finding that Mr Hazell failed to genuinely acknowledge his own and Carmel Coaches’ troubled regulatory history.

That finding was based, in a large part, on the impression made by Mr Hazell when giving oral evidence before the TC.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that TC Turfitt failed to properly take into account documents provided on the day of the PI. Having considered the documents, it was clear that they were summarised by the TC’s reasons and must, therefore, have been read by him.

The documents were references produced in support of Mr Hazell’s case before a 2022 PI, as the TC observed, and spoke of matters of general good character rather than of regulatory compliance. They could not realistically have made a difference to the outcome.
Source: RouteOne