Call us for free on 0800 1777 522

Applying for an Operator’s Licence (O Licence) is more than just completing a form—it's a demonstration of trustworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner (TC) will only grant a licence if satisfied that the applicant can be relied upon to comply with the responsibilities that come with it. That trust starts with the application.

The Application Form – A Critical First Impression

For new applicants, the first and most important step is completing the application form correctly. Done properly, a licence can often be granted within the target timeframe of six weeks or less. Done incorrectly, and the process can stall or even result in a proposed refusal and a call to attend a public inquiry (PI).

One of our clients experienced exactly that.

The Issue: An Honest Mistake with Serious Consequences

Our client had submitted an application which, on its face, appeared to be incomplete. Specifically, it failed to declare a historic association with a previous O Licence application. While the omission was a genuine mistake, it raised a red flag for the TC.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) treated the matter seriously. The failure to declare past associations can suggest negligence—or worse—and it called into question the applicant’s reliability.

Our Approach: Full Disclosure and Positive Evidence

We assisted our client in preparing a comprehensive written submission to the TC's office in advance of the hearing. This included:

• A clear explanation of how the error occurred.
  
  
• Evidence showing that there was no intent to mislead.
  
  
• Detailed information about the client’s proposed compliance systems.
  
  
• Supporting documentation showing that the error had brought no advantage—only the disadvantage of triggering a PI.
  
  

The Outcome: Licence Granted with Conditions

At the public inquiry, the client gave open and honest answers about the error and demonstrated an up-to-date understanding of the maintenance and compliance obligations expected of O Licence holders.

The TC was ultimately satisfied that the application had been made in good faith. The licence was granted, with a condition that the operator complete an independent systems audit within six months and submit the findings to the OTC.

Key Takeaway: Accuracy is Essential

This case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of getting the application right first time. Even minor errors can result in delays, additional scrutiny, and the stress and cost of a public inquiry.

If you're applying for an O Licence, it pays to seek professional guidance from the start. Our team can help you navigate the process, ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete, and give you the best chance of a smooth application.

Being called to a Public Inquiry is a serious matter for any operator. But facing two inquiries within a year can put an operator’s very survival at risk. In this case, our client—a licensed operator—found themselves before the Traffic Commissioner for the second time in under twelve months. The issue? Failure to follow through on a straightforward undertaking given at the first hearing.

The First Public Inquiry

The operator initially faced a Public Inquiry due to several maintenance failings, along with wider compliance concerns. On paper, the case looked serious. However, the company was committed to improvement and had started taking corrective action even before the hearing date was set.

We were instructed in good time and provided detailed advice not just on the maintenance issues raised, but also on other areas of compliance that had not been fully appreciated by the operator. The company took on board our recommendations and made a robust response to the DVSA’s findings. At the inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner acknowledged the positive steps taken, and the outcome was a formal warning—no more.

The Missed Undertaking

One of the undertakings given at the first hearing was for the operator to arrange an independent systems audit within six months. This was a clear and reasonable requirement. Unfortunately, the audit was not carried out within the required timeframe, and no communication was made with the Traffic Commissioner’s office.

When the TC’s office followed up, the operator explained that the failure had been an honest oversight. An audit was booked immediately, but by then it was too late to avoid the consequences. A second Public Inquiry was called—this time with the O Licence at serious risk.

The Second Hearing

We were instructed once again. The operator accepted our further advice and offered several new undertakings to address the situation. As before, the company’s director and transport manager presented well at the hearing.

In our legal submissions, we emphasised that this was a compliant and responsible operator that had learned from past mistakes and was not a threat to road safety or fair competition. We acknowledged the seriousness of the repeat appearance but highlighted the progress made and the company’s genuine efforts to get things right.

The Outcome

Despite being unimpressed by the need for a second hearing, the Traffic Commissioner accepted that the business had taken appropriate action and showed genuine intent to comply. While revocation was considered, the TC decided—just—to stop short of it.

The result was a short, two-week curtailment of vehicle authority. Given the circumstances, this was a remarkable outcome.

Our client recognised how close they had come to losing their licence altogether and expressed their sincere thanks for our guidance and representation throughout both proceedings.

Recently, we were instructed well in advance—approximately five weeks before the hearing—to represent a client facing serious regulatory challenges. This lead time was crucial, allowing us to prepare a comprehensive case and avoid the pitfalls that often accompany last-minute instructions, including potential criticism from the TC for insufficient preparation. 

The Issues Identified

During a PSV checkpoint, several significant compliance issues were uncovered:

• Driving without the correct entitlement
  
  
• Absence of a valid MOT or having the wrong type of MOT
  
  
• Insufficient daily rest periods for drivers
  
  

Following this, the DVSA launched a detailed traffic investigation that revealed serious systems failures within the operator’s management. While the operator was not prosecuted, the Operator Licence was placed under threat, and they were required to submit evidence at the Public Inquiry.

Our Approach

We advised the operator thoroughly on all key issues identified in the TC’s PI Brief, as well as on additional risks not explicitly raised. Our recommendations included targeted training and educational courses specifically designed for PSV operations, emphasizing the importance of compliance and system improvements.

The operator’s cooperation was exemplary. Unlike cases where operators seek to mislead or minimize faults, this operator acknowledged the technical nature of many offences—offences serious in regulatory terms but not necessarily posing a substantial threat to road safety or fair competition.

Preparation and Evidence Submission

Submissions were made well ahead of the hearing—three weeks prior to the DVSA and two weeks prior to the TC’s office. The evidence demonstrated a robust overhaul of operational systems and a fundamental shift in compliance culture. Importantly, DVSA’s subsequent reports acknowledged that the operator was broadly compliant with all relevant regulatory requirements.

The Hearing and Outcome

At the Public Inquiry, both the operator and the transport manager presented clear, confident, and candid evidence. Their preparedness and willingness to accept responsibility helped the Traffic Commissioner in reaching a balanced decision.

The TC acknowledged the operator’s orderly preparation and improvements, resulting in a warning and a short removal of a margin of vehicle authority. This outcome had minimal adverse impact on the business and reflected positively on the operator’s prompt and serious response to legal advice.

---

Why Early Legal Advice Matters

This case highlights the critical importance of instructing specialist transport law advisers promptly when facing regulatory challenges. Early engagement allows for: 

• Thorough investigation and preparation
  
  
• Effective response to all issues raised
  
  
• Mitigation of potential penalties through demonstration of proactive compliance
  
  

If your PSV or transport business faces compliance issues or a Public Inquiry, contact NA Legal for expert guidance and representation. Our experience can make a decisive difference in securing the best possible outcome.