Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

Public Inquiries in Leeds

The office of the Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England is located at Hillcrest House in the Harehills Area of Leeds. The address at Harehills House will be familiar with operators all over the country because this is also the location of the Central Licensing office which deals with operator licence applications throughout the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The current Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England is Kevin Rooney who has been in position since 2012. Mr Rooney is, as of the 1st November 2016 to take over as the Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area in Bristol. Until a replacement Commissioner is appointed Mr Rooney will administer both traffic areas.

All operators called to a goods vehicle public inquiry or a passenger vehicle public inquiry whose operating centres are within the North East Traffic Area are dealt with from Leeds. Most of the hearings take place in Leeds though sometimes the public inquiry hearing itself may take place at venues in other places. This is usually where there is particular local interest such as where members of the public have raised objections to an operators licence.

What's covered by the North East Traffic Area ?

The North East Traffic area covers a large part of the country. It covers ground from the East Midlands up to the Scottish borders and large swathes of the East coast. The following counties all come under the North East Traffic Area :

Northumberland; Durham; Tyneside and Wearside; Teeside; West Yorkshire; East Yorkshire; South Yorkshire; North Lincolnshire; North East Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

This area covers many of the great towns and cities of the North of England including Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sunderland, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Scunthorpe, Grimsby, Nottingham and Hull.

There are about 11,600 goods vehicle operator licences and 1,560 passenger vehicle (PSV) operator licences issued within the North East Traffic Area.

Public Inquiries in Leeds

Public Inquiries are held in Leeds in one of two court rooms which are located on the second floor at Hillcrest House.

Public Inquiry hearings will be heard by the Traffic Commissioner himself or a deputy Traffic Commissioner. You can read more about the public inquiry process on our page called About Public Inquiries.

According to the latest annual figures, there were at total of 75 passenger vehicle public inquiries and 150 goods vehicle public inquiries during 2014 / 2015. Of the passenger vehicle public inquires, 50 were for disciplinary action against the operators licence and 26 for new applications. 93 of the goods vehicle public inquiries were for disciplinary action and 63 for new applications.


Outcomes of Passenger Vehicle (PSV) Public Inquires in Leeds

Result of disciplinary public inquiries :

Out of 50 public inquiries for disciplinary action, 25 (50%) had their operators licence revoked. A further 3 (6%) had their licence suspended and 2 had their vehicle fleets reduced. 12 got away with only a written warning and only 6 (12%) resulted in no action being taken at all.

Result of applications heard at public inquiry :

There were 26 public inquiries dealing with new applications. Of these 7 (22%) were refused outright, 3 were partially granted and 16 were granted in full.

Outcomes of Goods Vehicle (HGV) Public Inquiries in Leeds

Result of disciplinary public inquiries :

Out of 93 public inquiries considering disciplinary action for compliance issues, 30 (almost a third) resulted in the operators licence being revoked / terminated. A further 11 resulted in suspension and 21 in a reduction of the number of vehicles authorised. This means that in two thirds of goods vehicle public inquiries dealt with at Leeds for non-compliance, resulted in the licence being terminated, suspended or cut back in size. Of the remaining third, nearly all had a formal warning. On 4 got through with no action being taken at all.


Result of applications heard at public inquiry :

63 applications were dealt with at public inquiries in Leeds for the year. 52 of these were granted. 5 were refused and 4 were partially granted.

What to do if you've been called to a public inquiry in Leeds

First of all, recognise that any public inquiry called for any reason is a very serious thing. Secondly recognise that getting legal advice and having an experienced transport law solicitor on your side is half the problem sorted. A good transport law specialist will be able to get stuck into your case and do all sorts of things to get you ready to face the Traffic Commissioner.

We strongly recommend that you speak to us urgently if you've had a call to public inquiry. Nearly all of our clients (well over 90%) have a successful outcome at their public inquiries.

We regularly handle public inquiries at Leeds and know exactly how to prepare a successful and present a successful case. We've been doing it for years and have helped hundreds of operators through this difficult time.

Call Simon Newman on 01302 775522. I will be glad to talk through your situation and review your papers free of charge to enable you to make an informed decision about whether to get us on board.

Public Inquiries in Birmingham
Public Inquiries in Cardiff and Wales

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where...
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 th...
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—...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where there is a history of regulatory issues. This is particularly important in cases involving previously surrendered or revoked licences.

We were recently instructed by a company whose previous O Licence had been revoked within the past year. The company had entered financial difficulty and was placed into administration. They notified the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC), but unfortunately failed to respond adequately to follow-up inquiries. When the OTC requested further information, the company did not reply. Although they attempted to surrender the licence voluntarily, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) ultimately revoked it.

A new application was submitted by a newly formed company with the same directors. This triggered a public inquiry before the TC—a crucial opportunity to demonstrate two key points:

• That the company would be fully compliant with O Licence requirements

• That the directors retained the necessary repute, despite the circumstances surrounding the administration

We worked closely with the company’s transport manager and directors to prepare a comprehensive submission, which was sent in advance of the hearing (typically required at least two weeks prior). With experienced staff now in place, the compliance issues were straightforward to address. The more challenging aspect was persuading the TC that the directors’ conduct did not warrant refusal of the licence.

TCs scrutinise applications rigorously to uphold the principle of fair competition. In this case, our detailed submission addressed all potential concerns. At the hearing, the director and transport manager provided clear and credible first-person evidence, reinforcing the points made in our written materials. We argued that this operator could be trusted and would conform to O Licence compliance and fair competition.

The licence was granted with immediate effect.

Transport Law
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.
Transport Law
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.