Public Inquiries in Northern Ireland

Tuesday, 26 February 2019

Simon Newman

Transport Law

3418 Hits

The current system of regulating goods vehicle operations throughout Northern Ireland came into effect in 2012. The system for licensing goods vehicles and taking disciplinary action against licence holders is now largely in line with the system for the rest of the United Kingdom, though with some differences. There are about 5,980 goods vehicle operator licences issued in Northern Ireland.

The legislation is the same and the appeal process against decisions made at public inquiries is now one system covering the whole of the UK.

One key difference is that in Northern Ireland there are no Traffic Commissioners. The person in Northern Ireland who discharges similar functions to the Traffic Commissioners in Great Britain is the head of the Transport Regulation Unit (TRU), part of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. The current head of the TRU is Donna Knowles who has been in this position since 2014.

It is the Head of the TRU who ultimately decides who is fit to hold a goods vehicle operators licence in Northern Ireland. The Head of the TRU holds public inquiries to determine whether an operators licence should be granted and also to decide whether disciplinary action is needed against operator licence holders whose fitness has been brought into question.

There are roughly about 50 goods vehicle public inquiries in Northern Ireland each year. The public inquiry hearings are usually held at Causeway Exchange, 1-7 Bedford Street in Belfast.

The public inquiry hearing itself is a formal legal hearing. It looks and feels a little like a court hearing but the rules of procedure are less rigid and formal. The public inquiry hearing will involve oral and documentary evidence and at the end of the process the Head of the TRU will make a decision.

Currently, the public inquiry process in Northern Ireland relates only to goods vehicle licence holders, it does not involve passenger vehicle licences.

Outcomes of Goods Vehicle Public Inquiries in Belfast

The Heard of the TRU has wide ranging powers over operator licence holders. Where a public inquiry is convened to decide whether or not to grant a new licence, the licence could be granted or refused.

Where the public inquiry is to consider disciplinary action against an operator licence holder, the Head of the TRU has the power to revoke (ie terminate) an operators licence; to suspend it or reduce the number of vehicle operated under the licence. They have the power to add conditions to an operators licence and to disqualify people from being involved in holding an operators licence in future.

What to do if you've been called to a public inquiry in Eastbourne, London or the South East

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 at least half of the problem sorted.

A good transport law specialist solicitor will be able to get stuck into your case and do all sorts of important things to get you ready to face the public inquiry and come away with a good outcome.

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 handle public inquiries in Belfast as well all over the UK. We know how to prepare and present a successful case. We've been doing it for years and have helped hundreds of operators through what is always a very difficult and uncertain time.

Your chance of a successful outcome at your public inquiry increases dramatically if you have experienced and skilled legal representation. So choosing a good transport solicitor is of vital importance.

Contact Us About Your Public Inquiry

Please get in touch with us without charge or obligation. Ask to speak to Simon Newman about your public inquiry.

Simon will then give you an idea about how we can help you. He will be very glad to talk through your situation and review your papers free of charge to help you to make an informed decision about what to do.

You can call us any time on 0800 1777 522 or alternatively you can email on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Latest Blogs

Applications for an O Licence — Why Accuracy Is Critical
September 01, 2025

Case Study: Operator’s Licence Application Form – Why Getting It Right Matters
July 18, 2025

Case Study: Failure to Follow Up on Audit Leads to Second Public Inquiry
June 15, 2025

All Blogs

Latest Transport Law

Applications for an O Licence — Why Accuracy Is Critical 01 September 2025

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.

Case Study: Operator’s Licence Application Form – Why Getting It Right Matters 18 July 2025

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.

Case Study: Failure to Follow Up on Audit Leads to Second Public Inquiry 15 June 2025

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.

NA Legal

Public Inquiries in Northern Ireland

About the author

Simon Newman

Author's recent posts

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522

Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

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

Latest Blogs

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE

Latest Transport Law

The Application Form – A Critical First Impression

The Issue: An Honest Mistake with Serious Consequences

Our Approach: Full Disclosure and Positive Evidence

The Outcome: Licence Granted with Conditions

Key Takeaway: Accuracy is Essential

The First Public Inquiry

The Missed Undertaking

The Second Hearing

The Outcome