Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Preliminary Hearings

A preliminary hearing is a type of formal legal hearing held by the Traffic Commissioner as an alternative to a full pulic inquiry.  They are usually held in the public inquiry rooms at the Traffic Commissioner's office but they are private hearings, not open to the public or the press.  If you've been called to a preliminary hearing then you should take legal advice from a transport solicitor.  There are potentialy serious consequences involved and a good transport solicitor can advise you on what's involved, what you need to do and if necessary represent you at the hearing itself. 

Types Of Preliminary Hearing 

They are usually less formal than a public inquiry and can sometimes be short.  There are several types of preliminary hearing depending on what the purpose of the hearing is.  The types of preliminary hearing are :

1. Preliminary Hearing to Consider if Disciplinary Action Might be Necessary 

This type of preliminary hearing is held to enable the Traffic Commissioner to decide whether it is necessary to hold a full formal public inquiry.  This is the most common type of preliminary hearing.  Usually the Traffic Commissioner will have concerns which may lead to disciplinary action against the operator licence, but the Commissioner is not yet sure whether or not a full public inquiry is necessary.   This therefore gives you an opportunity to put your case forward to persuade the Traffic Commissioner that further action is not necessary.  A transport solicitor will be able to help you prepare for the hearing and how to put forward a case to avert any further action.  What this involves in practice will depend very much on the issues involved and the facts surrounding your case.  

2. Preliminary Hearing to Consider an Operator's Licence Application 

Many applications for new operators licences or for variation to an existing licence hit upon problems.  There are strict criteria that apply to the granting of operator licence applications.  Where there are questions over whether the criteria are met or doubts over goods repute or finances for example, the Traffic Commissioner may decide that the best thing to do is call a preliminary hearing.  The purpose is to deal with outstanding concerns face to face with the operator, rather than go through the stringent process of a full public inquiry.  Again, the preliminary hearing should be seen as an opportunity to deal with potential problems before matters escalate to the stage of a full public inquiry.  

3. Preliminary Hearing as a Directions Hearing

This is the less frequent type of preliminary hearing.  This type will happen as a pre-cursor to a full public inquiry, once a public inquiry has been called.  The idea is that this type of hearing is to deal with points of procedure before the full public inquiry takes place.  Examples of this might be where there is a discussion about what witnesses there will be at the full public inquiry and what kind of issues the Traffic Commissioner wants to see evidence on specifically.  This then avoids delays or misunderstanding once the main public inquiry gets underway.

What Happens at a Preliminary Hearing ?  

It all depends on what the issues are and what type of case it is as to what happens exactly.  Every case is different.  Generally, the hearing is far less formal than a public inquiry.  It will often take the form of a discussion with the Traffic Commissioner.  Evidence is not formally set out in the same way at a public inquiry, but records, documents and verbal explanations will be taken into account.  The Traffic Commissioner will listen to submissions from your solicitor and then make a decision at the end of the hearing.    

What Decisions Can be Taken at a Preliminary Hearing ?

If there are disciplinary issues involved, then the Traffic Commissioner can decide whether to call a full public inquiry for another day.  The Traffic Commissioner only has the power to revoke an operators licence or impose other disciplinary sanctions at a full public inquiry.  Alternatively the Traffic Commissioner can decide at a preliminary hearing that no further action is necessary or conclude with formal written warning.  With preliminary hearings dealing with applications, the Commissioner has the power to grant an application (with or without conditions) or call a full public inquiry.  

How Many Preliminary Hearings Take Place 

Until very recently, Preliminary Hearings were rare.  The Traffic Commissioners have made a conscious decision to hold more preliminary hearings as a way to reserve full public inquiries only for the more serious or complicated cases.  The intention is that many cases dealt with at preliminary hearings can be sorted out without a full public inquiry being needed.  

Annual statistics for the number of preliminary hearings were only published for the first time in 2016.  These show that in the year from 2015 to 2016 there were 491 Traffic Commissioner preliminary hearings held in England, Scotland and Wales.  These break down as 2 in the Wales Traffic Area; 60 in the East of England Traffic Area at Cambridge; 63 in the North East in Leeds; 130 in the North West at Golborne, Warrington; 114 in the London and South East Traffic Area at Eastbourne; 7 in the West Midlands at Edgbaston, Birmingham; 63 in the Western Traffic Area at Bristol and 52 in Scotland at Edinburgh.  

Getting Legal Advice 

Preliminary hearings are formal legal hearings with potentially significant legal and commercial consequences for you and your business.  In all cases it is sensible and usually necessary to have some good legal advice and expert help preparing and presenting your case.  The more advice and professional input from a specialist you receive the better the final outcome will be.  

CONTACT US ABOUT A PRELIMINARY HEARING  

Please get in touch with us without charge or obligation to discuss your case with an expert transport solicitor and so we can give you an idea about how we can help you.   We 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 make a Free Online Enquiry 


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

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—...
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 ...

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
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.
Transport Law

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.