Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Appealing Traffic Commissioner Decisions

There is a right of appeal against decisions made by a Traffic Commissioner. Appeals are heard by a specialist appeal tribunal called the “Upper Tribunal” (it was previously called the Transport Tribunal).

The Upper Tribunal sits in London for appeals from cases in England: Cardiff for appeals brough by Welsh operators; Edinburgh for cases in Scotland and Belfast for Northern Ireland.  Appeals are heard by a panel of one appeal judge plus two panel members. At least one of the panel members comes from a background in transport and is there to bring practical knowledge of the transport industry to the tribunal’s decision making.

If you're not happy with a decision of a Traffic Commissioner then you should take legal advice as soon as possible from a specialist transport law solicitor.  Appeals are very complex and delicate matters and strict procedures are time limits apply.  

What decisions can be appealed ?

The Upper Tribunal can hear appeals against the following decisions of a Traffic Commissioner:

(a) Revocation, suspension or curtailment of an operator’s licence;

(b) Disqualification of an operator licence holder or director;

(c) Disqualification of a Transport Manager;

(d) Refusal to grant an operator’s licence;

(e) Conditions imposed on an operator’s licence or refusal to remove conditions;

(f) Certain decisions in relation to an operating centre;

(g) Financial penalties in the case of PSV operators.

Who can appeal ?

Depending on the facts of the case, the following may have the right to lodge an appeal :

(a) An operator licence holder;

(b) Director of a company holding an operator’s licence;

(c) A transport manager;

(d) Anyone disqualified from holding an operator’s licence;

(e) In certain circumstances, people who have objected to the grant of an application.

Is there a time limit ?

The time limit for putting in an appeal is 28 days from the date of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision (this is from the date of the decision, not the date you might have received the decision).

In certain limited circumstances, the Tribunal can accept an appeal, even though it was made out of time. The Tribunal will need to be satisfied about the reasons for late appeal.

The appeal process

An appeal form has to be filled in and submitted to the offices of the Upper Tribunal in London for each appellant.

The appeal form must include your grounds of appeal more about about grounds of appeal further down). It is often better to have a separate document setting out your grounds of appeal because space in the form itself is quite limited.

The grounds of appeal must be received by the Upper Tribunal Office within 28 days of the date of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision. You should also send a copy of the notice of appeal to the office of the Traffic Commissioner who made the decision you are appealing against.

Upon receiving the appeal forms, the Upper Tribunal office will allocate a case number and acknowledge receipt of the appeal. The Upper Tribunal office will then obtain all relevant documents from the Traffic Commissioner’s office and prepare an appeal bundle. The bundle will include a full transcript of the Public Inquiry as well as every other document in the Traffic Commissioner’s possession that is relevant. Appeal bundles can be very large and often amount to 500 pages or more.

A copy of the appeal bundle will be sent out to you a few weeks before the appeal hearing is to take place. You will also be notified of the date and time for the appeal hearing.

The appeal hearing

At the appeal hearing, it is customary (though not compulsory) to hand in beforehand what is called a “skeleton argument”. This document is essentially an outline of what your case is. If you instruct a solicitor or barrister, they will spend quite a lot of time perfecting the skeleton argument. It is a very important document.

The hearing itself will be heard by an appeal judge along with two other tribunal members. One of the non-judicial members will have some background in transport.

It is important to understand that an appeal hearing is not a re-hearing of the original case.

The appeal hearing is a review of all the evidence heard at the public inquiry. No new evidence can be considered, only the evidence that was at the public inquiry. The transcript is an important part of any appeal because it is a complete record of everything that was said at the public inquiry.

What are acceptable grounds of appeal ?

Valid grounds of appeal are quite limited. There is a high hurdle in being successful at an appeal.

It is not about persuading the Tribunal that the decision was wrong. You have to go beyond that an persuade them that there was something wrong with the process from which the traffic commissioner made the decision or that the decision was so wrong as to be unjustifiable.

It is not sufficient that you disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision, even if the Tribunal themselves disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.

The legal test for a successful appeal is that by reason of fact or law, an appeal tribunal is compelled to reach a different view to the Traffic Commissioner.

What this means is that the Appeal Tribunal must not just disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision but they must find that his decision was “plainly wrong” to the extent that the decision has to be set aside.

If the Traffic Commissioner has carefully considered all relevant facts and has conducted a fair public inquiry and his decision is supported by the facts and law, then the Appeal Tribunal will not set aside his decision, even if the Tribunal members themselves believe that the Traffic Commissioner reached the wrong conclusion.

Examples of what might be successful grounds for appeal are as follows:

(a) The Traffic Commissioner interpreted the law incorrectly or applied it incorrectly to the facts;

(b) The decision was plainly disproportionate;

(c) The Traffic Commissioner misunderstood some significant facts of the case;

(d) Some important facts were not properly considered by the Traffic Commissioner;

(e) The Traffic Commissioner’s explanation for the decision was insufficient to justify the conclusions;

(f) The Traffic Commissioner was biased;

(g) The proceedings were in some way unfair, for example, you weren’t able to say all that you wanted to say or something arose during the course of the Public Inquiry that you weren’t expecting and which meant you were unfairly caught unprepared.

Can the decision be put on hold while the appeal is heard ?

When the Traffic Commissioner makes a decision, that decision will either come into effect immediately or at some specified date into the future.

For example, with a revocation decision, it is customary to allow somewhere between 4-6 weeks (it could be more, it could be less) between the date of the decision and the date on which the revocation comes into effect. The problem is that an appeal hearing typically takes 4-5 months to be dealt with.

Once a revocation has taken effect, the business is normally by that stage lost forever and the appeal is therefore, in a practical sense, meaningless.

To get round this problem, there is a process that allows an operator to apply to the Traffic Commissioner for the decision to be “stayed” until the appeal hearing has taken place. This effectively means that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision is put on hold to allow the appeal hearing to take place first.

An application has to be made to the Traffic Commissioner who made the decision for the stay. An application to stay has to meet certain criteria before the Traffic Commissioner will grant it.

If the Traffic Commissioner refuses to grant a stay, then you have a right to apply to the Upper Tribunal direct for the Upper Tribunal judge to grant a stay.

Applications for a stay are made on paper. There is no hearing. Therefore, it is important that a persuasive and well presented case is put forward in letter format to the Traffic Commissioner and/or the Upper Tribunal to ensure that a stay is granted.

Stays are discretionary and are not always granted.

Appealing higher if your appeal is unsuccessful

It is only on very narrow grounds that a further appeal can be made if you disagree with the decision of the Upper Tribunal. A further appeal is to the Court of Appeal. The grounds for appealing to the Court of Appeal must include that there has been an error of law by the Upper Tribunal and/or a further appeal would include a matter of public interest.

It is very difficult to make further appeal after the Upper Tribunal and that is reflected in the fact that there have only been a handful or so of commercial transport related cases that have gone to the Court of Appeal in the last 10 years.

Contact us About Your Transport Law Problems

Please get in touch with us without charge or obligation.

Contact us today and we'll give you an idea about how we might be able to 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 email us or 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.