Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Eastbourne Public Inquiries

Public Inquiries in Eastbourne, London and the South East

The Traffic Commissioner for the South East of England Traffic Area is based in Eastbourne at Ivy House on Ivy Terrace, a stones throw from the town’s railway station. Despite Eastbourne being one of the most awkward places to get to, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OFT) has been based here for many years.

The Traffic Commissioner is currently Sarah Bell as from the 1st November 2016.

Most public inquiries in the South East of England for goods and passenger vehicle operator licence holders take place in Eastbourne. A proportion of them are held at venues away from Eastbourne with many done in central London locations such as Breams Buildings near Chancery Lane, the TLF building in Blackfriars or a location near to Victoria Station.

Public inquiries are called by the Traffic Commissioner for two main reasons. The first is whether an application for an operators licence (or to change an existing one) needs to be considered at a formal hearing. Secondly (and this is what the majority of public inquiries relates to) where operator licence holders face disciplinary action for alleged breaches of the law, contraventions of the conditions on their operators licence or similar misdeeds.

You can find out more about the public inquiry process on our page called About Public Inquiries. Basically, a public inquiry is a formal legal hearing set up a bit like a court or tribunal. Evidence, witnesses and legal arguments all take place and a formal legally binding decision is made by the Traffic Commissioner.

The Traffic Commisisoner’s office at Eastbourne deals with all public inquiries within the London and South East of England Traffic Area.

The London and South East of England Traffic Area

The South East of England Traffic Area covers most of what is generally known as the South East of England. It includes nearly all of the area within the M25, Greater London and the counties of Kent, Surrey, East Sussex and West Sussex.

The following towns and cities all fall within the London and South East Traffic Area : London itself, Dartford, Gravesend, Croydon, Madestone, Guildford, Crawley, Aldershot, Tonbridge, Tunbidge Wells, Brighton, Worthing, Bognor Regis, Chichester, Sevenoaks, Horsham, Bexhill, Hastings, Folkestone, Ashford, Dover, Canterbury, Ramsgate, Margate and Sittingbourne.

There are 1,130 passenger vehicle operator licences and 9,200 goods vehicle licences issued within the London and South East Traffic Area.

Public Inquiries in Eastbourne

Public inquiries take place in a court room on the fourth floor of Ivy House in Eastbourne. The hearings will be presided over by the Traffic Commissioner himself or a deputy.

In the year 2014/2015 there were a total of 303 goods vehicle and 49 passenger vehicle public inquiries in the London and South East of England Traffic Area.

Of the goods vehicle public inquiries, 205 of them were to consider disciplinary action and 97 for considering applications. 29 of the passenger vehicle public inquiries were for application to be decided and 20 for disciplinary action.

Outcomes of Goods Vehicle (HGV) Public Inquiries in the South East of England

Result of disciplinary public inquiries :

From 205 goods vehicle public inquiries called for disciplinary action, 51, about a quarter of them, ended with the operators licence being revoked. 64 goods vehicle licences were suspended and 43 were curtailed. Only 12 (less than 6%) resulted in no action taken.

Result of applications heard at public inquiry :

97 goods vehicle applications were dealt with at public inquiries over the course of the year. Nineteen were refused outright and 67 were granted.

The outcome of passenger vehicle public inquiries in the South East of England

The result of disciplinary public inquiries for passenger vehicle operator licences was as follows:

Out of 29 public inquiries for disciplinary action, 5 ended with the operators licence revoked, 6 were suspended and 5 had their vehicle numbers reduced. Only 8 out of the 29 resulted in no action being taken.

Result of applications heard at public inquiry :

There were 20 passenger vehicle applications dealt with at public inquiry. Six were refused outright. Only 8, 40% of these, were granted in full.

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 things to get you ready to face the Traffic Commissioner 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 regularly handle public inquiries in Eastbourne, London and the South East and know exactly 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.

Please call Simon Newman on 01302 775522 or email him on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I will be very glad to talk through your situation and review your papers free of charge to enable you to make an informed decision about what to do.

 

CONTACT US ABOUT YOUR PUBLIC INQUIRY

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.