Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Cambridge Public Inquiries

Called to Cambridge for a goods vehicle or passenger vehicle public inquiry ?

If you’ve received a formal call up to a Cambridge public inquiry you will already know that you face a serious situation. Your business and reputation is at stake and you will normally be in need of very urgent expert legal assistance.

You can find more detailed information throughout our website about the procedure at public inquiries. But in a very brief summary, public inquires are formal legal hearings where the Traffic Commissioner hears evidence and listens to the case of an operator licence holder before deciding whether to take disciplinary action or refuse or grant an application.

The danger at any public inquiry is that a goods vehicle or passenger vehicle operator find themselves put out of business at the stroke of a pen.

Cambridge and The East of England Traffic Area

The Traffic Commissioner’s office at Cambridge is responsible for the East of England Traffic Area. The East of England Traffic Area covers a large part of the country from the Nottinghamshire border in the North to within parts of the M25 in the South and including the whole of East Anglia. It includes the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire.

Some of the main cities and towns includes are Cambridge itself, Luton, Leicester, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Rutland, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock, Basildon, Greys, Chelmsford, Braintree, Colchester, Kings Lynn, Ipwsich, Norwich, Harlow, Bedford, Southend on Sea, Lowestoft, Grantham, Boston, Sleaford, Louth and Lincoln.

There are more goods vehicle operator licences held by businesses in Cambridge than in any other Traffic Area in Great Britain. There are a total of 13,100 goods vehicle operator licences and 1,200 passenger vehicle licences overseen by the Traffic Commissioner at Cambridge.

Public Inquiries in Cambridge

There are two court rooms for hearing public inquiries in Cambridge and this is where the vast majority of them take place. Occasionally they may take place at other venues, but this is rare. The hearings will be heard by the Traffic Commissioner himself, currently Richard Turfitt is the Cambridge Traffic Commissioner, or one of his deputies.

Public Inquiries at Cambridge follow a procedure which is followed at public inquiries throughout the UK. You can find more information about the procedure in our website and you can of course contact us for more information.

In the year 2015/2016 there were a total of 252 goods vehicle and passenger vehicle public inquiries at Cambridge and in the East of England Traffic Area. Most of these involved only one operator, but some will have involved more than one operator called to attend the same public inquiry.

Results of Goods Vehicle (HGV) Public Inquiries at Cambridge

According to the latest figures available, for the year 2015 – 2016, there were 52 goods vehicle operators (30% of the total HGV public inquiries) who had their operator licenses revoked at Cambridge public inquiries. 8 operators had their licences suspended and 59 had their vehicle numbers reduced or other conditions imposed.

This means that 69% of those called to Cambridge public inquiries had serious disciplinary action taken. Only 9 operators (5% of the total) had no action taken against them at their public inquiry.

The situation with applications for new or variations to existing licences is that most (about 75%) are granted eventually. Usually this is once the applicants have taken legal advice and put in place measures which satisfy the Traffic Commissioner.

Results of passenger vehicle (PSV) Public Inquiries at Cambridge

The latest figures available show that there were only 14 passenger vehicle public inquiries at Cambridge in 2015 – 2016. Exactly half of these operators had their licences revoked, 1 had their licence suspended and 1 had its vehicles reduced.

Only 1 out of the 14 had no disciplinary action taken at all.

With regard to new applications for variations or new licences, there were 11 public inquiries held and 5 applications were refused, only 3 were granted without conditions.

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

The statistics above demonstrate how real and serious the potential outcomes of public inquiries are. Having the right professional legal support really can make a huge difference to the outcome of your public inquiry.

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. 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 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 at Cambridge 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.

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

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.