FIT AND PROPER TEST


observing responses under questioning and the extent to which genuine insight is shown into the conduct in issue.


Insight, attitude, and reassurance


Often, the decisive factor is not the incident itself but the attitude displayed when it is examined. A purely defensive stance, confined to disputing facts or criticising process, may do little to address the com- mittee’s underlying concern. Even where innocence is maintained, there remains an expectation of engage- ment with the standards required of a licensed driver.


Insight does not require admission of criminal liability, but it does require recognition of the high standards imposed. Demonstrated reflection and appreciation of safeguarding responsibilities can provide reassurance.


Conversely, failure to recognise the seriousness of concerns can erode confidence. Minor incidents may carry greater weight where coupled with a dismissive attitude; licensing engages judgment and temperament as much as events.


The expanding scope of relevant conduct


Over time, the range of matters treated as relevant to the fit and proper assessment has broadened. Conduct outside working hours, online activity, interactions with licensing officers, and failures of disclosure are now routinely scrutinised. The modern regulatory view is that public trust is indivisible.


Disregard for regulatory requirements in one context may signal risk in another. Non-disclosure of arrests or convictions, however minor, commonly engages honesty, and the failure to inform promptly can prove more damaging than the underlying event.


Operators, too, may find themselves subject to review where driver conduct suggests weaknesses in oversight or safeguarding culture. Although the statutory tests differ, the underlying principle of public protection remains consistent.


Reassessment and regulatory continuity


A feature of licensing that often surprises long-standing drivers is the authority’s entitlement to reassess risk whenever new information emerges. A lengthy period of compliant service is plainly relevant and will ordinarily be acknowledged. However, it does not create a vested right to renewal or immunity from review.


PHTM MARCH 2026


Each renewal or review prompted by new information requires a fresh assessment of fitness and propriety. Past acceptance does not bind future decisions; the regime is concerned with continuing public safety.


Drivers may appear before a sub-committee following arrest, safeguarding referral, complaint, or alleged breach. In each case, the task is to assess whether confidence has been compromised and, if so, whether it can be restored.


The practical implications are substantial. Suspension or revocation may follow, sometimes with immediate effect where public safety is considered to require urgent intervention. The financial and reputational consequences are significant. It is therefore critical that representations address not only disputed facts but the broader issue of regulatory confidence.


Trust as the core of the test


At its heart, the fit and proper person test is about trust grounded in evidence. It is an evaluative judgment exercised within a statutory framework but informed by safeguarding imperatives, policy guidance, and local knowledge. It resists rigid definition because it must be capable of accommodating the wide variety of circumstances encountered in practice.


Those who approach hearings as though they were criminal trials sometimes find that they are answering the wrong question. The central issue is not whether the authority can prove wrongdoing beyond reason- able doubt. It is whether it can be satisfied, on the material available, that members of the public will be safe.


Understanding that reality materially alters how cases are prepared and presented. Engagement with risk, acknowledgement of regulatory standards, and credible reassurance frequently carry greater weight than technical argument alone.


I specialise in transport regulatory and licensing law, representing drivers and operators before licensing sub-committees, Magistrates’ Courts, and the Traffic Commissioners. Those facing investigation, review, suspension, revocation, refusal, or public inquiry will often benefit from early, structured advice.


I am available to advise and represent licence holders navigating the fit and proper person test and the wider regulatory framework.


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74