LICENSING LESSONS
Members may want to know why something happened, what the driver now understands, what has changed and whether there is any realistic prospect of repetition. Where the case concerns failure to comply with licensing requirements, they may test whether those requirements are now properly understood. Where safeguarding is involved, they may examine the driver’s understanding of professional boundaries.
A driver who disputes an allegation does not have to admit wrongdoing in order to demonstrate insight. It is entirely possible to maintain that an allegation is false while recognising why, if true, it would be serious and why the authority was required to investigate it.
Conversely, dismissing every concern, attacking complainants indiscriminately or refusing to engage with established facts can reinforce doubts about judgement or regulatory attitude. The manner in which the driver gives evidence can therefore become part of the committee’s assessment.
Mitigation must answer the regulatory concern
Mitigation is most useful when it addresses risk rather than merely consequence.
The financial impact of suspension or revocation may be severe, but hardship does not in itself demonstrate that the public will be protected. More persuasive material may include a long and previously good licensing history,
relevant training, evidence of
changed circumstances, medical evidence where appropriate, credible references or a significant period without repetition.
The quality of that evidence matters. A generic reference describing the driver as a good person may carry limited weight. Evidence from someone familiar with the concern and able to comment meaningfully upon subsequent conduct is likely to be more useful.
Similarly, completing a training course is not significant simply because a certificate exists. Its value lies in whether it demonstrates understanding and meaningful change.
Suspension, revocation & immediate effect
If members conclude that regulatory action is required, they may, in an appropriate case, suspend or revoke an existing licence.
PHTM SEPTEMBER 2026
A separate and important question is whether that decision should take immediate effect. Under section 61 of the LGMPA 1976, immediate suspension or revocation may be imposed where the authority considers that the interests of public safety require it.
That should not be treated as automatic. It requires a specific public safety assessment. The question is not simply whether the underlying conduct is serious, but whether the perceived risk is such that the driver should cease licensed work immediately rather than under the ordinary statutory arrangements.
Where immediate effect is imposed, clear reasons are particularly important.
A driver will generally have a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, ordinarily within 21 days of notification of the decision. The written decision and appeal provisions should therefore be examined promptly.
The existence of an appeal right should not, however, lead a driver to treat the sub-committee hearing as merely preliminary. An appeal involves further litigation, cost and uncertainty. The committee hearing should be approached as the point at which the case needs to be properly presented.
That means reading the papers carefully, identifying factual errors, understanding the authority’s policy, providing relevant evidence in good time and ensuring that the representations answer the actual regulatory concern. Turning up intending simply to “explain what happened” is rarely an adequate substitute.
Ultimately, the committee is deciding whether it can continue to place regulatory trust in the driver. The strongest representation combines careful scrutiny of the evidence with a credible answer to the public safety issue. Where the evidence is weak, that should be demonstrated precisely. Where mistakes are accepted, the case should explain why they do not indicate an unacceptable future risk. Where policy points towards an adverse decision, any proposed departure must be justified by the individual facts.
I specialise in transport, regulatory and licensing law, including representation before licensing sub- committees, Traffic Commissioners and appellate forums.
Drivers and operators facing investigation, licence review, refusal, suspension, revocation or licensing sub-committee referrals are welcome to make contact for advice or representation.
57
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 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
