Neutral Citation Number: [2010] UKUT 56 (AAC)

Appeal No.  2009/523
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL		
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

ON APPEAL from the DECISION of
John Baker Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the 
South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area Dated 23 October 2009

Before:
Hugh Carlisle QC 	Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Leslie Milliken		Member of the Upper Tribunal
Stuart James		Member of the Upper Tribunal

Appellant:	
ROBY’S COM LIMITED

	 
Attendances:
For the Appellant: Farhad Cheroomi 

Heard at:	Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX
Date of hearing:	4 February 2010
Date of decision:	16 February 2010

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal be DISMISSED.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.	This was an appeal from the decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area dated 23 October 2009 when he refused to find exceptional circumstances under s.45(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 so as to disregard the termination of the licence by non-payment of the renewal fee.

2.	The factual background appears from the documents and is as follows:
(i)	The Appellant Company was the holder of an operator’s licence for one vehicle.  It elected to pay its licence fee annually.  It also elected to receive correspondence by email and on 28 August 2009 a reminder was emailed to the Company stating that the licence would terminate on 30 September unless payment of £12 was received.  
(ii)	No payment was made and on 8 October 2009 the Company was notified that its licence had terminated.  By letter dated 13 October the Appellant’s director, Mr Dohotaru, said that he had received no reminder and asked for the termination to be disregarded.
(iii)	On 23 October 2009 the application was considered by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner who decided that no exceptional circumstances had been made out.  
(iv)	In the notice of appeal Mr Dohotaru stated that “no reminder form was sent to me before renewal”.  He accepted that he should have remembered the need for renewal but mentioned that there had been “a major post strike ….. which caused major problems for all companies…..”.  

3.	Mr Cheroomi told us that he was a friend of Mr Dohotaru and that he also was an operator.  He said that now they had seen the Traffic Area Office file Mr Dohotaru accepted that he had agreed to receive correspondence by email and that having checked his emails he had seen that a reminder had in fact been sent on 28 August 2009.  He had himself then been away in Spain for a week in order to attend his brother’s wedding.  The email had been opened in his absence by his wife who subsequently did not mention it to him.  He had not checked his emails until 18 January 2010.  

4.	Mr Cheroomi told us that when the Appellant realised that his licence had terminated he had immediately been in contact with the Traffic Area Office.  He was very sorry for what had occurred.  He had not applied for a stay because he had chosen not to use his vehicle unless he was licensed.

5.	This is another case in which the more we heard the worse it got.  It is accepted that a reminder was both sent and received.  We are satisfied that the Traffic Area Office cannot be faulted and that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was plainly right in finding that there were no exceptional circumstances.  The appeal is dismissed.

Hugh Carlisle QC
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
 16 February 2010