AA Mobile Mechanic & Roadworthy Pty Ltd and Neil Edwin Sanchez v Department of Transport and Main Roads - [2023] QCAT 181

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

AA Mobile Mechanic & Roadworthy Pty Ltd and Neil Edwin Sanchez v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2023] QCAT 181

PARTIES:

AA MOBILE MECHANIC & ROADWORTHY PTY LTD AND NEIL EDWIN SANCHEZ

(applicants)

v

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR052-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2023

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

The decision of the Department of Transport and Main Roads made 12 March 2020 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSION AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – whether approvals as an Approved Examiner and or Approved Inspection Station should be cancelled – where defective vehicles inspected and issued with Safety Certificate – where Compliance Checklist audit carried out disclosing deficiencies in the Approved Inspection Station – whether there has been compliance with the conditions of approval – whether public safety is, or is likely to be, endangered – whether it is in the public interest for an approval to be cancelled – whether the approval should be amended or suspended

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18(1), s 18(2), s19, s 20

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 18(1)(b), s 18(1)(h), s 18(1)(q), s 19, s 65A
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 (Qld), s 9, Sch 2 Part 1, Part 3, s 11(1)(a), s 11(4)(b)(i)
DTMR Code of Practice – Vehicle Inspection Guidelines (Vehicle Inspection Code of Practice)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld), s 19(4)(b) s19(4)(c), part 4 Vehicle Safety

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

N E Sanchez

Respondent:

A Roseler, Legal Officer of the Department of Transport and Main Roads

REASONS FOR DECISION

Neil Edwin Sanchez was an authorised Approved Examiner (AE) to inspect vehicles and issue Safety Certificates.
AA Mobile Mechanic & Roadworthy Pty Ltd (Mobile Mechanics) was an authorised Approved Inspection Station (AIS) where vehicles could be inspected and issued with Safety Certificates. Neil Edwin Sanchez was the director of Mobile Mechanic.
On 14 January 2020 and which decision was confirmed on 12 March, 2020, the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) cancelled the applicant’s authorisation as an AE and also Mobile Mechanic’s authorisation as an AIS. This cancellation is made on the following grounds;[1]
(a)the holder of the approval had contravened a condition of the approval;
(b)public safety has been endangered, or is likely to be endangered, because of the approval;
(c)the chief executive considers it necessary in the public interest.
[1]Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s 18(1)(b), (h) and (q).
The events leading up to this cancellation related to the applicant and Mobile Mechanics issuing a Safety Certificate for;
(a)a Toyota RAV 4; and
(b)a Honda Jazz.
On 14 February 2020 the applicant and Mobile Mechanic filed in the Tribunal an Application to review a decision of TMR made on 14 January 2020. This decision date later changed to 12 March 2019 for reasons which will be discussed later The grounds relied upon in the Application were that;
(a)there was no due process in respect of the alleged violations;
(b)the decision was the maximum penalty and was harsh;
(c)there was no consideration of other remedies available under the legislation; and
(d)there was no investigation of whether there was any repetitive incidents in spite of the number of years as an authorised AE and AIS

Review Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Application filed by the applicant and Mobile Mechanics requires the exercise of the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[2]
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 18(1) and (2).
The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is that jurisdiction conferred by the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) to review the decision made.[3] The Tribunal must decide the review in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The Tribunal has the functions conferred by the latter Act and has all the functions of “of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[4]
[3]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 17 and Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act s 65A.
[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 19.
In conducting the review, the Tribunal is to hear and decide this review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and to produce the correct and preferable decision.[5]
[5]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20.

Statutory Scheme for Issue of Safety Certificates

TMR is responsible for the management of the inspection and certification of vehicles to ensure the minimum safety requirements are met before vehicles are registered and used on a road. It requires vehicles to have a Safety Certificate before the vehicle is offered for sale or when registering a vehicle in Queensland.
Any person authorised as an Approved Examiner (AE) must complete any relevant training courses for the performance of vehicle safety inspections and acquired approved experience for the type of vehicles been inspected.
The applicant as an AE is required;
(a)to inspect the vehicle to decide whether or not the vehicle is defective.[6]
(b)to comply with the statutory conditions in the Accreditation Regulation;[7]
(c)to act with due diligence and ensure all necessary safety measures are taken during an inspection;[8]
(d)the Accreditation Regulation states that the Code of Practice must be complied with;[9]
(e)not to sign and inspection certificates for a vehicle unless the AE has carried out a thorough inspection of the vehicle and is and reasonably considers the vehicle is not defective.[10]
[6]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 (Accreditation Regulation).
[7]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 (Accreditation Regulation) s 9.
[8]DTMR Code of Practice – Vehicle Inspection Guidelines (Vehicle Inspection Code of Practice).
[9]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 (Accreditation Regulation) Sch 2 Part 3 s 11(1)(a).
[10]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 s 19(4)(b) and (c) (VSS Regulations).
Mobile Mechanic as an AIS is required;
(a)to comply with the vehicle inspection Code of Practice for the inspection of a light vehicle under the holders AIS authorisation;[11]
(b)to ensure in deciding whether or not a vehicle is defective, the proprietor or approved Examiner has appropriate regard to the requirements of the vehicle Code of Practice if the vehicle is a light vehicle.[12]
[11]Accreditation Regulation Schedule 2 Part 3 section 11(1)(a).
[12]Accreditation Regulation Schedule 2 Part 3 section 11(4)(b)(i).

Background Chronology

In August 2015 the applicant and Mobile Mechanics received approval from TMR as an AE and AIS respectively. That approval nominated the applicant as the nominee of the business name of Mobile Mechanics.
On 25 May 2019 a blue Toyota RAV 4 vehicle registration number 488 YYS underwent an inspection by the applicant for the issue of a Safety Certificate. According to the Safety Certificate signed by both the applicant, as AE, and by Mobile Mechanics, as AIS, the vehicle was not defective.
On 5 September 2019 officers from the TMR conducted an AIS “Compliance Checklist” of Mobile Mechanics premises at 30 Palings Court, Nerang. The results of that investigation were that the AIS station fail the audit because he did not have the proper and correct equipment required to inspect vehicles.
On 27 September 2019 a silver Honda Jazz vehicle registration number 502 ZGA underwent an inspection by the applicant for the issue of a Safety Certificate. The vehicles odometer red 124,910 km. According to the Safety Certificate signed by both the applicant, as AE, and by Mobile Mechanics, as AIS, the vehicle was not defective.
On 29 October 2019 TMR issued to purchaser/owner of the Honda Jazz a Defect Notice stating the following were defects with the vehicle;
(a)front left and right upper strut tower rubber worn;
(b)front left and right inner guards rusted;
(c)front left and right chassis rail severe rust. Rust to be repaired to manufacturers standard;
(d)right-hand rear wheel bearing worn.
On 19^t November 2019 TMR issued an Infringement Notice to the applicant alleging that on 27 September 2019 that the applicant signed a Safety Certificate for a Honda RAV 4 which was a defective vehicle.
On 6 November 2019 TMR gave a Show Cause Notice to the applicant and to Mobile Mechanics that it was proposing to cancel the approval as an AE and that AIS unless details could be provided to show why those approvals should not be cancelled
On 20 December 2019 the applicant responded to the Show Cause Notice stating that in respect of;
(a)the Honda Jazz that at his time of inspection he did not lift it high enough and had a limited view of the developing and advancing rust under the body; and
(b)the Toyota RAV 4 that he did not remember many details of the vehicle but the vehicle was clean and at that time a person stole some tools and an ATM card reader from his shop which he tried to retrieve and was abused over the phone.; and
(c)he requested that TMR give him a further chance to prove himself and that it will not happen again.
On 14 January 2020 TMR gave written notice to the applicant and to Mobile Mechanics that the approval of the AE and AIS was cancelled.
On 11 February 2020 the applicant and the Mobile Mechanics requested TMR to conduct an internal review of the decision of 14 January 2022 to cancel their approvals.
On 12 February 2020 the applicant and Mobile Mechanics filed in the Tribunal an application to review the decision of TMR made upon 14 January 2020.
On 12 March 2020 Mr D Williamson of TMR reviewed the original decision date 14 January, 2020 to cancel the approval of the applicant and Mobile Mechanics as an AE and as an AIS respectively and confirmed the original decision to cancel those approvals.
On 18 March 2020 at a Directions Hearing conducted by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) a direction was made that in effect the Application for review filed on 12 February 2020 was to be treated as an application to review the subsequent internal review decision made on 12 March 2020.

Toyota RAV 4 registration 488 YYS

On 25 May 2019 the applicant and Mobile Mechanics as AE and AIS respectively each signed and issued a Safety Certificate LV-Q31758984 for a Toyota RAV 4 registration number 488 YYS. The Safety Certificate stated that the odometer reading of the vehicle was 378,858 km.
On 5 July 2019 TMR received a complaint in respect of the Safety Certificate of 25 May 2019 issued in respect of the Toyota RAV 4.
On 5 July 2019 a Transport Inspector of TMR commenced an investigation based upon the complaint.
On 1 August 2019 TMR inspectors made a mechanical inspection of the Toyota RAV 4. Both video footage and photographic evidence was taken throughout the inspection. The odometer showed the vehicle had travelled 762 km since the Safety Certificate was issued 25 May 2019. Multiple defects were identified during the inspection.
Following this inspection a Defect Notice was issued to the owner of the Toyota RAV 4 identifying 13 defective items which included excess movement in both tie rod ends, CV Boot dripping grease oil onto the lower control arm, multiple engine/gearbox oil leaks, non-compliant tyres also below minimum legal tread depth and the rear differential bush torn.

Honda Jazz registration 502 ZGA

On 5 September 2019 the applicant and Mobile Mechanics as AE and AIS respectively each signed and issued a Safety Certificate LV-Q4894714 for the Honda Jazz so the vehicle registration could be change from New South Wales to Queensland registration 502 ZGA. The vehicle’s odometer reading was 124,910 km as that the date of inspection.
The Honda Jazz was advertised for sale on Facebook market place.
On 26 September 2019 the Honda Jazz was inspected by the ultimately purchased the vehicle and it was taken for a test drive before purchasing. The purchaser noticed a noise coming from the rear driver side of the vehicle. The seller of the vehicle said that mechanics had told him it was a wheel bearing which would be fine for another seven (7) months before it needed replacement.
On 27 September 2019 the Honda Jazz was purchased by that purchaser and was given the Safety Certificate issued on 5 September 2019 with the keys to the vehicle.
Within the next couple of weeks the noise from rear driver side became louder.
On 9 October 2019 the purchaser took the vehicle for a mechanical inspection of the noise from the rear driver side. The mechanic took the vehicle for a test drive and then inspected the vehicle on a hoist in the workshop. It was then found that the vehicle had extensive rust holes in both inner guards and left and right front chassis rails. The right-hand rear wheel bearing was also worn. The purchaser was told that the vehicle was not roadworthy due to the extensive rust found in the chassis.
On 9 October 2019 purchaser lodged a complaint with TMR about the Safety Certificate because of the condition of the vehicle.
One 29 October 2019 the vehicle was inspected by TMR inspectors who noted that the odometer reading was 125,755 km. It had only travelled 845 km since the issue of the Safety Certificate on 27 September 2019. The inspectors took the vehicle for a test drive which confirmed the wheel bearing noise (loud wearing noise) and that was deemed defective. A visual inspection of the vehicle demonstrated rust on the vehicles chassis rail which was deemed to be “Extensive Rust”. The rust had caused large holes in in the chassis and there was extensive on the inner guards. The rust was in a primary structural component.
The TMR inspectors issued a Defect Notice D8111510 in relation to the severe rust of both chassis rails and inner guards as well as the worn wheel bearing. The Notice listed defects to the front left and right upper strut tower rubber worn, front left and right inner guards rusted, front left and right chassis rails severe rust, right-hand rear wheel bearing worn. That Defects Notice required the purchaser/owner to cease using the vehicle until the defects have been rectified and presented for further inspection by TMR inspectors.
On 19 November 2019 the TMR inspectors conducted an interview with the applicant in relation to the Honda Jazz. During the interview the applicant admitted he did not see the rust.
On 19 November 2019 TMR issued to the applicant an Infringement Notice in relation to the Safety Certificate dated 27 September 2019 and which ultimately led to the cancellation of the applicant and Mobile Mechanics approval being cancelled, is already referred to above.

AIS Station Audit

On 5 September 2019 an Authorised Officer of TMR attended Mobile Mechanics’s premises for an AIS Compliance Checklist audit.
In conducting the AIS Compliance Checklist the Authorised Officer said that the applicant stated Mobile Mechanics did not possess;
(a)a light transmission metre to check window tint;
(b)break measuring equipment to check brake pad and brake disc thickness;
(c)a trailer light testing and coupling equipment;
(d)motorcycle helmet in order to road test a motorcycle;
(e)a GPS break metre and was not registered on ICO;
(f)a copy of the Code of Practice was not available as a hard copy or online;
The Authorised Officer checked completed Safety Certificates and a number were completed incorrectly, namely mobile AIS location. Further, the Authorised Officer said he examined the applicant on some basic questions in regard to carrying out a Safety Certificate Inspection. He says that the applicant was unable to answer some of the questions correctly and appeared to lack the knowledge required or simply could not answer. On completion the Authorised Officer gave the applicant a Corrective Action Notice with the following matters required attention;
(a)obtain all required equipment;
(b)obtain GPS break meter or rescind CL approval;
(c)register on ICO;
(d)become familiar with the Code of Practice and fee schedule;
(e)complete Safety Certificates correctly.

Subsequent Investigations by TMR

On 16 January 2020 a Senior Transport Inspector seized from the applicant a number of Safety Certificate books. In those books six (6) Safety Certificates had incorrect brake readings for peak and average efficiency. In the opinion of the Senior Transport Inspector the brake readings given were “absurd in that these show vehicles of some considerable age with almost perfect brake readings”. Another Safety Certificate had no engine number completed which is a requirement when issuing Safety Certificates.
On 26 May 2021 a Senior Transport Inspector of TMR recalled four (4) Safety Certificates from archive storage systems which had been issued by the applicant in August 2019, just prior to the AIS audit being undertaken. All these Certificates had been issued by the applicant.
The Senior Transport Inspector notes that these four (4) Safety Certificates had incorrect brake readings and no average efficiency readings which indicated to the Senior Transport Inspector that a brake tester was not used by the applicant.

Review of Decision of 12 March 2020

TMR’s decision to cancel the approval of the AE and the AIS followed consideration of the various facts and circumstances surrounding the issue of Safety Certificates for the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz vehicles as well as the AIS Compliance Checklist audit inspection of Mobile Mechanics premises.
TMR’s decision found that there were grounds to cancel both approvals as the various facts and circumstances demonstrated there had been at contravention of conditions of the approval and non-compliance with the conditions of accreditation. TMR’s decision confirmed its earlier decision of 14 January 2022 to cancel both approvals.
In seeking a review of TMR’s decision the applicant and Mobile Mechanics want both approvals reinstated and rely on the following grounds in their Application filed 12 February 2020;
(a)whether there was “due process”;
(b)the decision to cancel those licenses was “to harsh”;
(c)there was no consideration of other “remedies” to amend or suspend the approvals;
(d)there was no “back checking of any repetitive incident” before the maximum penalty was imposed; and
(e)the applicant and Mobile Mechanics have provided a number of years of service as AE and as AIS without any infringement.
The claim that “due process” was not followed is based upon what the applicant and Mobile Mechanics state as being these facts;[13]
the undersigned was not given any opportunity to refute the facts in a formal proceeding and/or hearing and to confront the complainants with the findings. An allegation or statements indicating violations be it made by a complaint should not stand uncontroverted.
[13]Application to review a decision filed 12 February 2020 with attached document dated 10 February 2020 at paragraph 7.

TMR responded to this allegation in its decision dated 12 March 2020 by stating;
It is my response to you that due process was always properly followed by ensuring the allegations made were properly investigated, that an opportunity was provided for you to respond to the allegations and view photographic evidence prior to the finalisation of the investigation. Further the Department issued you with a notice to show cause which complied with the legislative requirements and set out the allegations made, proposed actions and provided you with a reasonable time to respond.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that TMR sent a Show Cause Notice to the applicant and Mobile Mechanics dated 6 November 2019 which also stated that it proposed to cancel the AE and AIS approvals. The applicant responded to that Notice in a letter to TMR dated 20 December 2019. In that response the applicants stated that he had read the investigation reports and the procedure under s 19[14] to be invited and to undergo further questioning for clarification and to state “my side”. The applicant said he was “thankful for giving me a chance to express my thoughts” in respect of both the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz vehicles. While the applicant acknowledged this was a serious matter, he requested a chance to prove himself and said “that this will not happen again”.
[14]A reference to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld).
In responding to the Show Cause Notice the applicant also asked for “kind consideration to this matter”. The applicant did not raise any criticism of the “due process” being undertaken. Nor did the applicant ask “to confront the complainants”. The applicant did however “humbly” request that he wished to see TMR officers personally “if you may allow before coming up with a decision”. There was no suggestion by the applicant that there were any additional facts or materials available for any personal meeting other than those stated in his written response dated 20 December 2019. The applicant’s response to the investigation reports relating to the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz vehicles were clear statements and did not indicate any need for further clarification by conducting a meeting. No reason was demonstrated why a personal meeting should be conducted. There is no explanation by the applicant as to why “confronting the complainants” would serve any useful purpose as the Show Cause Notice indicated that it was the investigations into those complaints that he had to confront.
The circumstances set out above demonstrate that the applicant and Mobile Mechanics were provided with all of the information available from TMR’s investigations and was given a lengthy period from beginning of November 2019 to late December 2019 in which to respond to the Show Cause Notice proposing to cancel the AE and the AIS approvals. The applicant took up that opportunity to show Cause and made a written response. Significantly, that response made contained an admission that the applicant did not lift the Honda Jazz high enough during the inspection and had a limited view to see rust in the underbody of that vehicle. As for the Toyota RAV 4 he said he did not remember “much details”.
The Tribunal finds that in the circumstances the applicant and Mobile Mechanics was afforded due process and was given every appropriate opportunity to respond to the allegations and the proposal by TMR to cancel both licenses before a decision was made in January 2020. The Tribunal rejects the allegation that due process was not afforded to the applicant and Mobile Mechanics.
It is asserted that the decision to cancel the AE and the AIS was “too harsh” and other remedies were more appropriate as the applicant has an unblemished record for six years or more as an Approved Examiner. That the approvals should not have been cancelled immediately.
The Chief Executive of TMR has a discretion to amend, suspend or cancel AE and AIS approvals.[15]
[15]Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) s 18 & s 19.
The applicant and Motor Mechanics submit that instead of imposing the maximum penalty of cancellation, the delegate of the Chief Executive should have exercised the discretion to impose other levels of penalty such as an amendment or suspension of the approvals. The applicant and Mobile Mechanics submit that;
With all due respect, endangerment of public safety is a bit harsh of an accusation. Consideration that the violations of the undersigned as alleged are not tantamount to recklessness or gross negligence.
…it is worth stressing that I, in the SIX (6) years more or less as an Approved Examiner, it is only during this time and for the first time that these alleged violations were committed.
TMR responded to the applicant and Mobile Mechanics by stating;
… it is not in the public interest to permit you any further opportunity to continue the practices which led to the complaints, findings and the failed AIS audit.
You claim you have been an Approved Examiner for 8 years and have had no prior offences or violations. TMR records clearly show that you previously received to Penalty Infringement Notices in 2017 for similar safety certificate offences.
You claim that you are willing to remedy the situation if provided with an opportunity. It is my response that these incidents have occurred, and they are unable to be rectified by you.
The discretion of the Chief Executive, or the delegate, to amend, suspend or cancel an approval for an AE and/or AIS is to be exercised in accordance with the grounds stipulated in the legislation. The legislation does not provide, as is asserted by the applicant and the Mobile Mechanics, that an approval cannot be cancelled immediately where there are appropriate grounds established satisfying that criteria in the legislation. Given the admissions made by the applicant and on behalf of Mobile Mechanics, in the meeting with TMR officers and also in the written response dated 20 December 2019 to the Show Cause Notice, the submissions on behalf of TMR that it is not in the public interest to permit any further opportunity to continue the practices that led to the complaints are justified on the facts of these proceeding. The fact that the Honda Jazz was defective is not contested. The fact that the Toyota RAV 4 was defective are met with a response that those details are difficult to recall and appear to contain some reconstruction by the applicant, and on behalf of Mobile Mechanics, that the engine compartment was clean. Findings in connection with the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz can be made that both vehicles were defective and that the Safety Certificates were issued in contravention of the respective AE and AIS obligations under the relevant transport legislation. The applicant contests the version of events of the TMR officer who conducted the AIS Compliance Checklist audit. But there has been no evidence produced by the applicant that he in fact had the relevant equipment and resources at the time of that audit that would anyway contradict the TMR officer. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the TMR officer in preference to that of the applicant. In these circumstances the evidence also establishes that Mobile Mechanics fail the AIS Compliance Checklist audit..
The Tribunal rejects the assertion in the submissions of the applicant and Mobile Mechanics that some alternative penalty to cancellation of the approval should have been imposed. The Tribunal accepts the submissions made on behalf of TMR and finds that in the circumstances of these proceedings cancellation of the AEE and was appropriate.
The AIS approval is subject to conditions set out in the Accreditation Regulation.[16] An AIS approval holder must comply with the vehicle inspection Code of Practice.[17] The holder of the AIS approval must not contravene the Business Rules for an Approved Inspection Station or allow an Approved Examiner to contravene the Business Rules for Approved Inspection Stations. It is a condition of approval for an AIS, and also an AE, that holders comply with the Business Rules. The minimum rules to undertake an inspection of a motor vehicle requires compliance with the Business Rules which include that;
(a)an AE has and uses the equipment necessary for inspecting vehicles of the type listed in the AIS approval;
(b)the equipment necessary for inspecting vehicles is maintained in accordance with manufacturers specifications.
[16]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 schedule 2, parts 1 and 3.
[17]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2015 schedule 2, parts 3.
The AIS Compliance Checklist audit establishes breaches of those minimum conditions in (a) and (b) above.
The holder of an AE approval must not sign an inspection certificate for a vehicle unless a thorough inspection of the vehicle has been carried out and reasonably considers the vehicle is not defective.[18] The evidence clearly establishes that the applicant and Mobile Mechanics Safety Certificates for the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz without conducting a thorough inspection of the vehicles and could not have reasonably considered that appropriate inspections had been carried out..
[18]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 part 4 Vehicle Safety.
The Tribunal finds that the facts and circumstances disclosed in the investigations into the complaints about the Toyota RAV 4 and the Honda Jazz, in association with the findings relating to the AIS Compliance Checklist audit, demonstrate more than a sufficient basis that both the applicant and Mobile Mechanics have contravened a condition of each of their respective AE and AIS approvals.
The Tribunal is also satisfied by the facts and circumstances established in these proceedings that the issue of the Safety Certificates and failing the AIS Compliant Checklist audits establishes that the public safety has been endangered or is likely to be endangered.
The Tribunal is also satisfied by these facts and circumstances in the proceedings that it is in the public interest for those approvals to be cancelled.
The Tribunal finds that each of the applicant and Mobile Mechanics as holders of the AE and AIS approvals respectively have in accordance with section 18 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995;
(a)contravened a condition of their approval;
(b)has, or is likely to, endanger public safety; and
(c)considers it is necessary in the public interest;
(d)to cancel each of those approvals.
The Tribunal confirms the decision of TMR made on 12 March 2020.