Originally Posted by
Creampuff
...the regulator is entitled to cancel the licence provided the regulator finds, as a matter of fact... ...that the breaches occurred.
Who gets to determine the relevant facts for such an administrative decision?
Don't confuse 'silence' (of the fifth ammendment variety) with an absence of communication. You absolutely need to correspond with the regulator in such a matter. The 'fifth ammendment' part just guides what statements or claims you make, which is preferably nothing, excepting perhaps to dispute the accuracy of the facts or for pointing out where opinion or allegation has been confused for fact.
In the case for disputing facts, I don't mean to give your version of the facts as a rebuttal. I'm merely suggesting that you assert that the facts are not correct in an effort to trigger some form of judicial process that allows the facts to be examined, hopefully with at least a pretence of impartialiity.
There's absolutely no secret recipe for any dispute of this type or more generally. The strategy must be put together based on the specifics of the case, but the starting point is always to
give the prosection/regulator
as little ammunition as possible and, inasmuch as it is possible, to
question or dispute anything they do have.