Case No. UKUT-6-(AAC)

15.The appellant attended the PI in person. He was unrepresented. The appellant gave evidence at the PI. After the conclusion of the public inquiry the appellant advised that he wished more time to submit information and documentation in relation to a bounce back loan which he had applied for and been given by the Royal Bank of Scotland. The TC allowed an additional 14 days for that information to be lodged. The appellant lodged copies of correspondence between him and the bank, together with copies of his bounce back loan application and contract. 16.The TC summarised the evidence at the PI as follows :-10. … I explained to the applicant at the outset of the hearing that the onus was on him to satisfy me that he met all of the criteria for the licence.11.The applicant told me that he desperately wanted to get back in the coach business as an operator. He had been excluded from the industry for many years now and had been operating an Ebay business, but that was not as lucrative as it once was. 12.He told me that he also had a business called Phoenix Travel. He described that business as an independent travel tour company and advised that it had been in existence for around 15 years. He advised that the business used to do work abroad but that had ceased many years ago. The Scottish side of the operation was mainly focussed on small tours and golf trips etc. The operator licence would allow him to supply transport for the Phoenix Travel business.13.The Phoenix Travel website states that the business has at its disposal ‘every class of vehicle you can imagine from chauffeur driven cars to luxury mini vans to executive coaches’. The applicant was asked to explain how vehicles were provided to service Phoenix Travel’s requirements. He advised that he hired vehicles in from other operators. When asked when he had last done so, he said it had been around five years ago. His answer, when asked what Phoenix Travel had actually been doing since then, was ‘not very much’. He told me he had been stabbed in the back by a former colleague and things had been difficult since then.14.The applicant produced bank statements in the name of James Kilpatrick t/a Kilpatrick Coach Hire covering the period 10 February 2021 to August 2021 in support of his application. He also produced a mini statement showing the account balance at 24 August 2021. Several large deposits from Phoenix Travel were shown thereon: £1000 on 31 March 2021; £10,000 on 23 April 2021; and £3000 on 4 June 2021. There were also number of payments to a fuel card company, payments to another entity called TJS Travel, and direct debit payments referred to as ‘BBLS loan’. 15.The applicant was asked to explain the reason for the deposits from Phoenix Travel and how such large sums had come to be at its disposal given the fact that it had not been trading for some considerable time. He told me that there were grants going around for businesses because of COVID. He advised that Phoenix Travel had been awarded a COVID related grant from Fife Council because he had business premises in that Council area. He had received £26,000 in grant funding for that business to keep it afloat. 16.When asked if there were conditions attached to the local authority grant funding he had received, the applicant replied that he had been ‘operating and actively seeking work’. He was asked if he had actually managed to obtain any tour or tourist work in the last five years, given his earlier evidence. He did not answer that question, stating instead that he had ‘done nothing wrong’. The applicant had transferred the sums from the Phoenix Travel account to the James Kilpatrick t/a J Kilpatrick Coach Hire account to ensure that he continued to meet the required financial standing for the operator’s licence application he had made. 17.The applicant’s evidence at inquiry was that he had opened the James Kilpatrick t/a Kilpatrick Coach Hire business account around June 2020 when the country was still in lockdown. Within a few months of so doing, he had applied for a bounce back loan under that business name. He advised in his correspondence following the inquiry that he had, in fact, only opened the account ‘a matter of days’ before applying for the bounce back loan. No evidence that ‘J Kilpatrick Coach Hire’ existed prior to that date was produced.18.The applicant advised that he had been given a bounce back loan for the maximum amount of £50,000. With the money, he had bought the one coach he was applying for a licence to operate. When asked how he had managed to show that he met the turnover criteria, he advised that he had estimated his turnover at £260,000. That was based on the turnover he expected to generate with his operator’s licence authorising one vehicle notwithstanding the fact that he had not, at that time he applied for the loan, applied for an operator’s licence. 19.The applicant told me that the sums paid to TJS Travel, in excess of £2000, were for maintenance of the coach he had purchase. That was despite the that fact that it was not in use. There was also an element of rental in the payments, as the coach was sitting at their yard until he could operate. He told me he had completed a transport manager CPC refresher course, and that he intended to use a consultant to assist him with compliance in the business. There was, however, no evidence produced in relation to how he intended to manage drivers’ hours. 20.When asked about his adverse history in operator licensing, he advised that he could accept some of it. He could never understand why the previous Traffic Commissioner had found him to be involved in fronting, but he had to accept that he had been guilty of misdemeanours in the past. He accepted that he had been found to have been dishonest in his behaviour but that was also in the past. He became emotional when he told me that he had lost his mother to dementia six years ago and explained that things had been difficult at that time. He had lost his partner, suffered from depression, lost his house and been sequestrated for a second time. 21.He now had money behind him. He repeatedly asserted that what he had done in obtaining the grants and loans was above board. He had done it to keep himself afloat. He was also due a refund from Action Fraud1. He had a new high quality coach and was willing to engage a transport consultant. Despite the fact that he had been guilty of tachograph and drivers’ hours offences in the past, vehicles now had digital tachographs so there could be no misunderstandings. He assured me that I would able to trust him to operate compliantly in the future.