Case No. UKUT-6-(AAC)

26.The appellant submitted that given the TC’s workload and the numerous cases she had to deal with she could not have accurately remembered the evidence at his PI between 31 August and the issue of her decision almost 4 months later. The TC’s notes and those of her clerk were, he submitted, illegible.27.The appellant submitted that his second ground of appeal was really the crux of the matter. The TC had misunderstood the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. He said that he had been called by the bank and informed about the scheme and that he could apply as he was an established business customer. He made an application for Phoenix Travel and based on his declared returns to HMRC of a turnover of £16,000 he obtained a loan of just over £4000. That business was in existence prior to the outbreak of Covid and the creation of the BBLS.28.He then opened a bank account, with the same bank, in the name of J Kilpatrick Coach Hire, he said. A few days later, he applied for a BBLS in the name of that business. He stated that he had spoken to the relevant department of the bank who had confirmed that the loan was available for new starts (page 196). He told the Upper Tribunal that the bank had advised him that because he was a business customer he was an eligible customer for a BBLS loan, that he was entitled to start a subsidiary and apply for a BBLS loan and he would get a loan for 25% of the projected turnover. Following the PI, he contacted the bank for confirmation that his application for the BBLS for J Kilpatrick Coach Hire was not taken out mistakenly or fraudulently. He referred to an email from the bank which, he claimed, showed that his application was not untoward. The email at dated 13 September 2021, from a member of the Commercial Complaints Department of NatWest Bank7 (page 209). It states:The care team are absolutely satisfied with your application and, although I can’t send you an email from them as they are an internal team, they have said that showing your completed loan document should be evidence enough for the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland but you can also use this email as evidence also.29.We pointed out to the appellant that he had produced no evidence to support his claim that the bank had invited him to set up a new account and apply for a loan for a new business, to which he had no reply other than his own evidence.30.The appellant confirmed to the Upper Tribunal that he had electronically signed and dated the electronic BBLS application form on 9 June 2020 (page 282) and submitted it. He agreed that in doing so he had made certain declarations. In particular, he had confirmed that he had been carrying on business as J Kilpatrick Coach Hire on 1 March 2020 (page 280) and that that business had been adversely affected by Covid. He accepted that J Kilpatrick Coach Hire had not been in existence or carrying on business on 1 March 2020. He reverted to the advice he said he had been given in a telephone conversation with the bank; he said he had relied on that.31.It was noted by the Tribunal that the email address provided on the BBLS application form was not the one used by the bank to correspond in relation to the legitimacy of the application. Mr Kilpatrick said the form had been filled in by his granddaughter and she must have put in the wrong email address, but he had access to both.32.Regarding ground 3, he stated that whilst he had been criticised by the previous TC, she had also said that it would be unfair to suggest that he could never re-enter the industry, albeit it would not be an “open door”. He submitted that the TC had placed too much emphasis on his past. He said that since his last licence had been revoked he had been of good character, had had no intervention with the law and fully complied with everything expected of him as a citizen. Therefore, that being the case, he submitted that he was of good character and the decision should be overturned or brought before another inquiry for consideration (page 30).33.The appellant made further submissions by email after the Upper Tribunal hearing and after we had reached our decision. We therefore had no regard to these later submissions.