requires
the Upper Tribunal to take a different view to that taken by the TC. 11. We have decided that the decision of the TC, as communicated in the letter of 18 August 2021 was not one in respect of which the process of reasoning and the application of the relevant law requires (our underlining) us to take a different view. That is because whilst financial standing may be demonstrated in a variety of ways (see Michael Hazell (No 2): [2017] UKUT 221 (AAC)) such that an inability to demonstrate an average credit balance of £8,000 over a fixed 28 day period is not, of itself, necessarily fatal, the inability of the appellant do so in this case is indicative of a large degree of precariousness in the company finances; because on the appellant’s own account there is a very considerable degree of reliance upon credit facilities which is one of the least reliable means of showing available finance (see Hazell (No 2 again); because although the appellant asserted before us an ability to transfer funds from a different business to his haulage business he provided no evidence of this to the TC (nor any corroborative evidence to us even assuming we might have been prepared or able to consider admitting such evidence) and because the overall pattern evidenced by the bank statements the appellant did provide points to a business which is frequently under financed. 12. In light of the above, we have concluded that we must dismiss the appeal.13. Having said the above and having reached our decision on the appeal, there are some matters with respect to the way the decision of the TC was communicated to the appellant which we think we ought to comment upon.14. In our view the letter of 18 August 2021 was deficient because, whilst it communicated to the appellant in clear enough terms the result of his application for a licence, it did not set out any of the reasoning which underpinned that outcome. We make a general observation, and such observations have been made by the Upper Tribunal on previous occasions including in Wajid Bashir t/a MB Travel [2018] UKUT 0401 (AAC), in particular at paragraph 12 and Sheraz Asghar [2018] UKUT 0442 (AAC) in particular at paragraph 16, that such is not acceptable. We say that because if a prospective appellant is not provided with the reasoning underpinning a decision then he/she is in difficulty in making an informed decision as to whether there might be merit in appealing or not. That might lead to a prospective appellant appealing in circumstances where he/she might otherwise not have done (thus leading to unnecessary administrative functions having to be performed) or to a prospective appellant not appealing in circumstances in which he/she might have done had he realised (if it be the case in any given instance) that the reasoning was at least arguably defective (thus raising the possibility in some cases of a denial of justice). It might lead to a prospective appellant being unable to prepare grounds of appeal which are focused and properly directed towards the TC’s reasoning, thus leading to the necessity for later amendment or to arguments being raised at a late stage before the Upper Tribunal. None of that is satisfactory. Accordingly, we would express the hope that, in relation to decisions only expressed by letter (usually the case where there has been no public inquiry) the reasoning underpinning a negative decision will be communicated in that letter. We would also make the point that where, as here, the reasoning is evident from internal memoranda, it should be a relatively easy task to transpose and incorporate that reasoning into a decision letter. 15. If the above seems like harsh criticism of the OTC we do not mean it to be. We understand the difficulties of working in a busy office under pressure. We understand that the OTC might well still be having to cope with the fall-out from the coronavirus pandemic and the huge adverse impact that has had upon administrative processes in many organisations and departments. But the matter is, in our view, of such importance that not pointing it out would represent a failing on our part. In this case there was no injustice or unfairness because the appellant did understand why his application had been refused and was able to put all of his points to the Upper Tribunal on appeal. But that does not detract from the importance of the concern we have identified.16. The appeal is dismissed.