Case No. UKUT-00204-(AAC)

5. The appellant applied, on behalf of his business, for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. He submitted supporting documentation which included a bank statement in the appellant’s own name (not in the name of Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited) which showed a debit balance of £74,275.61 as at 9 June 2021 and a debit balance of £74,805.56 as at 2 July 2021. It was indicated on the bank statements that the appellant had an overdraft limit of £85,000.6. The precise date the licence application was made is not clear but it was acknowledged by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) on 20 July 2021. On that date the OTC wrote to the appellant indicating that the application was considered to be incomplete. One of the concerns expressed was that the bank statements provided did not cover a full 28-day period. Another was that the bank statements were not in the name of Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited. Thus, it was said that the financial evidence provided was not acceptable. It was also indicated that the TC required evidence of available funds of £3,100 for a 28-day period the last date of which should not be more than 2 months from the date of receipt of the application. 7. It appears that the appellant did not immediately respond to that letter because, on 6 September 2021, the OTC again wrote to him once again, outlining the same concerns and requesting the same evidence. The appellant, seemingly by way of a response to that letter, submitted a bank statement relating to a different account, this one being in the name of Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited, which showed a credit balance of £701.85 as at 1 June 2021 and then, as a result of a single transaction on 26 July 2021, a credit balance of £3,201.85 on that date. It appears that nothing very much happened for some time but then, on 7 December 2021, the OTC wrote to the appellant indicating that the TC was proposing to grant the application so long as the appellant was able to provide “bank statements in the name of Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited covering the full month of November 2021”. The appellant responded by providing a bank statement which was in the name Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited and which showed an opening balance of £3,164 on 1 November 2021 but a closing balance of only £126 on 29 November 2021, a withdrawal in the sum of £3,000 having been made on that date. Thus, that bank statement did not meet the TC’s specified requirements. 8. On 12 December 2021 the OTC wrote to the appellant to inform him that the TC had refused his application. By way of explanation this was said:“The financial information provided was not acceptable because funds have been withdrawn from the account in the November statement provided. Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that you meet the requirements of Section 13D of the above Act, which requires that there are sufficient financial resources for maintaining vehicles in a fitting serviceable condition”.9. A little more of the TC’s reasoning may be gleaned from an exchange of emails between the appellant and a member of staff at the OTC following the sending of that decision letter. In one of the emails sent by the OTC’s staff member it was explained to the appellant “the Traffic Commissioner refused the application as financial resource has not been demonstrated. The Traffic Commissioner noted that the nominated vehicle is 11 years old so found that Section 30D applies to cover its maintenance”.