[2023] UKUT 125 (AAC)

The application declaration had not been signed by a director of FSFH.

The names of the directors were not recorded on the application.

Only one director had completed a director’s declaration.

The postcodes between the application and the advertisement were slightly different.

The application was not made in the name of FSFH as a company.

The advertisement described the applicant as “Andrew Wigley trading as Fresh Start for Hens” rather than the company FSFH. This could not be remedied by another advertisement because the period permitted for advertising an application ended on 4^th February 2022.

The operating centre was a residential property and an on-site assessment would have been required once the above matters had been remedied.

As a result of the failure to name the directors in the application or to provide a director’s declaration from both directors, the traffic commissioner could not be satisfied that FSFH was not unfit to hold a licence.

There was no maintenance contract with an external provider and no evidence of sufficient workshop facilities at the proposed operating centre.

The above problems with the application could not be described as a “simple error” as submitted by Mr Wigley. Having given FSFH ample opportunity to address the deficiencies in the application including the giving of advice that a new application was required, the TC could not have granted an operator’s licence with the information provided as FSFH had failed to satisfy the requirements of s.13B of the 1995 Act and indeed s.13C. Moreover, whilst we sympathise with the position that FSFH finds itself in, this Tribunal is not in a position to overturn the TC’s decision and remit the application for reconsideration or to grant the application ourselves. A correctly completed application is required, along with an appropriately worded advertisement accompanied by all of the information and declarations required which will satisfy s.13B and s.13C of the 1995 Act.