![[2024] UKUT 148 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
This appeal is dismissed
This appeal is dismissed.
Subject matter: main occupation rule for restricted licences; financial standing.
Case law referred to:MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd (2012/030).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Traffic Commissioner’s decision
On 4 January 2023, the Appellant applied to the Traffic Commissioner for a restricted public service vehicle (PSV) operator’s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“1981 Act”). The application sought authority to operate a single vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers and specified £3,100 as the required amount of finance (it is not disputed that this was the amount required in order for a restricted PSV licence holder operating a single vehicle to demonstrate financial standing). In response to the application form’s questions about the ‘main occupation’ rules, the Appellant wrote:
“I have been an interpreter since 2009 and I do about 15-20 hours of interpreting and sometimes 30 when it’s busy. Also I am a self-employed painter and decorator. I want to do the school run in the weekdays so I need an operators licence so I can balance my work whilst helping people.”
The application enclosed a copy of the Appellant’s personal bank account statement, dated 7 January 2022 (i.e. about a year before the date of the application), which showed a balance of £3,974.56.
On 17 January 2023, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) informed the Appellant that his application was incomplete. The address specified on the bank statement differed from the operator’s address and the Appellant was asked to explain why. The OTC also requested a range of information related to the ‘main occupation’ rule.
The Appellant’s letter in response included this statement: “The reason why I am applying for the PSV licence is to completely get rid of the handyman and taxi job”.
On 1 March 2023, the OTC wrote to the Appellant to inform him that his application remained incomplete. The OTC again requested information relevant to the main occupation rule. Their letter included the following warning:
“This letter is intended as a final attempt to resolve these issues by correspondence and you must now respond in full by no later than 15/03/2023. If on that date the application remains incomplete, it will be refused.”
The Appellant’s written response of 15 March 2023 included the following statement:
“for school run…monthly I will get £1200 and yearly I will get £10800 because there is only nine months in the academic year for the school run…For NHS, I will earn approximately 9000…I will get…£2880 a year for handyman.”
On 24 March 2023, the OTC sent the following email to the Appellant:
“I have just carried out final checks before this application is submitted to the Traffic Commissioner for consideration, it has been noted that the savings account bank statement that you provided is dated 07 January 2022, this cannot be taken into consideration as it is not a recent bank statement. Please provide a copy of an original or verified bank statement in the name of the Sole trader applying for this PSV operator licence, the last date of which must be within two months prior to the date of this email 24/03/2023.
The bank statement should show that you have sufficient funds available in the sole trader name to meet the financial requirement for the type and size of licence applied for (£3,100).
A response to this email with the requested information should be provided to this office before the date of 27/03/2023.”
The email of 24 March 2023 also included the following standard text:
“Please upload any application related documents through your VOL user account. Only send documents by email if you are unable to use the self-service system.”
On 24 April 2023, the Traffic Commissioner refused the Appellant’s application, giving the following reasons for doing so:
“The financial information provided was not acceptable because the bank statement was dated January 2022, a recent bank statement was requested by email on 24 March 2023 and no response was received with a bank statement that meets the requirements. Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that you meet the requirements of Section 14ZA(2)(c) of [the 1981 Act].”
In response, the Appellant informed the OTC that, on 25 March 2023, he emailed them ‘screenshots’ of more recent bank statements. The Appellant was informed by an OTC official that screenshots were not acceptable and either originals or certified copies of recent bank statements were required. The OTC case file recounts that the Appellant informed an official that he “could order one that would be received within five days” but this did not materialise before the Commissioner refused the application.
An internal OTC memorandum advised that, if the screenshot bank statements were accepted, the Appellant would meet the financial standing requirement for the licence sought. However, the memorandum went on:
“the applicant is far from meeting the main occupation criteria, the main occupation income will be £770 after deductions, and the PSV income will be £1,200 after deductions.”
It appears that the Traffic Commissioner was unaware, on 24 April 2023, that the Appellant had emailed screenshots of more recent bank statements. Having been informed of that matter, the Commissioner reconsidered his decision (presumably, acting under section 49A of the 1981 Act) to refuse the Appellant’s licence application but decided that the information now before him made no difference. On 26 April 2023, the Traffic Commissioner issued a fresh decision letter which read as follows:
“The financial information provided was not acceptable because the bank statement was dated January 2022, a recent original or verified bank statement was requested by email on 24 March 2023, the financial evidence provided in response were not in a form that meets the requirements as set out in Statutory Document No.2 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory guidance.
Further to the above, from the information that has been provided the proposed income from the PSV operation would far exceed the income disclosed from other sources.
Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that you meet the requirements of Section 14ZB(b) – Financial standing, and Section 13(3)(b) – Main occupation, of the [1981 Act].
The Traffic Commissioner’s decision is that the decision to refuse will not be re-opened for the reasons given above.”