[2024] UKUT 226 (AAC)

The Appellant was represented at the PI by Mr Dunbar, and it was accepted (in written submissions) on his behalf, that the brake testing arrangements and defect reporting systems needed improvement. He mitigated his maintenance failings with a submission that he had better than average pass rates at annual testing and in relation to prohibitions. Additionally the Appellant had taken steps to improve matters between the date of the DVSA investigation and the PI. It was agreed that maintenance issues were not the main concern at this PI.

In relation to the allegation of using vehicles in excess of his authorisation, the Appellant explained that after his curtailment, he had intended to enter into a sub-contracting arrangement with Mr Bett whereby Mr Bett hired the Appellant’s vehicles and the Appellant sub-contacted work to him. The Appellant demonstrated that he had rented vehicles to, and entered into subcontracting arrangements with, other operators, one of which was Forth & Clyde Logistics who were joined in the PI. The arrangement with Mr Bett did not take place as planned as Mr Bett had been unable to open a bank account for his business and had health issues. Consequently the Appellant found himself “acting as a bank” for Mr Bett and later became Transport Manager for Mr Bett. The Appellant stated at the PI that he paid the drivers and financed the fuel and maintenance of the vehicles on Mr Bett’s licence. He stated that he did not invoice Mr Bett for that financing, nor did Mr Bett invoice the Appellant for any sub-contracted work. The Appellant’s case concluded with the submission that he had not operated more vehicles than authorised on his licence, and he had not breached the non-transferable licence condition.