[2024] UKUT 225 (AAC)

The Appellant was self-represented at the appeal hearing. He had family members present by way of support. His oral submissions amounted to a plea for a second chance. He stated that he had an arrangement with an external party for brake testing, highlighting that he had never been failed at MOT for brakes. He stated that he had changed bank accounts around the time of the PI and his new account did not show financial standing at the start. He reiterated that he had chased his debtors, and he was now able to demonstrate financial standing in his account. He accepted that he had been using out of date inspection sheets but that these had now been updated. He accepted that he had not told the DVSA that he undertook his own maintenance, when an external firm was noted on his licence. He insisted that he was generally a compliant operator who had made mistakes, accepted them, and then put them right. He believed he should have been given a period of grace in order to demonstrate that he had financial standing. He disagreed with the TC’s decision to not allow this time and move directly to revocation of his licence, which the Appellant believed to be a disproportionate response in the circumstances of his case.