[2024] UKUT 225 (AAC)

The Appellant presented his comments to the TC by way of written representations and gave supporting oral evidence. The TC had asked the Appellant to provide evidence in support of his case prior to the PI, including financial, maintenance and other compliance related documentation. In advance of the PI, he provided financial evidence and fourteen sets of documents relating to maintenance, inspection and testing reports dating from September 2022 to June 2023. These are set out in detail in the TC’s decision at paragraph 18. He was invited to submit further evidence, but he indicated via email that this was all the evidence he sought to admit.

Dealing initially with financial standing, the TC explained that the bank statements did not show sufficient financial standing and as this was a requirement to hold an operator’s licence, he was obliged to revoke the Appellant’s operator’s licence. The Appellant explained in oral evidence that he had money owed to him and he had spent the previous two weeks collecting it in, with some still outstanding. The Appellant stated that he had four acres of property with a house, garage and offices on it. He stated that he had sufficient funds in his bank account on that day, and he offered to email a statement to the TC as proof. The TC stated that an emailed bank statement would not be admissible in evidence; the Appellant had been given ample opportunity to submit evidence prior to the PI and an emailed statement would not be stamped by the bank thereby failing to provide satisfactory proof as to its authenticity and accuracy. Citing the case of “LWB Limited”, the TC found that the property owned by the Appellant did not count towards financial standing as there was no independent valuation of it and no evidence that it could be liquidated quickly. The TC proceeded to find that the Appellant did not have financial standing and stated that he was therefore obliged to revoke the operator’s licence.

The TC then discussed the evidence which had unfolded during the PI to consider the PHR Grab Hire Ltd application, and which presented the Appellant and his business adversely. Firstly, the press reports and documentary which had connected the Appellant’s operating centre site on Rannoch Road with organised crime and illegal waste disposal, and had placed the Appellant at the scene wearing clothing with the “PHR Services” logo. In evidence, the Appellant distinguished “PHR Grab Hire Ltd” from “PHR Services”, stating that the “PHR” logo had been used over the years on numerous vehicles, private registrations and workwear. The Appellant stated that that the site had been connected to the lawful deposit of waste for 40 years, explaining that he had a breaker’s yard there which had been in the family for many years. He had been involved in three licences (all unexpired) which were for the carriage of controlled waste. He further explained that he was in the process of attempting to surrender one of them. He said there had been no proof of hazardous materials at the site and highlighted that he had not been charged with any criminal offending.

With regard to the email correspondence and “PHR Grab Hire Ltd” headed notepaper bearing the Appellant’s name, the Appellant explained that that he had limited knowledge of computers and emails hence he relied on his daughter, Ms Orr, to undertake this work. He said she may have got confused due to working in two locations but he had no explanation for his name appearing on headed notepaper and emails for another company. He confirmed that Mr McNaught was his nephew who had lived with him since the age of twelve years old and they had worked together for many years.

The Appellant was asked about Mr McNaught’s evidence (at the PHR Grab Hire Ltd PI) saying that he paid rent to his aunt (wife of the Appellant) to use the Rannoch Road operating centre to park his one vehicle and to gain access to the inspection pit there, but then stated that his payments were not for “rent” as such but rather to help support his aunt financially, as Eric Morrison Jnr had been imprisoned. The Appellant asserted that Mr McNaught was paying hire for the yard space, for machinery and for maintenance within his site at Rannoch Road. This was Mr McNaught’s attempt to run his own business after working with and being mentored by the Appellant.

Mr McNaught had also stated at the PHR Grab Hire Ltd PI, that his claim to undertake “in house” maintenance was untrue, and that the Appellant had completed the maintenance from the outset. The Appellant explained that the reference to “in-house” maintenance referred to the maintenance being done by the Appellant at the same operating site. The TC highlighted the fact that no one had notified the DVSA of the Appellant’s involvement with the maintenance of Mr McNaught’s vehicle. The Appellant acknowledged that this was correct.

Moving then to maintenance and inspections, the TC discussed the various documents that the Appellant had produced in evidence. He highlighted the fact that the inspection sheets were out of date. The Appellant did not realise this. The Appellant acknowledged that he was unsure of the results he required for satisfactory brake testing. The Appellant accepted that he had failed to record defects when driving and stated that he undertook some repairs without making records of them. He accepted that he had not consulted up to date DVSA Guidance and did not think that the driver defect reporting requirement applied to him. He admitted that he was “way off the mark”. He was unable to explain how he complied with legal requirements.