![[2025] UKUT 261 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual background
Factual background
The background to this appeal is as follows. On 20th January 2025, the Appellant (“Mr Phillips”) applied for a restricted operator’s licence authorising one vehicle to be kept on the driveway of his home at 32 Village Way, Beckenham, BR3 2NP. On 21st January 2025, Mr Phillips applied for an interim licence.
On 27th January 2025, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”), wrote to Mr Phillips to notify him that his application was incomplete for the following reasons:
There was no advert attached to the application.
No evidence of financial standing had been submitted. The letter set out the types of financial documents which would be acceptable including evidence of overdraft facilities, building society statements and unused balances on credit cards. A link to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance and directions was provided to assist Mr Phillips.
As the proposed operating centre was a residential property, further details needed to be provided to satisfy the TC regarding the suitability of the site and in particular, an aerial map was required indicating where the vehicle would be parked and showing the entrance and exit from the public highway including confirmation that the parking spaces at the property were available for Mr Phillips’ exclusive use and confirmation that the vehicle could enter and exit the proposed site in forward gear at all times. In the alternative, an alternative operating centre could be nominated.
Mr Phillips was given until 10th February 2025 to respond to the letter and was warned that failure to provide all the information requested may result in the application being refused.
In response, Mr Phillips emailed the OTC, stating that as the nominated vehicle was a Ford Transit 470, which was “just over the weight class of 350”, parking at his home would not be a problem. He was advised that a site plan was nevertheless required along with aerial photographs. The photographs were received. Mr Phillips queried “what kind of site plan are you after?” On 3rd and 17th February 2025, Mr Phillips pressed for an answer with regard to his application for an interim licence. He sent a copy of a letter from his vehicle insurers demonstrating that they required Mr Phillips to obtain an operator’s licence. He submitted a compliant advertisement.
The financial standing documents submitted by Mr Phillips to establish that he had sufficient funds to maintain the proposed vehicle (£3,100) consisted of:
His 2024 tax return with a set of unaudited accounts attached and whilst they recorded a profit, they showed liabilities which were far in excess of the assets.
Online bank statements from 25th December 2024 to 27th January 2025. The identity of the holder of the account was missing from the statements. They clearly showed that other accounts existed, for example, at least one in the name of Mr Phillips and one in the name “I do Plumbing”. The bank statements did not show adequate funds as an average or final balance by a significant margin.
On 5th March 2025, Mr Phillips pursued his application for an interim licence. He was advised that as he had chosen a residential property as his operating centre, consideration needed to be given to the road which the vehicle would use to pull out onto and whether the vehicle could enter and exit in forward gear.
On 6h March 205, a case worker recommended to the TC that the application for an operator’s licence and interim licence be refused upon the basis that:
The proposed operating centre consisted of a driveway of a residential address and would require the nominated vehicle to be reversed into position and would require manoeuvring in the middle of the road.
Whilst the house had a double driveway, the photographs showed Mr Phillips’ 3.5 tonne Ford transit van parked on the driveway. It appeared that the vehicle overhung onto the public pathway. A larger vehicle may cause more of an obstruction.
If a car was parked next to the vehicle on the drive, there would be little to no room to carry out the daily walk round checks.
Neither the unaudited accounts nor the bank statements showed adequate funds and the shortfall was significant.
It was further noted that the trading name “I do waste management” might indicate that a restricted licence was not appropriate and that if a further application were to be made, additional information would be required. The TC agreed with the submissions.
By a letter dated 13th March 2025, Mr Phillips’ application was refused upon the above basis.