[2025] UKUT 261 (AAC)

The main thrust of Mr Phillips’ grounds of appeal is that he had purchased a Ford transit 470 to replace a 350 Ford transit in order to comply with the ULEZ regulations. He asserted that they were identical vehicles save that the 470 was slightly heavier. He could not understand why he could not use his driveway to park the replacement vehicle when he was able to use it to park the 350 vehicle. He had sent to the Tribunal bank statements for an alternative bank account post-dating the TC’s decision which Mr Phillips maintained demonstrated the necessary financial standing. Again, the holder of the bank account cannot be ascertained from the documents and on any view, these statements do not demonstrate an average or closing balance of £3,100. He advised that he had other bank accounts which have better balances. He did not explain why he had not relied upon one or more of those to support his application. He further informed the Tribunal that he now had a parking space at his maintenance provider but did not have any evidence from the landlord confirming the position. But in any event, even if this new evidence were of assistance to Mr Phillips, we are unable to take it into account by reason of paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985. Mr Phillips informed the Tribunal that he had assumed that he had now done everything that he needed to do and questioned why there was no leeway in the decision making process.