BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) >> CVS (East Midlands) Ltd, Re [2013] UKUT 286 (AAC) (17 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/286.html Cite as: [2013] UKUT 286 (AAC) |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
(TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)
ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
for the NORTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA,
DATED 9 JANUARY 2013
Before:
Judge Mark Hinchliffe, Deputy Chamber President (HESC); Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
George Inch, Member of the Upper Tribunal.
John Robinson, Member of the Upper Tribunal.
Appellant:
CVS (EAST MIDLANDS) LTD
Attendance:
For the Appellant: Mr M Chaplin, Director.
Date of decision: 17 June 2013
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL:
Subject matter:
Financial Standing
Cases referred to:
None
REASONS FOR DECISION:
1) This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Eastern Traffic Area made on 9/1/2013 when he refused a request to increase the operator’s authorisation from 4 vehicles and 1 trailer to 6 vehicles and 1 trailer under the financial standing requirements of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act and associated regulations.
2) The factual background to this appeal appears from the documents and the Traffic Commissioner’s decision and is as follows:
(i) For the application for an increase in authorisation to be granted, the operator was required to show access to £28,700 by way of readily available capital and reserves. In terms of availability, the funds must be readily available to the operator and not to any other person or entity -unless certain provable legal arrangements are in place to guarantee the operator access to funds belonging or available to another person or entity.
(ii) The financial information provided to the Traffic Commissioner’s office initially comprised an unverified HSBC online bank statement in the company name that did not show sufficient funds to be available. In response to a second request, original HSBC bank statements were provided that did not cover the full 28 day period required to make a full calculation. The most recent balance, again, did not show sufficient funds to be available.
(iii) The operator also provided credit card statements in the name of Car Valet & Storage Limited. Searches of Companies House indicated that no such company was registered in that name. Other cards were used to the full.
(iv) The Traffic Commissioner was unable to grant the application for an increase and provided advice to staff as follows:
“Please advise the operator of the typical appeal timescales and suggest that he may wish to make a fresh application, meanwhile. If he does, please advise him strongly to take advice from a transport solicitor or transport consultant.”
3) At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellant was represented by Mr Chaplin, one of the company’s directors.
4) Mr Chaplin told us that CVS (East Midlands) Ltd and Car Valet & Storage Limited were one and the same company, and he also asked as to take into account the full credit limits on the credit cards in the company name, even though they already appeared to be used to the limit and were, as a member of the Traffic Commissioner’s staff put it, “maxed out”.
5) This appeal cannot succeed. Without setting out the operator’s detailed financial position in a public document, we confine ourselves to saying that, so far as we appropriately could, we explained to Mr Chaplin the legal requirements in relation to financial standing. We were unable to accept that we could properly take account of resources available to a different limited company, even though that limited company appeared not to exist. We advised Mr Chaplin of the need for accuracy and clarity in relation to financial documentation and we also advised that the requirement for readily available capital and reserves meant, in effect, resources available “over and above the everyday ins and outs” and looked at over a period of time. A snapshot, whether it demonstrates and untypically good or bad picture, is not an adequate basis for a Traffic Commissioner’s calculations.
6) In our view the Traffic Commissioner was right to conclude that the operator had failed to demonstrate that it satisfied the financial standing requirements for the increase in authorisation. We also commend the Traffic Commissioner’s attempt to direct the operator in the right direction, in order to discourage the operator from taking up more time and further expense pursuing a hopeless appeal.
7) The appeal is dismissed.
Judge Mark Hinchliffe, DCP
17 June 2013
