Neutral Citation Number: [2010] UKUT 150 (AAC)

 

Appeal No. T/2010/9

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF

PHILLIP BROWN TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the

SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA Dated 30 December 2010

 

 

 

Before:

Judge Beech

Leslie Milliken

David Yeomans

 

 

 

Appellant: STEVENS ASSURED SERVICES LIMITED

 

 

 

Attendances:

For the Appellant: None. The Appellant requested that the Tribunal determine the appeal in its absence

 

 

Heard at: Victory House

Date of hearing: 23 March 2010

Date of decision: 12 April 2010

 

 

 

 

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that be DISMISSED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

 

1.               This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area made 30 December 2009 when he revoked the Appellant’s standard national operator’s licence under s.26(1)(b)&(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”).

 

2.               The factual background to the appeal appears from the documents and the Traffic Commissioner’s decision letter and is as follows:

 

(i)              On a date that is not set out in the papers, the Appellant was granted a standard national operator’s licence authorising four vehicles upon the following condition:

 

“3 months original bank statements, covering June, July and August 2009, to be submitted to the Traffic Commissioner by no later than 10 September 2009”.

 

By a letter dated 11 September 2009, the Central Licensing Unit (“CLU”) reminded the Appellant of the condition and requested three months original bank statements and details of any overdraft facility or credit card statements be submitted to the CLU by no later than 25 September 2009. No response was received from the Appellant.

 

(ii)             On 12 November 2009, a further letter was sent by registered and first class post to the Appellant referring to the previous letter of 11 September 2009 and informing the Appellant that the Traffic Commissioner was concerned that a change in the circumstances of the Appellant had taken place and that original bank statements for four months were now required by 3 December 2009. A warning that action under s.26 of the Act would be considered and in particular revocation of the licence, if the information was not provided by the deadline date. The Appellant was advised of the right to request a public inquiry. This letter sent by registered post was returned to the CLU by the Post Office marked “not called for”.

 

(iii)            On 30 December 2009, the Appellant’s licence was revoked in the terms set out in paragraph 1 above.

 

3.     The Appellant did not appear at the hearing of this appeal but requested that the Tribunal determine the appeal in the Appellant’s absence which we agreed to do. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal and supporting letter signed by P Stevens, Managing Director of the Appellant informed us that Mr Stevens was very unhappy about the situation he had found himself in. Upon receipt of the request for payment of the relevant licence fee, a cheque was sent to the CLU along with the financial information requested. This must have been received by the CLU because the cheque was subsequently cashed 17 September 2009. The Appellant did not receive the letter of 11 September 2009 but did receive the letter of 12 November 2009 and as a result, sent the financial information requested for a second time. In the circumstances, the Traffic Commissioner should not have revoked the licence. The Appellant enclosed with its notice of appeal, copy bank statements for the period 27 May to 2 September 2009.

 

4.     Without evidence of posting of the relevant bank statements, the Appellant has failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the CLU has been provided with the relevant financial information on or before the deadlines set out above. We note two further matters: firstly that the bank statements provided to the Tribunal do not cover the four month period requested in the letter of 12 November 2009 and secondly, those statements that have been produced cannot establish financial standing in the sum of £16,500, that which is required for an authorisation for four vehicles and it therefore follows that had these bank statements been received by the CLU and in the absence of an application for a public inquiry, the Appellant’s licence would have been revoked in any event.

 

5.     In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Her Honour Judge Beech

12 April 2010