Neutral Citation Number: [2010] UKUT 55 (AAC)

 

Appeal No. 2009/522

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

 

ON APPEAL from the DECISION of

Tom Macartney Traffic Commissioner for the

North Eastern Traffic Area Dated 10 November 2009

 

 

 

Before:

Hugh Carlisle QC Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Leslie Milliken Member of the Upper Tribunal

Stuart James Member of the Upper Tribunal

 

 

Appellant:

JASON WILLIAM BARRETT

 

 

 

Attendances:

For the Appellant: No-one appeared

 

 

Heard at: Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX

Date of hearing: 4 February 2010

Date of decision: 16 February 2010

 

 

 

 

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal be DISMISSED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

1.           This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Eastern Traffic Area on 10 November 2009 when he refused the Appellant’s application for a licence by reason of lack of evidence of financial resources.

 

2. The factual background to the appeal appears from the documents and is as follows:

(i) The Appellant applied for a restricted licence for one vehicle and one trailer on 2 September 2009. The application was then returned because no fee had been enclosed. This was sent and the application was acknowledged by the Traffic Area Office on 6 October 2009 when the Appellant was provided with details of the financial evidence which was required in support. He was told that the sum of £3100 had to be available during the three months immediately preceding the application. He was asked to provide original bank statements from 1 June to 31 August 2009: “we can also accept original credit card statements/details of an overdraft facility in support of your application”.

(ii) After receiving this request the Appellant telephoned the Traffic Area Office and said that it was his practice to destroy bank statements but that he would obtain replacements. On 14 October 2009 the Appellant sent in bank statements from 1 June to 31 August 2009 but the average balance did not demonstrate the necessary funds. This was pointed out in a letter from the Traffic Area Office dated 30 October. The Appellant was again provided with details of what was required and was informed that a deadline of 9 November 2009 had been imposed. No further documents were forthcoming and on 11 November 2009 the Traffic Commissioner refused the application.

(iii) In his notice of appeal the Appellant asserts that his bank statements showed “access to the required level of funds of £3100”. He accepted that this amount was not available at all times but said that this is not what the Traffic Area Office had sought. He could have sent in credit card statements but had not felt the need to include them. He sent in a copy of the request made by the Traffic Area Office and added his own manuscript “please note it states during the three months and not each month”.

 

3. By letter dated 1 February 2010 the Appellant stated that due to ill health he was unable to attend the hearing. He continued to assert that he had sufficient funds available. We decided the appeal in his absence.

 

 

 

4. We have considered all the papers but have to say that we are satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision cannot be faulted. The Appellant was informed that he had to show that £3100 was “available during the three months immediately preceding submission of your application” and the bank statements do not show an average balance of the required level: it is not enough that the required amount may be available on isolated occasions, which is not in fact the case here. He was told that credit card statements and bank overdraft details were acceptable but did not choose to provide such evidence. In the “financial guidance note” provided to him he was invited to contact the Traffic Area Office and to seek advice. It is to be regretted that he chose not to do so but allowed a confrontation to develop. The documents provided do not show the necessary availability and we are satisfied that the appeal must be dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugh Carlisle QC

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

16 February 2010