The Upper Tribunal has upheld the licence refusal of Euromar after confusion over funds
Slough-based Euromar has lost its appeal against the refusal of its application for a one-vehicle international licence on financial grounds by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Sarah Bell.
The company had made an earlier application for a similar licence which was also refused on financial grounds, a decision upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
In a fresh application the plan was to operate a single-decker coach. The TC was concerned about whether funds would be available both to obtain the vehicle and to have the required stand-by amount of at least £6,650 available at that point.
Director Marek Orzechowski and the company secretary stated that the company was making money, there were personal savings and ‘money at home’ and a bank guarantee of a loan of a very large sum. However, he had not brought evidence of that to the hearing because he did not think it was going to be necessary.
The TC gave the company 14 days to provide further evidence of finance in the company’s name to support a deposit of £20,000 and the lease payments on an ongoing basis, in addition to the £6,650.
Bank statements and lease documents were supplied but the TC was not satisfied. The TC gave the company ‘an exceptional final opportunity’ to deposit further additional funds. The company responded by submitting a hire purchase quotation from Mercedes-Benz for a vehicle with a total cash price of £266,400 and a deposit of £66,600, for a limit of 19,312 kilometres annually.
There were also other varying quotations from the same company for hire agreements for 10,000 miles annually. It was suggested for the first time that it might buy a used vehicle. The TC asked for bank statements, an explanation of the various quotations, identification of what arrangement would be used, and a comment on whether 10,000 miles would suffice.
The company’s written response included the following: “We are writing to let you know that we refuse to provide you with further documentation and kindly ask for someone else to examine our application. We have provided you with all the required financial evidence and there was no situation where we have not met the requirements …”. The TC then finally refused the application.
Before the Tribunal Mr Orzechowski argued that the company had met all the criteria. It had still not decided which option to go for. There was no need to have made a decision because it did not yet have a licence. It was ridiculous to get a binding option before getting a licence.
The Tribunal said that the requirement to ensure that the prescribed maintenance amount was available and not required for any other use was not a mere technicality. It was fundamental to the ability to operate a PSV vehicle safely. The approach to that question had been erratic. Without knowing which option the company would choose and precisely where the necessary funds would come from, it was not possible for the TC to be satisfied that the financial requirements could be met.
