The bid for the licence was refused after the TC felt that Mr Carter had been dishonest about the use of his vehicle prior to application
Dalton-in-Furness-based Tony Carter, trading as Get Away Travel, has lost his bid for a one-vehicle restricted licence after Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans felt he had been misled.
In May the case first came before Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Fiona Harrington. The DTC reserved decision at that stage, requiring written confirmation from the parties taken on trips using the 16-seater vehicle that they were taken free of charge. She also required further financial evidence to show what was earned separately by the taxi work and the PSV work.
When Mr Carter appeared at the reconvened Public Inquiry before the TC, he was adamant that he had not received any money from the party, producing a letter from the organiser of the Liverpool trip to confirm that no money changed hands.
In relation to the Manchester trip, he established that the eight-seater was used on the trip to Manchester with eight and not nine people, which would have required the 16-seater as stated on Facebook, saying it was a genuine mistake by the person who posted it.
Mr Carter was asked what the 16-seater had done prior to his licence application in September 2016, because when the vehicle was acquired in April 2015 it had a speedometer reading of 36,382km and in April 2017, its last MoT, it had a reading of 68,796km. Mr Carter said that it has been used for family days out and runs to the shops so as to keep it from rusting away. As it was sign-written it was a form of advertising.
In his decision the TC said that he was seriously concerned about whether Mr Carter had been open and honest with him about the use of the PSV before the application and subsequently.
While some unlawful use was admitted, the evidence was that there had been use that was much more extensive. The statement about the vehicle having barely been driven for more than 1,000 miles since its purchase was a manifestly false one.
He felt that statement was designed to persuade him that the unlawful usage to which it was put was minimal and supporting the contention that it only completed six or so trips, and was therefore deliberate. The extensive mileage, which he could not conclude related to the ‘running about locally’, as was suggested to avoid deterioration of the vehicle, simply did not add up.
He considered that an attempt had been made to mislead him. His trust had been undermined to such an extent that he was unable to find Mr Carter fit and of good repute. His responsibility as the gatekeeper to the industry was such that he concluded that this application must be refused.
