The refusal was upheld after it was decided that Elizabeth Humphrey’s role as sole Director was a front
The refusal of Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Fiona Harrington to grant a one-vehicle international licence to Wimborne-based Christchurch Coaches has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
The refusal was made on the grounds that its sole Director was a ‘front’. The Tribunal said that sole Director Elizabeth Humphrey was married to David Thompson. They were previously directors of David Thompson Tours.
The revocation of that company’s licence and the disqualification of its directors in November 2010 was subsequently overturned on appeal, though the Tribunal ordered an indefinite reduction in the number of vehicles authorised, and imposed a condition that Mr Thompson would not undertake any driving without the introduction of additional management changes to be approved by the Traffic Commissioner.
On 3 February 2012, Mrs Humphrey ceased to act as a director, albeit remaining as a shareholder. On 22 March 2012, a liquidator was appointed and on 14 May 2012, while Mr Thompson remained a director, the company surrendered its licence.
Christchurch Coaches was incorporated on 10 April 2012. Mr Thompson was appointed as one of its directors before resigning on 1 May 2015, and on the same date Mrs Humphrey was appointed as a director. Amanda Jenkins was recorded as having been a director, though not after 2013.
The licence application form, which had been completed by Mrs Humphrey on 12 April 2015, and therefore before Mr Thompson’s resignation as a director, did not name him as a director – although it did name Mrs Jenkins, who was the proposed Transport Manager (TM). Mrs Jenkins indicated to the DTC that she had known nothing of any appointment as a director.
The DTC had said that the issue was whether the applicant company was a device employed by Mr Thompson to obtain a licence as a ‘front’ for continued operation by him.
Emails sent to the CLO after the application was made showed the sender to be Mr Thompson. When that was queried, Mrs Humphrey said she had not noticed that the default sender details were still in Mr Thompson‘s name and maintained that the emails were in fact from her. She found that difficult to believe, particularly given that Mrs Humphrey had been described as a ‘stickler for detail’.
Mrs Humphrey and Mrs Jenkins each accepted they would not be present at the operating centre in office hours each day to oversee the day-to-day activities of Mr Thompson as the driver of the vehicle and as a contact for customers.
Mrs Humphrey was in other full-time employment. Mrs Jenkins was in other part-time employment as a PCV driver. While she had considered whether to accept an undertaking offered that Mr Thompson would not take part in the management, direction or administration of the company, she did not trust the undertaking.
In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that Mrs Humphrey was a highly qualified individual in the field of accounting and that she held a position with ‘significant responsibility’.
In those circumstances, it was reasonable to expect that she would be able to complete an application form with accuracy if she was simply being honest and straightforward. So, for example, one would not have expected her to have omitted the fact that Mr Thompson remained a director of Christchurch Coaches as of 12 April 2015 when she had completed and signed the form.
They agreed with the DTC that it would reasonably be expected that she rather than Mr Thompson, who according to her was not playing any management role, would hold the keys to the site where company vehicles would be parked.
