The licence was revoked after the Upper Tribunal found that being a carer was not a main occupation, and the DTC decided that the licence had been issued in error
The one-vehicle restricted licence held by Pauline Hukin, trading as Red Fox Travel, has been revoked by Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Fiona Harrington at a Leeds Public Inquiry (PI).
A previous decision revoking the licence without a PI by TC Kevin Rooney was quashed by the Upper Tribunal, who directed that the matter should be considered at a PI.
The TC revoked the licence held by Mrs Hukin, of Pickering, on main occupation grounds following a review of the licence under the exceptional circumstances provisions in the legislation. However, the Upper Tribunal held that however weak her position was in relation to main occupation, Mrs Hukin had a right to be heard.
When the case came before the DTC, she said that if Mrs Hukin did not meet the main occupation requirement she could not have a restricted licence whether or not she had had the benefit of a licence for 11 years which should not have been granted.
Mrs Hukin said that her main occupation was looking after her disabled husband and daughter. She did not have an income as a carer as she was of pension age and therefore not eligible for a carer’s allowance.
The DTC said that the Upper Tribunal had found that the TC had been correct in ruling that being a carer was not a main occupation. In a previous case they had said that they did not consider that activities such as the pursuit of a hobby, charitable work or other activities which do not generate an income can fall within the definition of ‘occupation’. Neither did they consider that the receipt of investment or other income which does not require the operator to dedicate anything more than a minimal amount of time to it, can be considered to be an ‘occupation’. She was bound by the law and could not go behind the interpretation that a main occupation required an income to qualify.
Mrs Hukin said that she was operating one 16-seater, mainly carrying elderly people and charities on day trips. She agreed she was being paid for that operation.
After Mrs Hukin wished to refer to the history of what she had been told by the Traffic Area Office, saying she was the innocent party in all this, the DTC said that it was not relevant. She had no concerns over compliance and she accepted that Mrs Hukin had not deliberately operated outside the law. The licence had been issued in error.
Directing that the revocation not take effect until the end of next February, the DTC said that would give time for Mrs Hukin to apply for a national licence if she chose to do so, or provide any information about a new occupation generating income by the end of January.
