A second bid for a restricted O-Licence by Michael McGarry has been turned down by TC Kevin Rooney following a Public Inquiry
A second bid for a new PSV O-Licence by Andover-based Michael McGarry has been turned down by TC Kevin Rooney following a Bristol Public Inquiry (PI).
In refusing Mr McGarry’s application for a two-vehicle restricted O-Licence, the TC said that the application followed one for a national licence submitted in July 2022. Of concern in that application was the lack of any evidence of financial standing, that Mr McGarry as nominated Transport Manager had not supplied any evidence of his qualification and that the nominated operating centre was not obviously suitable for two PSVs. That application was refused after Mr McGarry simply did not respond to requests for information. The application was considered frivolous, and no PI was offered.
The present application was submitted in November 2022. The initial evidence of financial standing took the form of a joint account and covered only 29-30 August. The application generated concerns over the lack of 28 days’ financial evidence, and the lack of a statutory declaration to allow the partnership account to be used; whether vehicles had been purchased and, if not, how financial standing would be maintained following their procurement; whether the statement that small vehicles, with fewer than nine passenger seats, were desired to be operated under the licence was correct and, if so, how the legal requirements applying to those would be met.
There was no evidence of a main occupation, and the suitability of the operating centre was in question – in particular, exclusive use of the parking bays.
In response, Mr McGarry stated that the bank account was for his personal use, and he declined to share his personal transactions for a month. Premium Bonds were supplied instead. He said that vehicles might be financed from the Premium Bonds or third-party finance. He clarified that he intended to use vehicles with between nine and 16 passenger seats. Primary occupation referred to a taxi business and a martial arts club. Evidence of income from the main occupation was said to be difficult to provide; but it was not stated why.
Another letter was sent seeking further clarification and supporting evidence. It stated that Premium Bonds would be highly unlikely to be accepted as financial standing. Further evidence was provided. However, the statutory declaration to allow the partnership account to be used was mis-completed; Mr McGarry himself asserted that the other partner to the account would make the money available which was clearly not what was intended. A self-assessment tax return was supplied.
The TC proposed to refuse the application and offered a PI which Mr McGarry requested but did not attend.
On Mr McGarry’s own projections, income from the minibuses would exceed other income by £10,000. It would appear that the minibuses would be the primary occupation.
On that basis, Mr McGarry was not entitled to the relevant exemption and was not entitled to a restricted PSV O-Licence. Mr McGarry uploaded a further credit card statement in February. However, there were no fresh bank statements. The TC could not make a finding that financial standing was satisfied but he suspected it probably could have been. It was a shame that no fresh evidence was supplied as directed by the call-up letter. The onus was on Mr McGarry to establish his good repute. Had Mr McGarry attended the PI, he might well have done so.
However, the TC had grave concerns over the apparently conflicting statements made in support of primary occupation status and the self-assessment tax return. One was left questioning whether work was done for cash, off the books, to minimise tax. There was probably a perfectly innocent explanation, but Mr McGarry had not attended to provide it. Consequently, the TC found that good repute failed to be established.
In regard to an operating centre, what was needed was a location where the vehicles could be sure to be able to park at any time when not in use. Mr McGarry’s responses in relation to that were rather dismissive.
