The decision of Traffic Commissioner (TC) Tim Blackmore to refuse an application for a restricted licence by Kuldip Chahal because he was not satisfied that he met the main occupation rule, without holding a Public Inquiry (PI), has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
The Tribunal said that Newcastle-upon-Tyne based Mr Chahal, trading as Toon Party Bus, had applied together with Melissa Armstrong. They stated that they were in partnership and the nature of their business was stag and hen parties.
In answer to the request for details of their main occupation, Ms Armstrong said that she was self-employed at Weekenders Wristbands, promoting nightlife in Newcastle city centre, and worked 20 hours a week.
Mr Chahal said he was the landlord of commercial and residential properties and on average worked 30 hours a week but was on call as he owned property and a hotel.
Both of them anticipated working a further 10-20 hours a week if the licence was granted.
The question was asked whether the licence holder would be Ms Armstrong or Mr Chahal. Mr Chahal stated that he would prefer the application to be solely in his name.
After Mr Chahal submitted various information, the OTC case worker concluded that Mr Chahal had failed to demonstrate how he met the main occupation condition and recommended that the application be refused without a PI. The TC agreed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that there was a lack of information directed to the position of Mr Chahal of a kind that would enable the TC to consider the time intended to be spent on, and the income to be derived by Mr Chahal from, the proposed operation as against the time spent by him on and the income derived by him from other activities.
In respect of Toon Party Bus, there was a cash flow forecast which showed a net annual profit of about £20,000, but with no indication whether Ms Armstrong remained an active partner in the business and would receive some part, and if so, how much, of the net profit.
The forecast was also of little help in showing the number of hours intended to be worked.
Mr Chahal was asked three times to provide evidence such as his tax returns. He did not do so. What he produced was evidence of partnership income with no indication of his individual income.
Finally, the Tribunal said that though not affecting its decision, it was concerned that the potential difficulties arising from the absence of a written document setting out the TC’s reasoning were illustrated by this case.
The decision letter stated that in addition to the failure to satisfy the main occupation condition, that the TC could not be satisfied that Mr Chahal met the requirements for arrangements for the driving and operation of vehicles.
It was not possible to discern why that has been added. That issue was not raised with Mr Chahal and did not seem to have been of concern to the TC at any point.
