Greenock-based David Irving Ltd has lost its appeal against the refusal of Traffic Commissioner (TC) Joan Aitken to grant it a new four-vehicle national licence.
The Directors of the company are David Irving and his wife Kathryn. Neither of the Directors have any previous experience in the transport industry. Their son, Jaime Irving, had held a PSV O-licence which he had surrendered, and he was named on the application as the contact to discuss the application.
Mr Irving told the TC that he wanted the licence to operate school contracts. His son had experience and contacts in the industry and he would be relying heavily on him for the operation of the business.
He said he had had some discussions with the proposed Transport Manager, Mr Kearney, but there was no contract in place and no remuneration agreed. He had an agreement with a company that the vehicles could be parked on their premises. Maintenance was to be carried out at other premises by a mechanic, Mr Hardy.
Mr Irving’s long-term plan was to find premises where the vehicles could be both parked and serviced. The current arrangements had been forced onto them and were temporary.
Mr Kearney said that he did not know Mr Hardy, the premises where it was proposed the maintenance would be undertaken, or where the vehicles were to be kept.
Jaime Irving said that he planned to help his father in the new business if the licence was granted and Mr Kearney would help them with all the legalities. The original operating centre named on the application was ideal. However, they discovered just before the hearing that it had been let to other tenants. He therefore found the alternative premises at short notice. No price for the rent of those premises had been agreed.
In relation to financial standing, a bank statement and credit card statements showing available credit in excess of £20,000 were produced, but those statements were in the name of David Irving rather than the company.
The TC found that the finance needed to be in the name of the limited company. She was not satisfied that the company understood what was required to ensure vehicle roadworthiness. She found the arrangement for servicing and maintenance and the availability of premises for those purposes to be imprecise. She was also concerned that the proposed TM was in ignorance of the arrangements.
Dismissing the appeal, the Upper Tribunal said that money in a bank account held in the name of one of the Directors of that company was not “available” to meet the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing because it was not the company’s money. The same applied to credit cards. A licence could not be granted unless the TC was satisfied that the applicant has an effective and stable establishment in Great Britain. On the evidence, the TC was entitled to reach the conclusions that she did.
