Revocation for failure to meet main occupation rule upheld on appeal

Glasgow-based Mohammad Hussain Mansha, trading as Taxi 8, has lost his appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the refusal by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Claire Gilmore to grant his application for a restricted O-Licence because she considered he did not meet the main occupation rule.

The Tribunal said that Mr Mansha currently made his living as a self-employed taxi driver. In his application, he said he proposed to operate under the O-Licence as a sole trader. In response to a question asking for details of his main occupation or business, he simply wrote “25 hours per week”. In a letter dated 21 July 2020, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) requested further information concerning his financial standing, the proposed operating centre and clarification through documentary evidence concerning the nature and his degree of involvement in his main occupation. Mr Mansha provided an e-mail response which included some bank statements, evidence of credit facilities, photographs showing aspects of the proposed operating centre, and a set of accounts covering a one-year period relating to his taxi driving. The accounts showed a net profit of slightly in excess of £8,500 for the 12-month period ending 5 April 2019.

On considered matters without a Public Inquiry, the TC said that she had reviewed with care all the documentation on the application. Mr Mansha openly conceded that up to 40 hours a week would be spent in PSV work with taxi driving being offset accordingly, maximum overall driving between both being 50 hours. It was clear that the main occupation rule was not satisfied. The position was hopeless to the extent that the application must be considered frivolous.

Mr Mansha’s simply stated grounds of appeal asserted that he had responded to the OTC’s request for more information. He had not subsequently provided any further evidence or argument.

Mr Mansha had to show, to secure a restricted O-Licence, that the activity under
it would not amount to his main occupation. He had indicated that he might work up to 40 hours per week in the business he proposed to run under the O-Licence. He offered no explanation as to how it could be thought conceivable that such would not amount to his main occupation. On the material available, the TC could not rationally have reached a different conclusion.