The one-vehicle restricted licence held by Manchester-based Barbara Henning has been revoked and an application for a six-vehicle international licence by Bolton-based Patrick Kenyon refused after he was found operating under Ms Henning’s licence.
Ms Henning and Mr Kenyon, trading as New Future Travel, had been called before Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans [routeone/Court Report/28 November].
In his decision the TC said that Mr Kenyon had made an earlier application for a restricted licence in August 2014. That application was refused because the requirement relating to main occupation, financial standing and arrangements adequately to secure compliance with the law were not met.
At the time of consideration of Ms Henning’s application for her licence there had been concerns that her application might be a “front” for Mr Kenyon, in light of the recent refusal of his application.
Ms Henning provided some assurances, including that Mr Kenyon would have no role in her business, other than as an “occasional driver” and she would have no role in his business. Her licence was then granted.
It was openly accepted by, and on behalf of, Mr Kenyon that from when Ms Henning’s licence was first used in January 2017, with her vehicle deployed on a subcontracted school contract that the operation was run exclusively through Mr Kenyon’s bank account.
It was said that it was “a fundamental mistake” and that to all intents and purposes it looked like he was operating the licence. He admitted he took up the profits from the venture, bore the risks and, although no accountant-prepared accounts were ever created, his self-employment was reflected in his tax return, not Ms Henning’s. He argued that as he was in a relationship with Ms Henning, that it was only natural that funds were merged.
Very substantially the concerns about fronting that had surrounded Ms Henning’s licence application were fully realised in this case. Her application was thought to be a front for Mr Kenyon, and so it turned out. He had thought that he was licensing Ms Henning, but he was not.
Mr Kenyon had, since January 2017, operated Ms Henning’s licence as though it were his own.
Although he had come to appreciate that what he was doing was wrong, no attempt had been made to cease that activity.
Since Mr Kenyon had been Ms Henning’s domestic partner of a number of years, he must have known that what he was doing was wrong. The reality was that at that time he did not qualify for a restricted operator’s licence himself.
It followed that other than by making application then for a standard international licence and employing a transport manager, the device of “using” Ms Henning’s licence was the means by which his business plan could be achieved.
The TC concluded that Mr Kenyon currently did not have the required repute to hold a licence. Those who operated legitimately would be rightly dismayed if he were to find otherwise.
