Licence bid turned down after operator repeatedly postponed date of new PI
Rugeley-based Steven Lynch was ordered to pay £125 costs after his application for a new five-vehicle International O-Licence was turned down by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Nick Denton, who had declined Mr Lynch’s bid to withdraw his application and submit a fresh application sometime in the future.
Mr Lynch, trading as Travel Lynch had been called before the TC at a Birmingham Public Inquiry (PI) but failed to attend.
Refusing the application on grounds of finance and repute, the TC said that Mr Lynch did not declare his previous operator licensing history on the application form. He noted that he appeared to have offered the surrender of a licence held by Halesowen Town Football Club 1873 more than three months after that company was dissolved. He also noted that Mr Lynch had lost his good repute on two previous occasions, although subsequently his repute was restored. No recent evidence of financial standing has been provided.
The inquiry was originally scheduled to take place in Birmingham on 15 August. However, after Mr Lynch had informed the OTC that he would be abroad for the whole of July the inquiry date was postponed at his request. His clerk emailed Mr Lynch on 4 October reminding him of the need to submit evidence of finances in advance. Mr Lynch replied the day before the inquiry was due to take place that he was away working for the next few months so he would “have to cancel the application and re- apply in the New Year.”
Given that the inquiry was postponed from 15 August at the explicit request of Mr Lynch; given that he had known of the new date since 19 August; and given that he had only informed him on the day before the PI that he would not be attending, he was not prepared to allow the withdrawal of the application.
Ordering Mr Lynch to pay the maximum contribution allowed, £125, towards the costs incurred by the OTC in rearranging the inquiry and publishing the new date, the TC said that TC’s had the power to make costs order in respect of a party who was found to have been frivolous, vexatious, improper or unreasonable in their conduct at an inquiry. He found that Mr Lynch’s conduct, in requesting the postponement of the original inquiry, in failing to respond to the reminders of the new date which were issued on 19 August, 2 September and 4 October until the very day before the rearranged inquiry was due to take place, had indeed been frivolous and unreasonable.
Under the regulations he was bound to give Mr Lynch an opportunity to make representations against the order and he was giving him 10 days in which to do so.
