The Upper Tribunal has upheld a ban imposed by TC Sarah Bell, which sought to ensure ‘clear blue water’ between the Hazells and the past
The imposition of a condition banning Tony Hazell from having any involvement in the operation of a licence granted to his son Michael Hazell by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Sarah Bell has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
In also upholding a condition requiring the production of financial evidence, the Tribunal varied it by inserting the words “and credit card” after the word “bank”.
Tony and Michael Hazell had been Directors of Okehampton-based Carmel Coaches. Their 40-vehicle licence was revoked in May 2014, along with the licence held by Michael Hazell, trading as Hirethisbus, and the Hazells’ disqualified from holding or obtaining a PSV O-Licence for 18 months [routeone/Court Report/11 & 18 June 2014].
That decision was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal on appeal [routeone/Court Report/12 November 2014].
On 14 August 2015 Michael Hazell, of Exminster, Exeter, applied for a one-vehicle international licence. He would also be the transport manager (TM), and indicated that the majority source of financing would be met through a credit card but that the primary source would be his bank account.
During the Public Inquiry he indicated he would like his father to do some driving for him and the Commissioner indicated concern about him confusing different entities.
The Commissioner granted the licence requested subject to two conditions. Firstly, that Tony Hazell shall take no part in the business whatsoever. Secondly, that the Operator shall lodge August, September and October 2016 original bank statements by no later than 17 November 2016 at the Office of the Traffic Commissioners demonstrating financial standing is met. Michael Hazell appealed against the imposition of both of the conditions.
The Tribunal said that the TC had said that Carmel Coaches, of which Tony and Michael both remained directors, was the owner of the proposed operating centre.
An employee of Carmel Coaches was going to deal with the maintenance of the vehicle, and some of the investment funding was coming from Carmel Coaches. The TC had imposed the condition to ensure “clear blue water” between Michael Hazell and the past.
Michael Hazell’s principal argument was that by accepting the maintenance arrangements, the Commissioner had already sanctioned a breach of the condition in regard to his father, and the line between what was acceptable and what was not was blurred.
Tony Hazell could engage in a non-management role and could discharge and fulfill the role of TM by delegation without being the nominated TM.
In the Tribunal’s view, Tony Hazell acting as some kind of delegated TM would have no legal standing and, in relation to the current application, would clearly contravene the condition imposed.
However, it was not illogical for Tony Hazell to act as an external maintenance contractor because that was an arm’s length relationship and did not amount to taking part in the business. The condition imposed by the TC was designed to help secure the regulatory independence of the different entities within a complex series of relationships.
Finally, they said that if credit card funding was available, whilst not ideal, they saw no reason why that could not be taken into account.
