The decision of Traffic Commissioner (TC) Nick Denton to refuse an application for a one-vehicle restricted licence by Cradley Heath-based Wajid Bashir, trading as MB Travel, has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
The Tribunal said that Mr Bashir was employed as an office clerk. His intention was to continue that employment and to operate a business using one vehicle to transport children to and from school. He did not think he would be engaged for more than 18 hours each week in the proposed business.
The Office of the Traffic Commissioner wrote on two occasions to Mr Bashir requesting further information. It was clear from the nature of those requests that it had two primary concerns about the application.
Mr Bashir was proposing to keep his vehicle on the driveway at the front of his house. It was doubted whether he would be able to safely enter and exit that driveway bearing in mind its proximity to a T-junction. It was also doubted whether his employment as a clerk would remain his main occupation – either in terms of hours worked or income generated.
In response he submitted a number of photographs which he argued was sufficient to illustrate that there would be no safety or other concerns in regard to keeping his vehicle on his driveway. He provided some payslips and a form P60 concerning his employment as a clerk and indicated that he was paid the statutory minimum wage.
The application received consideration by two different members of the TC’s support staff and both considered it appropriate to refuse the application and made such a recommendation to the TC. They both agreed that it had not been shown that the main occupation test had been met. The TC concluded that the application should be refused without the offer of a Public Inquiry (PI).
Mr Bashir had not sought to argue that the TC was wrong to refuse to hold a PI. There was nothing to suggest that he had ever asked for one.
Mr Bashir was, presumably, intending to transport children to and from school, pursuant to school contracts, five days a week. There would be a need for the children to be taken to school at the start of the school day and then taken home at the end of the school day. There was no explanation before the TC as to how that might fit around the hours of work in what was said to constitute his main occupation.
His earnings in that occupation were limited and it was entirely plausible that a person with contracts for taking children to and from school on a regular basis would generate profits after appropriate deductions which would exceed, perhaps significant, the sort of earnings he was receiving as an employee.
Having concluded that the decision of the TC was sound with respect to the main occupation test it was not necessary to give any consideration to the safety issue.
