The revocation of the licence held by Exeter-based Hamilton Grays (Devon) on financial grounds has been delayed until the end of October, giving the operator an opportunity to seek a fresh licence.
The firm, with an 11-vehicle international licence, had been called before Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney at a Bristol Public Inquiry after the expiry of a grace period in which to show it had sufficient financial resources.
In his decision the TC said that, put simply, the company had had nothing near the financial standing required until two injections of capita made on 28 May, two days before the period of grace expired. It had long been established that TCs should consider funds over three months. In doing that, the financial standing requirement was very far from being met, even including the two capital deposits.
It was argued for the firm that the purpose of the period of grace was for the operator to establish financial standing by its expiry. In effect, he was asked to consider a closing balance approach as he might do with a newly-established applicant company.
Without accepting that that approach was correct, he had considered whether the company would satisfy the statutory test under that interpretation. The issue was whether the funds were available. A clear indication of that was whether they were used when necessary.
Since the funds were injected on 28 May, there had been five reversed payments, “bounced cheques in old language”. He was told that it was due to the timing of fund requests, which were apparently sensitive even to the time of day.
The purpose of financial standing was to ensure the proper administration of the business including the payment of bills as they fell due. That had not been achieved even since 28 May. He therefore considered that the funds were not genuinely available as and when they were needed. It was entirely unacceptable for licence holders to have payments reversed due to the unavailability of funds. It was all the more unacceptable when the supplier was a driver, relying on his wage to pay his bills.
He was not aware of any safety-related concerns. He could therefore allow time for the company to effectively re-group and make a new application.
The new application was to be referred to a TC. If finances were satisfied, it need not require a hearing. If a hearing was required, it was not his intention to halt operations until the application was determined.
Provided the company applied in good time, an extension to the revocation date would be allowed so that a hearing could be convened. There was a balance between applying early and being able to show that financial standing had been properly demonstrated. He suggested that any fresh application be submitted electronically around the second week in September.
Finally, the TC said that he made no other adverse findings in relation to the company or its Transport Manager.
