Solicitor Kamran Yousaf only succeeded in part in his bid for a new two-vehicle restricted licence before Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans, in that the TC was only prepared to authorise one vehicle with undertakings that his father would play no part and that he would not seek any school contracts.
The TC said that the concerns were whether Mr Yousaf, trading as Four Bros Travel, met the main occupation test and whether he had misled the Central Licensing Office over the financial standing requirement. An individual had to show that the money was in his own account. Evidence now produced showed that there was more than enough finance.
After Mr Yousaf said that all joint earnings were paid into his wife’s savings account and then transferred to their individual current accounts when required, the TC said that the money could be held in the wife’s account as long as there was a statutory declaration showing the wife was happy for it to be used. At the time the wife did not have the money either. Money was then paid into the wife’s account by a third party and then transferred into Mr Yusaf’s account.
In reply to the TC, Mr Yousaf said that it was money that had been loaned to a friend which was repaid. He worked for a firm of solicitors Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday 0900-1700hrs. He had supplied payslips for September and October 2018 and circumstances had not significantly changed since.
The TC said that in a letter from the firm of solicitors confirming Mr Yousaf’s employment from September 2018 the earnings quoted were substantially higher – the payslips showed less than half that.
Mr Yousaf said that he had decided to work less hours. He did not think he would earn a lot from the PSV work doing airport runs at the weekend and it was difficult to foresee what the earnings would be. He did not earn a lot from his main occupation and this was to supplement that.
Questioned by the TC, Mr Yousaf said his father had withdrawn an application for a licence because as a pensioner he could not meet the main occupation rule.
His sister-in-law had a restricted licence doing similar work. He was unaware that a brother had lost his O-Licence as he had lost contact with him some time ago. His application was entirely separate from the rest of the family, they had nothing to do with his proposed operation and there was no hidden agenda. He was the fourth brother and the trading name was an unfortunate coincidence.
In his decision, the TC said that he accepted assurances that Mr Yousaf was not a front for his father and that his brothers would be playing no part in the operation. The trading name was an unfortunate choice. The preparation of the application had been lacking in detail to the extent that he could not grant a licence for more than one vehicle.
