A bid for a two-vehicle restricted licence by Gillian Geddes, sole Director of Glasgow-based Happy Days Out of School Care, has been refused by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Joan Aitken because of operation without a licence over a number of years and entity problems.
Mrs Geddes was called before the TC after DVSA became concerned that Happy Days Out of School Care was operating vehicles to transport children to and from day care without having a PSV O-Licence and by drivers who did not hold the Driver CPC.
The transport was part of the service for day care facilities at Uddingston Baptist Church and at Westwood Parish Church in East Kilbride.
Mrs Geddes said that she ran the Uddingston business as a sole trader, trading as Happy Days Out of School Care and the East Kilbride business as the limited company.
The fees for the children were paid to the trading name bank account but the limited company paid the staff wages. She felt she had been victimised and was upset.
While she was aware that she was operating without a PSV O-Licence, she felt it was a grey area as there was no direct charging. She agreed that she took a chance as she perceived lots of other people were getting away with it.
The TC said that the transport was clearly for hire or reward – it was not a grey area. It was long settled in law that carriage for hire or reward involved carrying passengers not necessarily on a contractual basis, but beyond social kindness and amounting to a business activity. One of the leading cases concerned a hotel which operated courtesy coaches for anyone at the hotel paying for a room or a meal: The hire or reward flowed from the payment for the room or meal or other facility.
The TC was singularly unimpressed by Mrs Geddes seeing herself as some sort of victim.
The Traffic Examiners were acting properly and proportionately in stopping her vehicles and examining her operation. They found unlawful operation and a vehicle out of test, which therefore had not been assessed for its roadworthiness.
Given her business was engaged in the transporting of children as part of its service to parents, it was for the good of the public and in interests of public safety that the DVSA examiners did select her vehicles and operation that day.
Parents of children did not expect their children to be transported in a vehicle that had not had an MoT test and they expected proper licensing of businesses and drivers. This was another example of a business, which to the customer would appear friendly and competent, that had been lacking in meeting road safety requirements.
She was also of the view that the wrong entity had applied, as the staff of both businesses were employed by the limited company. Consequently, the application needed to come from the limited company.
