The company had its O-Licence revoked over financial concerns
The three-vehicle O-Licence held by Tamworth–based Lichfield City Coaches has been revoked with immediate effect on financial grounds by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Nick Denton.
The company had been called before the TC at a Birmingham Public Inquiry (PI).
In his decision the TC said that during the course of consideration of a variation application submitted by the company in August 2019, it was established by the Central Licensing Office in Leeds that the company lacked the necessary financial standing to support its three–vehicle O-Licence.
Neither were sufficient funds available to support the two vehicles which the company offered to accept a reduction in its licence authority to.
During the correspondence, in an email dated 14 October 2019, the Leeds caseworker made it clear that finances needed to be shown in the name of the company, namely Lichfield City Coaches Ltd.
Satisfactory finances not having been shown, the variation application was refused and the company was written to on 19 November 2019 to the effect that, because of the lack of finances, it was proposed to revoke its O-Licence by 3 December unless a PI was requested.
By email on 2 December 2019, the company did request a PI. From the fresh evidence of finances presented, he saw that the company had only had anything approaching the required level of £16,900 eight days before the date of the PI.
Financial standing was a continuing requirement, not just to be demonstrated on the day of a PI.
He considered that the company should have put the required finances in place at the very latest by early December 2019, when it requested a PI.
Instead it waited a further two and a half months before taking action. The company claimed that it did not realise that the personal finances of its Director, Julie Rymer, could not be counted in relation to the company’s financial standing.
However, it was made quite explicit in the email from Leeds of 14 October that they could not.
Financial standing had not been shown, despite the company having an almost eight-month period in which to do so.
Mr Denton therefore concluded that the O-Licence must be revoked. He was not making a disqualification order, so the company was at liberty to reapply for an O-Licence once its finances were in a better and more stable condition.
