Neutral Citation Number: [2011] UKUT 355 (AAC)

Appeal No.  T/2011/38

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL		
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF MISS J  AITKEN

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the SCOTTISH 
TRAFFIC AREA 
Dated: 26 May 2011

Before:
Judge Alan Gamble, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Leslie Milliken, Member of the Upper Tribunal
Stuart James, Member of the Upper Tribunal

Appellant:	David Anderson t/a Larbert Contracts

Attendances:	The Appellant attended in person.  He was not 	represented.
For the Appellants:  

Heard at:	George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4HH
Date of hearing:	5 August 2011
Date of decision:	24 August 2011

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

The Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 26 May 2011 is confirmed. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed with immediate effect.

SUBJECT MATTER:-  	Appropriate financial standing

CASES REFERRED TO:- 	 None

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.	This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area dated 26 May 2011 by which she revoked his goods vehicle operator’s licence.  

2.	On 16 June 2011 the Traffic Commissioner refused the request from the Appellant for a stay of her decision.   The Appellant renewed that request to the Upper Tribunal.  On 22 July 2011 Upper Tribunal Judge Gamble refused it. 

3.	The Appellant attended the hearing before us.  He was unrepresented.  

4.	The factual background to this appeal appears from the documents and the oral evidence of the Appellant.  It is as follows:

(i)	The Appellant is a sole trader in landscaping and gardening.  He works at that business in the spring and summer of each year, amounting to about 50 per cent of the year.  For the rest of the year (November – April) he works in paving and mono block, apparently as an employee and often away from home. 

(ii)	He has held a goods vehicle operator’s licence for one truck since January 2010.  

(iii)	That truck is only used in his landscaping and gardening business, i.e. for approximately 50 per cent of each year.  

(iv)	On 21 February 2011 he submitted a bank statement for the period 21 September 2010 - 11 October 2010 to the Traffic Commissioner’s Office and stated that he would submit his next bank statement when it became available in early March 2011.

(v)	That bank statement has never been produced either to the Traffic Commissioner or to this tribunal.  Neither has any subsequent bank statement been produced either to the Traffic Commissioner or to this tribunal.  The Appellant did not lodge any bank statement with this tribunal either before or at the hearing before us.  He made various assertions about the amount in credit in his bank account (as he had already done in correspondence relating to his appeal) with no written corroboration whatever from his bank which he stated to be the Halifax.  

(vi)	On 28 April 2011 the Traffic Commissioner’s Office intimated to the Appellant by letter that the Traffic Commissioner was proposing in view of his non-production of the bank statement referred to in some paragraph (iv) above to revoke his operator’s licence on the ground of a material change in his circumstances i.e. that he may no longer have been of appropriate financial standing.  That letter asked for responses and also gave the Appellant the opportunity to request a Public Inquiry.

(vii)	No responses were made and no request for a Public Inquiry was submitted.  In setting out his grounds of appeal to this tribunal the Appellant states that “he was not available to receive” the letter of 28 April 2011 due to being away working in England at the relevant time.

(viii)	On 26 May 2011 the Traffic Commissioner’s Office intimated by letter to the Appellant that the Traffic Commissioner had revoked his operator’s licence. 

5.	Having regard to the contents of paragraph 4 above, we consider the Traffic Commissioner’s decision under appeal was clearly correct.  Thus we uphold it and dismiss the appeal.  She could not be satisfied, having regard to the lack of material presented to her, that the Appellant remained of appropriate financial standing.  Rather, she rightly considered that there had been a material change in his circumstances and that he may no longer have been of that standing.  This was so especially in the light of the Appellant’s failure to produce his bank statement supposedly available from March 2011 despite his promise to do so and also his failure to produce any subsequent ones.  So far as the probable non-receipt of the letter for the Traffic Commissioner’s Office dated 28 April 2011 is concerned it was clearly the responsibility of the Appellant as the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence to make arrangements for the forwarding of important pieces of correspondence if he was absent for any length of time from his home or business address. 

6.	The Appellant should be aware that a consequence of the dismissal of his appeal is that if he wishes to make use of his truck in his business he requires to reapply for a new goods vehicles operator’s licence.  Without such a licence he cannot use his truck in his business lawfully. 

Judge Alan Gamble
24 August 2011