Neutral Citation Number: [2011] UKUT 221 (AAC)
                                                     					Appeal No: T/2011/15

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL		
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
(TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)

ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF TOM MACARTNEY, 
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the NORTH EASTERNTRAFFIC AREA, 
DATED 30 DECEMBER 2010

Before:
	
Judge Mark Hinchliffe, Deputy Chamber President (HESC); Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Leslie Milliken, Member of the Upper Tribunal.
George Inch, Member of the Upper Tribunal.

Appellant:

SAM’S TRANSPORT & RECOVERY LTD

Attendance:

For the Appellant: 	No attendance and no representation

Appeal heard at: 	Victory House, Kingsway, London WC2B 6EX
Date of hearing: 	25 May 2011
Date of decision: 	7 June 2011

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed

Subject Matter:	

Financial Standing

Cases referred to:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION:

1)	This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Eastern Traffic Area made on 30 December 2010 when he revoked the operator’s standard international operator’s licence authorising two vehicles, under sections 26(1)(b); 26(1)(h) and 27(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

2)	The factual background to this appeal appears from the documents, and the Traffic Commissioner’s decision and is as follows:
(i)	The Appellant is the holder of a standard international operator’s licence authorising two vehicles. A condition was imposed that, by 31/7/2010, the operator would provide 3 months of original bank statements and any other financial information necessary to demonstrate that, over the period 1/4/2010 to 30/6/2010, the operator had the required financial standing (£9,600).
(ii)	On 21/7/2010 the Traffic Area Office noted that, although the operator’s licence did not include any trailer authorisation, the operator was operating an articulated vehicle. The operator was asked for an explanation and was provided with the appropriate form to apply for a change to the authorisation, if reqired. No reply was received.
(iii)	On 11/8/2010 the Traffic Area Office wrote again to the operator concerning the unauthorised use of an articulated vehicle, and also noted that the operator had not provided the required financial information. No reply was received.
(iv)	On 11/8/2010 the Traffic Area Office wrote again to the operator concerning the unauthorised use of an articulated vehicle, and again noted that the operator had not provided the required financial information. The operator was warned that if there was a failure to comply by 22/9/2010, action would be taken against the licence. No reply was received.
(v)	A search of Companies House showed the operator to be a ‘dormant’ company.
(vi)	On 22/10/2010 the Traffic Area Office wrote to the operator stating that the Traffic Commissioner was proposing to revoke the operator’s licence unless a request for a public inquiry was received by 5/11/2010. No reply was received.
(vii)	By letter dated 30/12/2010 the operator was advised that the Traffic Commissioner had revoked the licence. The operator was also advised that the time limit for submitting a Notice of Appeal was 28 days.
(viii)	An undated letter from Mr Youngman was received by the tribunal on 9/2/2011. He says that copies of bank statements were sent in August 2010.  Copies of bank statements covering the period 31/12/2010 to 31/1/2011 were enclosed. A Notice of Appeal from Zoe Laverack, on behalf of the company, was received by the tribunal on 17/2/2011. The grounds are that the operator “did not receive any notification of this” and that “last year we forwarded copies of bank statements and heard nothing”. Ms Laverack added that she then re-sent the financial information by email and that most of the correspondence they have sent has been through G-Mail. 

3)	At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellants failed to attend and were not represented.

4)	The tribunal decided to consider the matter, even though the appeal was lodged out of time. All the correspondence from the Traffic Area Office was sent to the correct address. It is not probable that all the letters from the Traffic Area Office were lost in the post. 

5)	The Traffic Area Office required original bank statements covering a three month period. We are satisfied that that the required financial information was not sent in accordance with the condition attached to the licence, or subsequently. There is no record of any correspondence or information being received by the Traffic Area Office, and there is no persuasive evidence before us that anything was sent. In any event, it is not possible to send original bank statements by email. We cannot consider evidence that post-dates the Traffic Commissioner’s decision. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to raise the question of financial standing and had no option but to conclude that the operator had failed to demonstrate compliance.

6)	The operator did not respond appropriately to the concerns raised regarding unauthorised use of an articulated vehicle and trailer.

7)	In all the circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision, and the appeal is dismissed.

Judge Mark Hinchliffe, DCP
7 June 2011