Square Scaffolding Limited

For a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence, financial standing must be assessed in accordance with applicable mandatory directions. An applicant relying on bank statements must demonstrate the required resources over the prescribed period, subject to the limited accommodation available to a new business.

Where an applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to provide satisfactory evidence but has not done so, the traffic commissioner may determine and refuse the application. Funds obtained after a valid refusal, or delayed receipt of notice of that refusal, do not retrospectively establish compliance at the decision date.

Square Scaffolding Limited applied for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence for two vehicles. The Traffic Commissioner’s staff repeatedly requested evidence that the company had access to the required financial resources. The company supplied statements relating first to another company’s Tide account and later to its own Barclays account, but the latter did not show the required average balance over the relevant period.

The company was offered a licence for one vehicle but did not respond before its application was refused on 29 September 2021. It appealed, relying on later evidence of additional funds and asserting that it had not received the refusal correspondence before sending that evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. At the date of refusal, Square Scaffolding had not demonstrated sufficient financial resources for authority to operate two vehicles. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, section 13(5), refusal was therefore required.

2. The statutory scheme allowed a discretion whether to consider financial standing for a restricted licence. However, the applicable general direction required financial-standing checks and set the required resources at £3,100 for the first vehicle and £1,700 for each additional vehicle. The company was consequently required to show £4,800.

3. The bank-statement evidence did not establish that sum over the required 28-day period. The Barclays account had an insufficient calculated average balance. The uncertainties surrounding the Tide account and the sources and ownership of funds reinforced the conclusion that the company had not shown the necessary resources, although the Tribunal’s conclusion did not depend on information obtained from Companies House.

4. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to decide the application nearly three months after it was made. Square Scaffolding had received repeated requests, extensions and a reasonable opportunity to provide compliant evidence. Its failure to accept the offered one-vehicle licence did not require the decision-maker to defer a decision while it sought further funds.

5. The later transfer of funds on 8 October 2021 could not affect a decision properly made on 29 September 2021. Nor could delayed postal receipt of the decision undo the fact that it had been made and notified through the agreed online communication route. The Tribunal did not determine whether the later evidence would support a fresh application.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed Square Scaffolding Limited’s appeal.

• Traffic Commissioner for the Wales Traffic Area: refused the application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence on 29 September 2021 for failure to demonstrate the financial-resources requirement.