Agri-Tel (Devon) Limited (Keith Lerwill)

For a restricted goods-vehicle operator’s licence, the statutory financial-standing requirement for standard licences does not itself apply. A Traffic Commissioner may, however, exercise the discretion under section 13D to assess whether insufficient financial resources would prejudice proper vehicle maintenance.

Where that discretion is exercised, the applicant must provide adequate evidence of resources available to the applicant company. A director’s personal bank funds are not available resources of a limited company. The Commissioner should make clear that the discretion has been exercised and explain why, but an imperfect explanation will not invalidate a decision where the material shows that the discretion was consciously exercised and the decision was neither legally erroneous nor plainly wrong.

The appellant company appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of its application for a restricted goods-vehicle operator’s licence. The Commissioner required evidence that the company had at least £3,100 available over specified periods. The company produced bank statements which either did not cover the requested period, showed insufficient funds, or were in its director’s personal name. Its November statement showed that £3,000 had been withdrawn before the end of the month.

The appeal raised whether the financial evidence met the applicable requirements for a restricted licence, and whether the Commissioner had properly exercised the discretion under section 13D of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal determines fact and law from the material before the Traffic Commissioner, without hearing witnesses. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the reasoning or application of law requires a different conclusion. That burden was not met.

2. The financial-standing requirement applicable to a standard licence under section 13A differs from the section 13D requirement relevant to a restricted licence. Section 13D applies only if the Traffic Commissioner decides, in the exercise of discretion, to consider whether inadequate resources would prejudice maintenance of vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.

3. The decision letter should have made the exercise of that discretion, and the reasons for it, clearer. Nevertheless, its reference to section 13D and the subsequent explanation showed that the Commissioner had consciously exercised the discretion. It was open to the Commissioner to require evidence of resources at a level equivalent to the standard-licence financial-standing figure over a reasonable period.

4. Money in a director’s personal account was not available to the applicant limited company. The first bank statement therefore could not establish the company’s resources. The second did not show the required sum for the requested 28-day period. The November statement did not establish continuous available funds because the withdrawal reduced the balance to £126 before the end of the month.

5. The Commissioner’s decision was neither erroneous in law nor plainly wrong. A fresh application supported by better financial evidence was not precluded.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the restricted operator’s licence application.
• Traffic Commissioner for the West of England Traffic Area: on 12 December 2021 refused the application after finding that the company had not demonstrated sufficient financial resources for section 13D of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.