Jay’s Vehicle Movers Ltd

The calculation of an operator’s financial standing must produce a fair and accurate result. A generally transparent and workable formula may nevertheless be unsuitable in an individual case if it produces an inaccurate or unfair outcome. The decision-maker must consider the circumstances of the particular case, rather than applying the formula mechanically.

An applicant cannot choose the commencement date for the calculation simply because that is when its balance first exceeded the required amount. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal determines fact and law from the material before the Traffic Commissioner and may remit the matter where relevant issues require fresh consideration.

Jay’s Vehicle Movers Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of its application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence. The application concerned one vehicle and one trailer and required evidence of available finance of £8,000 under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, section 13 A(2)(c).

The Traffic Commissioner relied on a calculation producing an average available balance of £7,057 over a consecutive 28-day period. The appellant challenged the calculation and relied on a different period beginning when a substantial payment had been made into its account. The central issues were the appropriate approach to the 28-day calculation, the fairness and accuracy of the method used, and whether the evidence demonstrated genuine financial availability.

1. Appeal allowed and remitted. The refusal decision was treated as having been based on the reason stated in the decision letter: failure to demonstrate an available balance of £8,000 for the relevant 28-day period. The case was remitted to the Traffic Commissioner for reconsideration.
2. Under section 37 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Upper Tribunal determines questions of fact and law on the material before the Traffic Commissioner. It does not rehear all the evidence or take account of circumstances arising after the original determination. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, it may make such order as it thinks fit, including remitting the matter for rehearing and redetermination.
3. The formula in Annex 5 to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 2: Finance, involving the latest closing balance, the balance 27 days earlier and the two best intervening closing balances, was generally straightforward, transparent and workable. It was not, however, necessarily fair and accurate in every case.
4. The appellate tribunal must therefore consider whether the method used produced a fair and accurate result in the circumstances. Here, calculating the closing credit balance for each day of the relevant period and averaging the 28 daily figures produced £8,167, including the available overdraft. The formula used by the Traffic Commissioner had therefore produced an inaccurate and unfair result in this case.
5. The appellant could not select the starting date merely because that was the first date on which its balance exceeded £8,000. Nevertheless, further scrutiny was required concerning the genuine availability of the £9,000 paid into the account by the appellant’s parents and, if appropriate, the failure to provide evidence before expiry of the interim licence. Those matters were remitted for fresh consideration.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision and remitted the case for reconsideration.
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: refused the application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence by letter dated 1 February 2022.