Anham Hussain

A Traffic Commissioner may treat the anticipated proportion of an applicant’s income derived from a proposed PSV operation as a proxy for whether that operation will be the applicant’s main occupation. Where the information supplied shows that PSV income will be the majority of annual income, the Commissioner is entitled to find that the main-occupation condition for a restricted licence is not met.

The Commissioner may rely on the applicant’s stated financial and work projections. The Commissioner need not devise an alternative work arrangement for the applicant or speculate about future income not supported by the application.

The appellant applied for a restricted PSV operator’s licence to operate one vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application after finding that the financial evidence was unacceptable and that the proposed PSV operation would be the appellant’s main occupation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the treatment of screenshots of recent bank statements and the assessment of his anticipated income. He contended that he could maintain or rearrange interpreting and handyman work so that it exceeded his projected PSV income.

The central issue was whether the Commissioner had erred in finding that the proposed PSV operation would be the appellant’s main occupation for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner made no error of law or fact in finding that the proposed PSV business would be the appellant’s main occupation.
2. For a restricted licence, the main-occupation condition operates through the requirement for adequate arrangements to secure compliance with the law governing the operation of the vehicles. An applicant who does not satisfy that condition cannot obtain authority under the restricted licence to use a vehicle adapted to carry between nine and sixteen passengers.
3. The Commissioner was entitled to use the proportion of anticipated income from the proposed PSV operation as a proxy for main occupation. On the figures supplied, PSV income would provide the majority of the appellant’s annual income. The Commissioner could properly reach no other conclusion.
4. The Commissioner was entitled to assess the application on the information provided. He was not required to suggest ways in which the appellant might rearrange his work, or to speculate about income from later qualifying as a driving instructor. Even the appellant’s proposed revised figures left PSV work as his largest income source.
5. It was therefore unnecessary to decide the complaint about screenshots of bank statements. In any event, the Tribunal doubted that this point would have justified allowing the appeal. Even if the screenshots were internet statements under the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance, paragraph 52 reserved the right to require originals.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the restricted PSV operator’s licence application.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England: refused the application, reaffirming the refusal on 26 April 2023 because the financial evidence was unacceptable and the proposed PSV operation would be the applicant’s main occupation.