Morgan J Ltd

Traffic Commissioners may require applicants for operator’s licences to provide financial evidence in a specified form and covering a specified period where this is reasonably connected with assessing financial resources. A Traffic Commissioner must act under the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s general directions. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal must respect that statutory framework and cannot treat a determination conforming to those directions as legally erroneous unless the directions themselves are unlawful. A requirement for original financial statements covering at least 28 days was rational and lawful.

The Traffic Commissioner for Wales refused Morgan J Ltd’s application for a restricted operator’s licence. The Commissioner was not satisfied that the company had sufficient financial resources for maintaining its vehicle in a fit and serviceable condition. The company had supplied an unacceptable bank-account screenshot and a bank statement covering only nine days.

The company appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing principally that it was unfair to require financial information covering 28 days, or possibly three months, because its bank account was newly opened. The central issues were the legal effect of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s directions and whether the evidential requirement was unlawful or irrational.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision involved no error of fact or law.
2. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, section 8(6), information supplied in support of an operator’s licence application must be given in such form as the Traffic Commissioner may require. The Commissioner was therefore entitled to reject the initial screenshot because it was not in an acceptable form.
3. The Commissioner had refused the application because the evidence was inadequate in substance as well as form. The bank statement supplied covered only nine days and did not establish the required financial position over the relevant period.
4. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 – Finance directed that original statements be supplied for the past 28 days. The Traffic Commissioner was required by section 1(2) of the 1995 Act to act under the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s general directions. Although the Upper Tribunal was not itself required to act under those directions, it had to respect the statutory status Parliament had given them.
5. Where a Traffic Commissioner determines an issue in conformity with a general direction, the Upper Tribunal cannot find an error of law merely because it would prefer a different approach, unless the direction itself is unlawful. The 28-day requirement embodied a judgment that some demonstrated financial stability was generally necessary to establish that the regulatory objective of maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition would be secured.
6. The requirement was not irrational in the legal sense. Applying the principle in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, the direction was rationally connected with the need to assess financial stability. The appeal was accordingly refused under section 37(1) of the 1995 Act.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the restricted operator’s licence.
• Traffic Commissioner for Wales: on 29 March 2023, refused the application under ref. OG2063295.