Upper Tribunal Rejects Appeal Due to Lack of Financial Evidence
📌 In brief
The Upper Tribunal rejected an appeal because the company did not provide the necessary financial evidence in its own name, as required by the Traffic Commissioner.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant must provide financial evidence in the name of the limited company to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner's requirements.
📖 Technical summary
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to lack of financial evidence in the company's name.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal brought by a company from a decision of the Traffic Commissioner refusing to grant an application for a restricted goods vehicle operators license due to insufficient financial evidence in the company's name.
📚 Full judgment Official document
1
NCN: [2021] UKUT 113 (AAC) IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. T/2021/13 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER (TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)
ON APPEAL from the DECISION of the TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Before: M Hemingway: Judge of the Upper Tribunal
[COMPANY]: [COMPANY]: [ID]
Considered on the papers: 11 May 2021
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
This appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
SUBJECT MATTER
Finance.
[COMPANY] & [NAME] v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been brought by [COMPANY] (“the [COMPANY]”), from a decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England (“the [NAME]”) embodied in a letter of 27 January 2021 refusing to grant its application for a restricted goods vehicle operators licence.
2. The applicant, through one of its officers [NAME], asked for the appeal to be decided on the papers by a Judge sitting alone. I have concluded it is in the interests of justice for me to do so. The appeal does not raise any technical issues such as to require the
[2021] UKUT 113 (AAC) 2 T/2020/13 input of Specialist Members and it is not apparent that the holding of a hearing would take matters any further.
3. The licence application was made on 20 November 2020. On 25 November 2020 the [NAME] (“[NAME]”) wrote to the [COMPANY] requesting further information and evidence concerning a range of matters. As to the [COMPANY]’s financial circumstances, it was asked to provide evidence that it had available to it the sum of £3,100 over a 28 day period the last date of which was not more than 2 months from the date of receipt of the application. Bank statements were requested “in the applicant’s name”. The applicant provided, by electronic means, a [COMPANY] statement which did not cover a 28 day period and did not specify the account holder.
4. On 22 December 2020 the [NAME] again wrote to the [COMPANY] concerning finance. The point was made that the bank statement previously sent did not name the account holder and it was said “The finances should be in the name of the limited company”. The [COMPANY] responded by providing a bank statement in the name of [NAME]. On 27 January 2021 the [NAME] wrote to the [COMPANY] informing it that its application had been refused with reference to section 13 and section 13D of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”). The [COMPANY], through [NAME], appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
5. In the written grounds of appeal it was asserted that the [COMPANY] had provided to the [NAME], by electronic means, “a full bank statement”. There is attached to the grounds a copy of that bank statement. It shows a credit balance for the period from 25 November 2020 to 24 December 2020 in excess of the sum sought by the [NAME] but it is in the name of [NAME].
6. Paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 provides:
“The Upper Tribunal are to have full jurisdiction to hear and determine on all matters (whether of law or of fact) for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions under an enactment relating to transport”.
7. Paragraph 17(3) of that Schedule provides that the Upper Tribunal may not take into consideration any circumstances which did not exist at the time of the determination which is the subject of the appeal. The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction was examined by the Court of Appeal in [COMPANY] & [NAME] v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. It was stated that the Upper Tribunal has the duty, on an appeal to it, to determine matters of fact and law on the basis of the material before the [NAME] but without the benefit of seeing and hearing from witnesses. It was further stated that the burden lies on an [COMPANY] to show, in order to succeed on appeal, that the process of reasoning and the application of the relevant law requires the Upper Tribunal to adopt different view to that taken by a [NAME].
8. Section 13D of the 1995 Act contains a requirement that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles operated under a licence in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason of the applicant having insufficient financial resources for that purpose. That is why the [NAME] sought evidence of finance in the name of the [COMPANY]. Section 13 of the 1995 Act makes clear that, where a [NAME] sees fit to apply the requirement contained within section 13D (which clearly the [NAME] did in this case) an application for a licence must be refused if the requirement is not met. The need for financial evidence in the form of bank statements and the like, where the applicant
[2021] UKUT 113 (AAC) 3 T/2020/13 for a licence is a limited company, to be in the name of that company was recently restated in Transform Driveways [2020] UKUT 372 (AAC).
9. On the material before me, no evidence of finance had been provided in the name of the [COMPANY]. That being so, it was not possible for the [NAME] to be satisfied as to the requirement contained in section 13D of the 1995 Act. The [NAME] was, therefore, bound to refuse the application. That being so, and to state the obvious, it could not be viably argued that the [NAME]’s decision was plainly wrong.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
M R Hemingway Judge of the Upper Tribunal Dated: 11 May 2021
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Upper Tribunal must determine facts and law based on the material before the Traffic Commissioner.
- The applicant needed to show that the Traffic Commissioner's reasoning required a different view from the Upper Tribunal.
- The Traffic Commissioner sought evidence of finance in the company's name to ensure sufficient financial resources for vehicle maintenance.
- The bank statement provided by the applicant did not cover a 28-day period and did not specify the account holder.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that the Traffic Commissioner's decision was plainly wrong could not be viably made.
- The applicant failed to provide financial evidence in the name of the limited company.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the company did not provide the required financial evidence in its own name.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the company provided sufficient financial evidence in its own name to meet the Traffic Commissioner's requirements.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the appeal because the company failed to provide the necessary financial evidence in its own name, as required by the Traffic Commissioner.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 sections 13 and 13D were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the company did not provide financial evidence in its own name, as required by the Traffic Commissioner.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it is crucial to ensure that all financial evidence provided meets the specific requirements set by the Traffic Commissioner.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the bank statements provided by the company, which did not contain the required financial evidence in the company's name.