Neutral Citation Number: [2011] UKUT 220 (AAC)
                                                   					Appeal No: T/2011/14

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL		
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
(TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)

ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF TOM MACARTNEY, 
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the NORTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA, 
DATED 21 JANUARY 2011

Before:
	
Judge Mark Hinchliffe, Deputy Chamber President (HESC); Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Leslie Milliken, Member of the Upper Tribunal.
George Inch, Member of the Upper Tribunal.

Appellant:

WILLIAM WILLMOTT t/a WILLMOTTS

Attendance:

For the Appellant: 	No attendance or representation

Appeal heard at: 	Victory House, Kingsway, London WC2B 6EX
Date of hearing: 	25 May 2011
Date of decision: 	7 June 2011

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed

Subject Matter:	

Financial Resources – Restricted Licence

Cases referred to:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION:

1)	This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Eastern Traffic Area made on 21 January 2011 when he refused to increase the operator’s authorisation under a restricted operator’s licence from 1 vehicle to 4 vehicles.

2)	The factual background to this appeal appears from the documents and the Traffic Commissioner’s decision and is as follows:
(i)	The Appellant is the holder of a restricted operator’s licence authorising 1 vehicle.
(ii)	On 19/11/2010 the Traffic Area Office received (over the counter) an application to increase authorisation to 4 vehicles. An internet bank statement was attached to the application, covering the period 27/10/2010 to 4/11/2010. The operator was advised that this was not satisfactory, and original statements covering a three month period would be required.
(iii)	By letter dated 3/12/2010, the Traffic Area Office again asked the operator to provide financial evidence to demonstrate that he had access to sufficient resources to support the application. The requirement in relation to a restricted licence authorising 4 vehicles is £8,200, and the operator was asked to submit original bank statements covering the period 1/8/2010 to 1/11/2010. No reply was received.
(iv)	On 21/12/2010 a reminder was sent, requiring a response by 4/1/2011 and, by 6/1/2011, the Traffic Area Office had received a letter sent to Mr Willmott in relation to an Opus card, and a certified bank statement covering the period 28/10/2010 to 1/11/2010.
(v)	The Traffic Commissioner considered the evidence and decided that he was not satisfied that the operator had demonstrated access to sufficient financial resources for the maintenance of 4 vehicles and the proper and efficient running of a business holding a restricted licence authorising 4 vehicles. The application was, therefore, refused.
(vi)	The Appellant’s grounds of appeal assert that he was told he had to have the monies stated “on the day”. Additionally, a certified bank statement from Mr G Willmott (the Appellant’s father) was submitted with the appeal, covering the period 6/12/2010 to 11/2/2011.

3)	At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellant did not attend and was not represented.

4)	The tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant was correctly told of the requirements, both orally at the counter and in writing. The required evidence to support the application was not submitted. The tribunal will not consider evidence that was not before the Traffic Commissioner and, in any event, the bank statements submitted with the grounds of appeal are not in the name of the operator, do not cover a period of three months, and relate in part to a time after the Traffic Commissioner made his decision.

5)	On the evidence before him, the Traffic Commissioner had no choice but to refuse the application, and the appeal is dismissed.

Judge Mark Hinchliffe, DCP
7 June 2011