An appeal against a traffic commissioner’s (TC’s) refusal to increase an operator’s licence authorisation has been dismissed after its director admitted it was difficult to keep the level of funding required in the bank for a full month.
Haulage boss Mairi Anderson appealed against a decision made by the TC for Scotland to refuse an application increasing the number of HGVs operated by Mika Logistics from six to 10.
In a letter to the haulier, the office of the TC explained that the paperwork and statements that Mika Logistics provided to demonstrate it had the available finance showed that it fell significantly short of the required £48,500. Its calculation indicated that the average available funds for the 28-day period assessed was only £34,432.
In its written decision, the appeal tribunal said Anderson contended that the available funding was sufficient: “She explained that the appellant had purchased a number of vehicles recently and that as such, it had had an adverse impact upon the credit balance showing in the bank statements,” it said.
“She asserted that the appellant’s customers pay their bills regularly; she explained that she owns two other companies and that funds emanating from those companies could be made available to the appellant company.”
Anderson also explained that her customers wanted it to operate more vehicles and that, if it was not able to, Mika Logistics might lose business or turn away additional business.
She told the tribunal: “It was difficult to keep the level of funding required by the OTC and TC available for a full monthly period.
“That is because the credit balance in the business bank account will necessarily fluctuate due to requirements to pay wages and meet other business expenses.”
However, dismissing the appeal, the tribunal said financial standing was a specific statutory requirement: “Mrs Anderson’s explanations as to why the business was not able to maintain the required level of finance as stipulated by the legislation in relation to the period sought by the TC does not assist,” it said.
“Nor, for the same reasons, does the explanation offered regarding the need to pay deposits on recently purchased vehicles.
“In the circumstances we have concluded that the grounds of appeal are unpersuasive.”