Decision

Decision for Michael McGarry

Published 28 April 2023

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

0.2 PH2061077

1. MICHAEL MCGARRY

1.1 REDACTED – FOR PUBLICATION

2. REASONS

This is an application for a restricted PSV operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles from an operating centre at 35 – 39 Weyhill Road, Andover. The application was referred to me because of concerns in relation to financial standing, primary occupation and the availability of parking at the operating centre.

This application follows one for a standard national licence submitted in July 2022. Of concern in that application was the lack of any evidence of financial standing, that Mr McGarry as nominated transport manager had not supplied any evidence of his qualification and that the nominated operating centre was not obviously suitable for two full-size PSVs. There were further less critical concerns. That was refused after Mr McGarry simply did not respond to requests for information. As he had completely failed to respond, the application was considered frivolous, and no public inquiry was offered.

This application was submitted in November 2022. The previous refusal was not declared although it is worth noting that the text of the question had not been updated. The question asked whether an application had been refused “in the European Union”.

The initial evidence of financial standing took the form of a joint account with [REDACTED] and covered only 29 and 30 August. The following guidance is on the application screen:

If you submit bank statements they must:

• be in the name of the person/organisation applying for this licence

• cover the 28-day period immediately before the date you submit this application

• show itemised transactions as well as the opening and closing balance

The application generated the concerns above and a first letter was sent in December 2022. I will not repeat the concerns in full here but they can be summarised as follows:

• The lack of 28 days financial evidence, and the lack of a statutory declaration to allow the partnership account to be used;

• Whether vehicles had been purchased and, if not, how financial standing would be maintained following that procurement;

• Whether the statement that small vehicles (less than 9 passengers) were desired to be operated under the licence was correct and, if so, how the legal requirements applying to those would be met;

• There was no evidence of a main occupation;

• The suitability of the operating centre was in question, in particular, exclusive use of the parking bays.

In response, on finance, Mr McGarry noted that the bank account was for his personal use and he declined to share his personal transactions for a month. Premium Bonds were supplied instead. Vehicles might be financed from the premium bonds or third-party finance. Mr McGarry clarified that he intended to use vehicles with between 9 and 16 passenger seats. Primary occupation referred to a taxi business and a martial arts club. Income from the main occupation was around £XXXXXX per year but evidence would be difficult to provide; it was not said why. Income from the 2 PSVs would be around £XXXXXX. Further information was supplied about the operating centre but no conclusive evidence.

A further letter was sent on 23 December seeking further clarification and supporting evidence. It stated that premium bonds would be highly unlikely to be accepted as financial standing. Further evidence was provided. An analysis of the bank account in the trading name and of the credit cards showed an average availability of £XXXX; the requirement is £4,800. The statutory declaration to allow the partnership account to be used was mis-completed; Mr McGarry himself asserted that the other partner to the account would make the money available which is clearly not what is intended.

A self-assessment tax return was supplied. This showed a gross income for the period 6 April 2021 to 5 April 2022 of £XXXXX. After expenses are deducted and self-employed income support payments credited, the net income is £XXXX. Whilst it is understood that the yearly period referred to in relation to the statements made about primary occupation may not align completely, there is clearly a very big gap between the statements made and the supporting evidence. Allowable expenses in the period April 2021 to April 2022 are declared at £XXXX yet Mr McGarry states in that period that he spent £XXXXX on the purchase of minibuses alone.

It was clear that the statutory criteria were far from clearly demonstrated as having been met but the application was not hopeless. I proposed to refuse the application and offered a public inquiry which Mr McGarry requested and is listed for today. Mr McGarry has not attended. I proceed to make a decision on the mandatory requirements.

3. Primary Occupation

On Mr McGarry’s own projections, income from the minibuses will exceed other income by £10,000. It would appear that the minibuses would be the primary occupation. On that basis, the applicant is not entitled to the relevant exemption and is not entitled to a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence.

4. Financial Standing

I note that Mr McGarry uploaded a further credit card statement in February. I do not have fresh bank statements. I cannot make a finding that financial standing is satisfied but I suspect it probably could have been. It is a shame that no fresh evidence was supplied as directed by the call-up and I can only find financial standing not met.

5. Good Repute

This is an application. The onus is on the applicant to establish his good repute. Had he attended, he may well have done so. However, I have grave concerns over the apparently conflicting statements made in support of primary occupation status and the self-assessment tax return. One is left questioning whether work is done for cash, off the books, to minimise tax. There is probably a perfectly innocent explanation but Mr McGarry has not attended to provide it. I find that good repute fails to be established.

6. Operating Centre

What is needed is a location where the vehicles can be sure to be able to park at any time when not in use. Mr McGarry’s responses in relation to that were rather dismissive. Again, had he attended, he may have put forward suitable proposals such as markings or removable barriers. But he didn’t so I again find that the requirement is not met.

Due to a failure to establish good repute, financial standing, primary occupation and a satisfactory operating centre, the application is refused on each of those grounds.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

19 April 2023