Decision

Decision for TSAC Ltd

Published 13 August 2021

1. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR THE WEST OF ENGLAND

2. Decision

3. Application for a Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence by

4. TSAC LTD

5. OH2037391

6. BACKGROUND

TSAC Ltd has applied for a standard national goods operator’s licence to authorise the use of one vehicle from a site at Albert Crescent, Bristol. The application was received on 29 September 2020. The sole director is Stefan Tamaianu; he has not previously held an operator licence.

The applicant’s bank statement showed an injection of £50,000 referenced BBL. A caseworker questioned the source of this money and the applicant responded “That money is state aid for the company”. A second caseworker requested further detail and that the applicant agree to a finance undertaking to provide further bank statements in the future but a blank response was received. The case was referred to me.

In terms of an assessment of turnover, I noted that the only other income for the calendar month of September 2020 was a furlough payment of £640. Assuming that to be 80% of normal earnings, it indicated that the applicant company’s turnover is in the region of £10,000. The company was incorporated in March 2019. At that time, no accounts had been lodged at Companies House. It seemed to me that the £50,000 was a bounce-back loan that had been inappropriately received. I called the application to public inquiry.

7. THE HEARING

No-one has attended for the applicant today. I am content that the call-up was properly served. I continue to make a decision.

Ahead of today’s hearing, I checked Companies House. The company posted accounts on 23 March 2021 covering the period 25 March 2019 to 31 March 2020. They identify that the company turnover in that period was £38,346.

8. DETERMINATION

Official information about bounce back loans is available from the website of the British Business Bank. It provides that “A lender could provide a six-year term loan from £2,000 up to 25% of a business’ turnover. The maximum loan amount was £50,000. The scheme gave the lender a full (100%) government-backed guarantee against the outstanding balance of the facility (both capita and interest). The borrower always remained fully liable for the debt.” Businesses were required to “fill in a short online application form and self-declare that they [were] eligible for the scheme”.

The applicant had a turnover of £38,346. It was therefore eligible for a bounce back loan in the order of £10,000. This company achieved a bounce back loan five times that amount. I find that the only way that can have been done is by making a false statement on the application. That I find to be fraud.

In Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:

“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”

9. DECISION

I exercise my gatekeeping role. In making a false application for a bounce back loan, Mr Tamaianu committed fraud and that is entirely inconsistent with any concept of good repute. His good repute therefore fails to be established and the application is refused.

The application was reliant entirely upon the bounce back loan to establish financial standing. That money was not lawfully available so financial standing is not met. The application is further refused.

A copy of this decision will be passed to The Insolvency Service for further investigation of the company’s apparent wrongdoing and all supporting evidence is available to them.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

22 July 2021