Decision

Decision for Welshmans Discounts Limited (OG2058825)

Published 22 December 2022

0.1 In the Welsh Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Welshmans Discounts Limited (OG2058825)

2. Background

This decision relates to the application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence made by Welshmans Discounts Limited. The applicant was called to attend a Public Inquiry at Caernarfon, at 2pm on 15 December 2022, by a call-in letter dated 10 October 2022. That letter set out the areas of concern including the past compliance history of the applicant’s sole director, Richard Rowlands, which he failed fully to divulge in this application.

Mr Rowlands, the sole director of the applicant company, failed to attend the hearing and nor did any other representative appear on behalf of the company. The call-in letter was sent by recorded delivery to the correspondence address specified in the application and was also sent by email on that date to the email address specified in the application. The call-in letter was not returned to my office marked “undelivered” and nor did my office receive an email “bounceback”. Indeed, I note from the documents included in the Public Inquiry Brief that Mr Rowlands responded to correspondence emailed to him at that address and he sent correspondence to my office using that same address as recently as 19 September 2022. I am satisfied that the call-in letter has been properly served by post and by email and that it is appropriate to consider the case in the absence of the applicant.

The applicant failed to provide any evidence in advance of the hearing to demonstrate evidence of financial resources or how it intends to operate compliantly, despite the call-in letter clearly stating that such evidence should be submitted at least 7 days in advance of the Inquiry. I have no evidence in respect of the applicant’s proposed vehicle maintenance system, no sample safety inspection records, no information about proposed daily defect reporting system or a maintenance contract. Nor have I received any evidence as to how the applicant intends to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours.

3. Determination and reasons

The burden of proof is on the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory requirements of the Act are met.

Having regard to the information set out in the Public Inquiry Brief and call up letter, and the lack of any evidence presented on behalf of the operator, I am not satisfied that the requirements of section 13B of the Act as to the applicant’s fitness to hold an operator’s licence are met. Nor am I satisfied that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that the rules on drivers’ hours and Community rules will be complied with, as required by section 13C(2) of the Act, that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that vehicles used under the licence are not overloaded, or that there are satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles used under the licence in a fit and serviceable condition, as required by section 13C(3) and (4) of the Act. In view of the applicant’s failure to provide the financial evidence set out in the call-in letter I am not satisfied that the requirement of s13D is met.

On the basis of the applicant’s failure to satisfy me as to the statutory requirements set out in section 13(2) of the Act, the application for a restricted licence authorising the use of one vehicle is refused under section 13(5) of the Act.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

15 December 2022