Decision

Written Confirmation of an Oral Decision for Alton Facility Services Ltd (OH2070673)

Published 31 July 2024

0.1 In the Western Traffic Area

1. Written Confirmation of an Oral Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

2. Public Inquiry held on 16 July 2024 at Bristol

2.1 Operator: Alton Facility Services Ltd (OH2070673)

3. BACKGROUND

This is an application for two vehicles on a restricted licence for a company involved with drains and sewage. The applicant director, Jason Horn, has insolvency history and has attended today unrepresented. Having seen and heard evidence, I make the following findings of fact.

Mr Horn was director of Southern Water Pumps Limited which entered insolvency in March 2021. Three years later, there is still an outstanding overdrawn director’s account at £32,000. The company had clearly benefited from two separate bounce-back loans from different banks amounting to a total of £86,000. The lawful maximum was 25% of turnover to a maximum of £50,000. Mr Horn told me that he thought the statutory limit was per bank and that company held accounts with two banks. I dismiss that explanation as lacking credibility. In any case, the amount in excess of £50,000 was clearly unlawfully acquired. Whether it was fraud or a misunderstanding is really neither here nor there. In addition to the £86,000 of government-backed loans unpaid, there is a bill of £12,000 owing to HMRC leaving the tax-payer £98,000 worse off.

Mr Horn was director of Alton Pump Services Ltd which entered insolvency on 8 February of this year. I am told that the failure was due to the failure of two large customers. I have not considered that in depth at this point. What troubles me is the evidence from the applicant’s bank statements, confirmed in oral evidence, that the applicant has continued to operate a heavy goods vehicle since that company failed. Mr Horn told me that he thought the company could operate once the licence application was made. I reject that explanation. Having previously held an operator’s licence, Mr Horn was aware of the need. If, which I doubt, he mistakenly thought that he could operate having submitted an application, it was his responsibility to seek proper advice before doing so.

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?”

The same principle clearly applies to fitness in relation to an application. The combination of acquiring wrongly £86,000 of government-backed bounce-back loan and of illegal operation cause me to find that the applicant is unfit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence.

Section 13B, fitness, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.

I note that there are two parts to the applicant business’s operation. The use of a goods vehicle to carry water for the purposes of jetting to clean sewers is likely to be appropriate under a restricted licence. The removal of waste water to an unconnected recycling facility is not and a standard licence is required.

Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner

16 July 2024