Decision for AA-Alloa-Cars-Ltd Limited
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
AA-ALLOA-CARS-LTD-LIMITED T/A AA CARS (PM2086659)
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
Public Inquiry held at Edinburgh on 22 July 2026
Decision
The Traffic Commissioner reached the following decision:
This is an application for a Restricted Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle only. The Applicant is AA-Alloa-Cars-Ltd Limited t/a AA Cars. The Director is Eamon Francis Edward Sweeney.
The application, dated 24 October 2025, specified one proposed Operating Centre: 18 Craigleith, Fishcross, Alloa FK10 3JF. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were to be carried out by H&R Gray at 10-weekly intervals.
As this is an application, it is for the applicant to satisfy me that it meets the statutory requirements to hold the licence applied for.
The applicant provided evidence to support the application however, it failed to satisfy me regarding the applicant’s main occupation, the suitability of the proposed operating centre; financial standing; and fitness of the Director.
Main Occupation
As set out in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 13: main occupation will be assessed against the entity applying for the license i.e. AA Alloa Cars Ltd Limited t/a AA Cars. I require to consider the main occupation of the company and not the hours and income of the director(s).
Despite repeated requests from my office, no evidence was provided as to main occupation: no business plan was provided. The Applicant provided copy Taxi Operators licences in his own name but not that of the Applicant company. Insurance documents were also provided in the name of Mr EAMON SWEENEY TRADING AS AAMONS CABS. However, given this is an insurance document in the name of a sole trader and not the Applicant company, this did not satisfy me as to the main occupation of the Applicant.
Operating Centre
The Operating Centre specified in the application was a residential address with a suggestion that there was only off-road parking for one small vehicle. Information and supporting photos/evidence were requested but not provided until just prior to the public inquiry. From the photographs provided, I note that there is in fact only off-road parking for one small vehicle; is not suitable to ensure proper walk round checks could be conducted; there is no turning space meaning the vehicle could not be driven in and out in first gear: no risk assessment was provided as to how the applicant would meet health and safety requirements when reversing the vehicle in a residential area.
It was of further note that the applicant advised on the day that he no longer wished to use the property at 18 Craigleith, Fishcross (which he advised was his son’s home address) as the operating centre, but rather the property next door at number 17 (which is his own home address). As the address at number 18 was the address stated within the application, and was the address advertised with notice of the application, I confirmed it was this address that was the subject of my consideration at public inquiry. In the event a further application is submitted in respect of number 17 Fishcross, the applicant should have regard to the comments regarding assessment of risk in the present application.
A maintenance contract was provided by the Applicant but I note this was in the name of AA Alloa CABS which is not the Applicant. The Applicant further advised that this had been changed to Charles Christie, Noone Turas Yard, Kelliebank, Alloa, FK10 1NT but again, no maintenance contract was provided.
On the basis of this, I could not be satisfied there are adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
Financial Standing
The Applicant was required to provide financial evidence in the name of AA-Alloa-Cars-Ltd Limited t/a AA Cars showing the company had ready access to sufficient resources to support the application. The type and size of licence applied for requires a sum of £3,100 to have been available during a 28 day period.
When the application was first submitted, the applicant provided a personal bank statement and a screenshot showing that a bank account had been opened in the limited company name with no account details showing on the screenshot. Further, only 27 days’ worth of accounts were provided and so a further request was made by my office for finance. The applicant thereafter sent in bank statements showing the Ltd company name upon them, however, the account number and sort code were the same as the personal bank account that the statement was provided for from when the application was submitted.
The applicant has now, albeit late, provided copy bank transactions for their business account and their unaudited financial accounts. These were not certified. The list of bank transactions suggested the availability of an overdraft facility of [REDACTED] however – and despite written request from my office – evidence was not provided of the overdraft facility. Without the overdraft facility, the applicant does not meet financial standing.
A copy personal guarantee was provided in Mr Sweeney’s name in the sum of [REDACTED]. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 2 states that Guarantees are to be considered on their merits by traffic commissioners, subject to establishing the financial availability of the guarantor. No evidence was put before me regarding the financial viability of Mr Sweeney to satisfy me as to the availability of the funds.
I also note that Mr Sweeney has no background in operating PSV and has not undertaken any training in this regard. Given this and the deficiencies in the application, I am not satisfied as to his fitness to hold the licence sought.
On the basis of the evidence heard, I make the following findings:
-
I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the main occupation requirement in section 13(3)(b).
-
I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the availability of a suitable operating centre or that appropriate maintenance arrangements are in place Section 14ZC(1)(a).
-
I am not satisfied that there are adequate arrangements for securing compliance with the requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of vehicles – section 14ZC(1)(b).
-
I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the required financial resources – section 14ZB(b).
-
I am not satisfied as to the fitness of the Director to hold the license applied for – section 14ZB(a).
As set out at the outset, this is an application and the burden of proof is on the applicant. For the reasons set out, that burden has not, in my view been met. As this is an application for a Restricted PSV licence, there is no opportunity for me to consider an interim licence and as such, the burden of proof not having been met to my satisfaction, I have no option but to refuse the application today.
No order for costs is made and the applicant is free to reapply, however, I would urge that were it to do so, further applications where there is a failure to provide the necessary evidence to my office will likely bring the applicant back before me and future failure to comply with requirements for information / evidence may well result in future consideration of costs.
Sharon Clelland
Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
27 July 2026