The Upper Tribunal recently rejected Mr Sheraz Asghar’s request for a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence.
Mr Asghar, based in the West Midlands initially applied for a standard national licence, but downgraded his request after the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) requested photographs and site plans of the centre.
Mr Asghar provided an undated letter from a person claiming to be the owner of the garage giving him permission to use the garage. He was also unable to fulfil these requirements of ‘the main occupation test’.
After reviewing Mr Asghar’s claim, it was discovered that the income from his main occupation was in fact less than that which he would receive from running his business under the terms of the restricted licence, and so a refusal was recommended under section 13(3)(b)(ii) of the 1981 act and also a refusal under section 14ZB(a) of the 1981 Act, however he was offered a Public Inquiry (PI).
The second member of staff took the same approach, noting that there was an inadequacy of evidence and information supplied by the applicant, however the second staff member cited Section 14ZC (1)(b).
The traffic commissioner, Nick Denton subsequently refused the application with no offer of a public inquiry (PI) as he was unable to meet the requirements of Section 14ZC(1)(b) of PPV Act 1981, Section 13(3)(b) of PPV Act 1981 and Paragraph six of the Public Service Vehicles (Operator’s Licenses) Regulations 1995.
Mr Asghar subsequently appealed this decision; however he did not attend the oral hearing and his application or conduct in relation to the application was deemed frivolous or unreasonable by the traffic commissioner.
