Hulk Express Transport Limited, Re

This is an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England (“TC”) dated 11^th March 2025, when he dismissed the Appellant’s application for a standard national operator’s licence under ss.13(5) and13A(2)(C) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”).

The background to this appeal is as follows. On 4^th December 2024, the Appellant (“the company”) applied for a standard national operator’s licence authorising two vehicles and four trailers. Attached to the application was a bank statement for the period 1^st November to 25^th November 2024 in the name of “Joseph Hartley hulk express transport”.

By a letter dated 12^th December 2024, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”), informed the company that its application was incomplete in a number of respects and in particular:

On the 14^th December 2024, Mr Hartley uploaded onto VOL a further bank statement from the same account covering 7^th December to 13^th December 2024 which did not take the matter any further,

The OTC wrote to the company again. The letter was intended as a final attempt to resolve the issues raised by no later than 7^th February 2025 . The company was warned that if by that date, the application remained incomplete, the application would be refused. In response, Mr Hartley uploaded onto VOL, Monzo bank statements covering the period 1^st October 2024 to 24^th January 2025. These again did not resolve the matter as they were not bank statements in the name of the limited company although they did demonstrate more than adequate financial standing in support of the application.

The OTC then uploaded a message on VOL to Mr Hartley on 10^th March 2025. It stated:

“The bank statements provided are not in the limited company name. Please can you provide proof that the bank account ending **198 is held in the entity of the limited company. If you do not provide evidence that the bank account is held by the limited company on or before 17/03/2025 the application will be refused”.

On the same day, Mr Hartley uploaded onto VOL a letter from Monzo dated 10^th March 2025 which confirmed that:

“Joseph Hartley has the following business account for Joseph Hartley trading as hulk express transport registered at Monzo at the above address ..”

Unsurprisingly, the letter from Monzo did not progress the matter. However, on 11^th March 2025, rather than inform Mr Hartley that the letter did not assist the company’s application and that he had until 17^th March 2025 to provide evidence of a bank account in the limited company’s name, the application was refused.

By s.13(5) of the 1995 Act, a Traffic Commissioner must refuse an application for a standard operator’s licence if the applicant has failed to satisfy any of the requirements of sections 13A and 14(A)(1) and Schedule 3 of the Act and in particular, the requirement of being professionally competent, the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing and to be of good repute.

Mr Hartley considered that the licence refusal was harsh bearing in mind that he and Mr Barrett, had, on a number of occasions, enquired about how the application was progressing. Moreover, Mr Hartley should have been given an opportunity to remedy the situation by providing compliant bank statements.

It was explained to Mr Hartley that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is one of review rather than rehearing. The Tribunal went through the chronology and the OTC letters which made clear that the bank statements were not compliant because of the absence of “Limited” in the title of the statements he had provided. He was asked when the “penny finally dropped” about what was needed to show that the bank account was in fact for a limited company, but the answer was unclear although both Mr Hartley and Mr Barrett averred that they had already asked Monzo to convert the “trading as” account to a company account and were in the process of setting up a Revolut Business account, which is the business banking arm of Monzo when the application was refused.

We are satisfied that the letter from Monzo dated 10^th March 2025 should not have been taken to be the final position when the company had been given until 17^th March 2025 to provide compliant bank statements, despite the rather tortuous history. At the very least, Mr Hartley should have been notified that the letter did not take matters any further and that he should have been reminded of the deadline. The tribunal cannot speculate what the outcome would have been if in response to the reminder, Mr Hartley had explained the factual matrix between Monzo and Revolut and that he had already taken the necessary steps to convert the existing account to a business account with Revolut.

Taking all the circumstances into account, we are satisfied that there was procedural unfairness in this case and that the Tribunal must allow this appeal as per the test in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695. The appeal is allowed. The application is to be remitted to the OTC for reconsideration with up-to-date bank statements in the name of the limited company provided.