1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 
Stables loses out for no-show accounts
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT Tribunal has upheld the refusal of a licence application by a Pontypool racing stables owner after he failed to produce financial information by the requested date.
Raymond Williams had applied for a one-vehicle restricted licence with an operating centre at Stables Yard, School Fields, Varteg. Following an objection it appeared there had been a misunderstanding in that Williams had advertised his home address rather than the stable's address and the application therefore had to be readvertised.
In view of the delay, the Traffic Area Office requested that upto-date financial information be supplied by 13 February. When that was not forthcoming. the application was refused.
Before the Tribunal. Williams said that apart from the up-to-date bank statements, the only other information missing was precise details of the parking arrangements which, for one horsebox and with ample parking at his stables, he did not think was crucial.
He admitted he had not sent in the bank statements requested. He relied upon the financial position shown by those he had sent in October, though he agreed they had been for two months not three. He had not realised he had to strictly comply with the Traffic Area Office's request and considered that he had substantially done so Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said the demonstration of adequate finance to fund the proper operation of the licence was one of the key requirements of the 0-licensing system and "substantial performance" was not sufficient.