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 
Tribunal backs licence refusal after incorred advert
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE REFUSAL ()FA two-vehicle restricted licence for Doncaster-based Mary Higgins has been upheld by the Transport Tribunal on financial grounds and because of an invalid advertisement.
In September the North-Eastern Traffic Area Office (TAO) wrote to Higgins seeking information to establish whether she had the required financial resources of £4,800, pointing out that her advertisement had been published more than 21 days before the application was made and requiring the publication of a further advertisement.
In October the TAO wrote to her again,pointing out that the financial information remained insufficient and that the advert was incorrectly worded because it did not contain the address of the operating centre. Higgins failed to respond and the application was refused.
In her notice of appeal Higgins said she had put two adverts in a newspaper; she had made seven requests for statements to the Halifax and there was sufficient money in the bank.
The Tribunal said the requirement to state the address of the operating centre in the advert was extremely important because it alerted those who lived in the vicinity to their right to make representations against the application, which had to be done within strict time limits.The advert in this case was defective in that important respect so the TC had been right to refuse the application.
The bank statements submitted related to two accounts, one of which was in the joint names of Higgins and David Crisp. The statutory declaration made by Crisp at the request of the TAO did not clearly define the amount in the joint account which was to be made available. Given that uncertainty, and the failure to reply to the October letter. the Tribunal was not persuaded the TC had been wrong to refuse the application for that reason either.