Decision for Mohammed Iqbal - Application (PC2078959)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-21)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the North West are for Mohammed Iqbal

NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 04 NOVEMBER 2025

This application for a Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence is refused under provision of Section 14(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”) as the applicant has failed to satisfy me that it meets the requirements of Section 14ZA(2)(b); Section 14ZA(2)(c); and Section 14ZA(2)(d).

This is an application for a Standard National PSV Operator’s licence, by sole trader Mr. Mohammed Iqbal, seeking authorisation for one vehicle. As with all applications, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that it meets the relevant statutory requirements to obtain a licence.

Background

Mr. Iqbal previously applied for a Standard National PSV operator’s licence (reference PC2072796) in April 2024. That sought authorisation for two vehicles but was refused on 24 May 2024 after the applicant failed to respond to a final letter requesting supporting records necessary for consideration of that application. The unresolved issues related to concerns about (i) the nominated transport manager; (ii) the suitability of the operating centre; and (iii) financial standing.

Mr. Mohammed Iqbal is also linked to two other failed applications. Application PC2027467, in the name Mr. Vakas Iqbal, was refused on 10 March 2022 due to (i) failure to provide evidence of financial standing; (ii) failure to provide further information regarding the proposed operating centre; and (iii) failure to address concerns about the nominated transport manager. An application to vary PC2063492, in the name Imperial Carpets & Flooring Limited, was refused on 27 March 2024 - again due to failure to respond to final requests for explanation. On that occasion the outstanding issues related to financial evidence and issues with the main occupation determination. Mr. Vakas Iqbal is a named director of Imperial Carpets and Flooring Limited.

On the face of it, the application for today’s consideration seeks a Standard National PSV operator’s licence in the name of Mr. Mohammed Iqbal – but concerns are raised as the establishment address is the same as two previously refused applications linked to Mr. Vakas Iqbal. Furthermore, in each of those two applications, and the previously refused application by Mr. Mohammed Iqbal, the applicant has failed to respond to enquiries from this office.

Due to the correspondence address being the same on this application to the above two linked applications, Mr. Mohammed Iqbal was requested to provide a detailed explanation of what links and relationship they have with Mr. Vakas Iqbal. The applicant responded stating that Mr. Vakas Iqbal is his son, and that he will “potentially” drive the buses of the new PSV operation should it be granted, and “will also oversee day to day activities”. It was also declared that Mr. Mohammed Iqbal will however be the person in charge and will have the final say on all decisions relating to the business.

A further request for clarification was responded to setting out a detailed explanation of the roles and responsibilities for Mr. Vakas Iqbal. These were notified as being:
- Daily walk around checks (own and making sure of other drivers checks);
- Reporting any defects on any vehicle that is recorded;
- Getting work carried out (mechanical or body) on any defect that has been recorded;
- Booking 10 weeks inspection and making sure the vehicles are inspected on the correct dates;
- Booking tachograph calibration;
- Making sure the vans are maintained to a high level at all times;
- Vakas will liaise with the Transport Manager on any issues that may arise in regard to vehicle maintenance.
It is a concern that the roles and responsibilities given for Mr. Vakas Iqbal are those that one would normally associate with the responsible person or Transport Manager. It is also noted that on the itinerary provided by the nominated Transport Manager it is stated that work will be for ‘VAKAS IQBAL, Standard National’ and not ‘MOHAMMED IQBAL’.

As a result, I am concerned that this application may be a front for Mr. Vakas Iqbal and / or Imperial Carpets and Flooring Limited.

Pre-Public Inquiry

Notices calling the applicant to the Inquiry were issued on 24 September 2025. These were sent to the last known and given addresses by both post and email. That letter set out the date, time and location of the Hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the Inquiry. Those case management directions have not been complied with.

Public Inquiry

The applicant failed to attend the public inquiry. I first gave consideration as to whether the Hearing should proceed and I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states:

“The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a Hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.”

It was confirmed that the calling in letters were posted to the given correspondence address and emailed to the given address for electronic communications. It is a well-established principle that an operator is required to provide the Traffic Commissioner with an address at which communications can be received and dealt with. I conclude, therefore, that good service of the calling- in letters has been made.

I give consideration as to whether there would be merit in adjourning the Hearing and offering an alternative date to the applicant. I am mindful, however, of the expense and efforts already afforded in setting up this Inquiry; the fact that another operator has been unable to use this slot – for example, to consider an alternative application – and that my Hearing room is currently booked up until January 2026 therefore any adjournment would not be brief.

This is an applicant that has failed to respond to previous requests for information (both by Mr Mohammed Iqbal, and his son), and I find it more likely than not that the failure to engage with this office is merely the continuation of a theme. I therefore do not find that adjourning would likely result in positive engagement, and I therefore proceed with the Hearing and make a decision based upon the best available evidence before me.

Consideration

As stated above, in the case of an application the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that all mandatory requirements are satisfied. In this instance the applicant has been put on notice of my concerns. The applicant, in failing to attend, has denied itself the opportunity to provide additional information which might have allayed my concerns.

“Section 14ZA(2)(b) – Good Repute”

The links to previously refused licence application, and the evidence that this application may be a front for Mr. Iqbal’s son are negative features towards the applicant’s good repute. A further significant issue is the failure to have proper systems to receive and respond to important communication from this office, such as the calling-in letter. Finally, I have regard to the failure to attend this Public Inquiry. Trust is a fundamental requirement of the licensing regime, and this applicant’s failures have created a significant absence of trust.

“Section 14ZA(3)(a) and Section 14ZA(2)(d) – Transport Manager’s Good Repute and Professional Competence”

The calling-in letter directed that Mr. Ali, nominated Transport Manager, was to attend this hearing. The reason for doing so was in order to understand how he can allow himself to be nominated as transport manager for a licence in the name of Mohammed Iqbal but stated to this office that he would be working for Vakas Iqbal. As a qualified CPC holder, he should have been alive to this contradiction. As Mr. Ali was not formally called to this Hearing under the necessary provisions. I take no action against him and his good repute remains intact. Unanswered questions do, however, remain. As such I am not prepared to approve his nomination and accordingly, the application to nominate Mr. Ali as Transport Manager is refused. Consequentially, the overall application fails to meet the requirement of ‘professional competence’.

“Section 14ZA(2)(c) – Financial Standing”

The calling-in letter also requested up-to-date evidence of access to appropriate financial resources. Section 14ZA(c) requires an applicant to have appropriate financial standing as determined in accordance with Article 7 of the 2009 Regulation. This sets the financial standing requirement for this application at £8,000.

In failing to provide the requested evidence ahead of the Inquiry, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that this mandatory and continuous requirement is met or can be met.

Decision

This application for a Standard National PSV Operator’s licence is refused under provision of Section 14(1) of the Act as the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:
- Section 14ZA(2)(b) – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is of good repute;
- Section 14ZA(2)(c) – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has appropriate financial standing;
- Section 14ZA(2)(d) – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is professionally competent.
“Section 14ZA(2)(b) – Good Repute”

Whilst more relevant to existing licence holders, in the case of applications I take the opportunity to consider the question posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight - “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. In this case I answer in the negative. I make adverse findings in respect of Section 14ZA(2)(b) in consideration [individually or combined] of (i) the applicant’s previous failure to respond to communications from this office; (ii) the concerns that this application is a front for his son; and (iii) the failure to attend the public inquiry. I have few, if any, positive features to rely upon.

“Section 14ZA(2)(c) – Financial Standing”

In respect of Section 14ZA(2)(c) I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with the requested evidence. The burden lies with the applicant it to satisfy me that it meets the relevant statutory requirements and it has failed to do so.

“Section 14ZA(2)(d) – Professional Competence”

I have unanswered questions of the nominated Transport Manager. As this is an application there was no formal order for Mr. Ali to attend, but the applicant was put on notice that Mr. Ali should be in attendance and prepared to give evidence. In the absence of that evidence, I am not satisfied that the nomination can be granted, and I direct that it be refused.

Accordingly, I make adverse findings under Section 14ZA(2)(d) that the applicant does not satisfy the requirement to be professionally competent.

As the requirements of Section 14ZA are not satisfied, I direct that this application be refused.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

04 November 2025