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 
Close Asset wins appeal for impounded vehicle
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Close Asset Finance has Success fully appealed against the deci
sion by Scottish Traffic Commissioner Michael Betts, who refused to return a vehicle and trailer which were impounded by the Vehicle Inspectorate.
The Transport Tribunal has now directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different TO.
The Tribunal emphasised that, when dealing with impounding cases in the future, -Ms should not regard negligence by owners as evidence they had knowledge of the illegal operation.
The vehicle and trailer were stopped on the Al trunk road at Dunglass, East Lothian after the vehicle ckspiayed no 0-licence disc or any livery. The driver stated that he worked for idaddington-based Tyne Transport. The company had received previous warnings about unauthorised use and it was decided to impound the vehicle and trailer in November 2002.
But Close Asset Finance was the owner of the vehicle and trailer and it sought their return on the grounds that it was unaware that they were being used without authority.
The vehicle and trailer had been leased to Tyne Transport in April 2002, and Close Asset Finance had written to the company asking to see a copy of its 0-licence. No reply was received, so another letter was written in June 2002. A further letter was sent that August, stating that the company was in breach of the terms of the leasing agreement. Close Asset Finance had tried to contact Tyne Transport by telephone, and salespeople had even visited the director's house to try to speak to them face to face.
In October 2002, a decision was taken to terminate the lease after the company failed to make prompt payments. In his decision, the TO referred to previous decisions of other TCs, who concluded that owners of vehicles could only succeed in having them returned 11 they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicle was hired by the holder of an 0-licence. He concluded that Close Asset Finance had not taken such reasonable steps.
However, the Tribunal said that a requirement to take reasonable steps was not to be read into the regulations, and the TO had misdirected himself.
The Tribunal said it was trou!pied by various aspects of the evidence, in particular by comments about the operator's evasiveness.
In view of the TC's approach, this evidence was not subject to scrutiny. Close Asset Finance asked the right questions, but the Tribunal felt it had not taken sufficiently decisive action.
In particular, the Tribunal noted that in August it was already able to assert that Tyne Transport was in breach of the agreement, with the only apparent grounds at that stage being the lack of an 0-licence.