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 
Unlicensed artic stays impounded
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Operator who claimed his vehicle was being used for recovery produced 'bogus' agreement.
AN OPERATOR who falsely claimed an impounded artic unit was being used as a recovery vehicle has lost its bid for its return .The company was alleged to have produced a bogus hire agreement to 'prove' the vehicle was being used for recovery purposes (CM 1 September).
Steven Ellis, trading as RRFS Truck Hire of Kirkby-in-Ashfield, had appeared before the North Eastern Deputy 'traffic Commissioner Elizabeth Perrett to seek the return of the unit.
A traffic examiner gave evidence that during a PSV check the police escorted an artic laden with two tractor units and driven by Ellis into the check site. They had stopped the vehicle because of information from the Automatic Number Recognition System. Ellis said the vehicle was owned by Stefan Ivanchenko and was on hire to NRS 24 Hour Vehicle Solutions, a company he had previously worked for.
He told the DTC he had bought the vehicle with Ivanchenko in January with a view to renting it out and had since bought I vanchenko's share. At the time it was stopped, the vehicle was transporting two disabled vehicles to Southampton. In the past when he had worked for NRS there had been no disc in the windscreen and he had been told that it was recovery work.
Refusing to return the vehicle, the DTC said that when the vehicle was impounded Ellis had said it belonged to Ivanchenko who did not need a licence because the vehicle was on hire. In the application for its return he claimed to be the owner.
He had also stated that he had been unaware that NRS did not have a licence, hut Ellis was driving the vehicle on the day it was impounded and knew very well that no disc was displayed.
At the hearing he changed the basis on which he was claiming the return of the vehicle,asserting that it had not been used without licence authority on the grounds that it was being used as a recovery vehicle. lie had produced a hire agreement which purported to show that his hire was for recovery purposes only.
If it was a recovery vehicle and was being used as such, why was that not mentioned to the traffic examiner at the time?
Ellis had accepted that it could not be "constructed or permanently adapted for the purpose", but claimed that by virtue of the trailer and load it became a recovery vehicle and was thus exempt from 0-licensing.
The DTC did not accept that was the case. Nor did she accept that Ellis thought at the time of the impounding that it was She did not accept that the hire agreement was genuine, given that it was not produced either to the traffic examiner or with the application for the vehicle's return. •