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
199
200
201
202
203
204 
Warring associates fail to win back impounded vehicle
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
When two different people claim an impounded vehicle, the TC acts
Solomon — but still won't give the truck back.
TWO INDIVIDUALS who claimed ownership of the same impounded vehicle have both failed in their bids before the Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms for its return.
Vanda Woolf sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that she was the owner. She believed she held an 0-licence and claimed to be unaware her licence had been revoked in December.
Brian Smith had sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that he was the owner because of an unpaid debt by Woolf.
Woolf had bought the vehicle from Smith and the dispute related to work undertaken jointly with her husband, for which she considered she had been overcharged.
She maintained the purchase price had been agreed and settled in cash. Transfer of the registered keeper to her had been effected in a proper and harmonious manner.
Smith still considered he was the legal owner. He had treated the £1,300 paid to him at the time by Woolf as a deposit and undertook further work on the vehicle resulting in an invoice for £2,798.40 to Woolf.'That invoice was still outstanding despite persistent attempts to obtain a resolution.
Traffic examiner Clare Hall said VOSA had been informed the vehicle had been stopped by police while driven by Woolf's husband John, who was arrested for unspecified reasons.
When she and a vehicle examiner attended. the vehicle was given an immediate prohibition for a serious braking defect. She did not consider Smith had demonstrated a convincingly determined effort to obtain either the settlement of the alleged debt or to seek repossession of the vehicle. A check revealed the vehicle's licence had been revoked.
Lawful owner Rejecting Smith's application, the TC said he was satisfied Woolf was entitled to be considered the lawful owner of the vehicle.
She claimed to have paid £2,000 in cash for its purchase, with additional work subsequently carried out. That was supported by the change of registered keeper being recorded on 10 May 2003. while Smith's combined invoice for the sale of the vehicle and the additional work was dated 30 June 2003.
Rejecting Woolf's application, the TC said she had been sent a series of letters beginning in May 2004 warning of the intention to revoke the licence and then actually revoking the licence in December.
None of the first class letters were returned. The recorded letters were returned "not called for" as opposed to -gone away". Either Vanda Woolf was aware her licence had been revoked or she chose, by closing her eyes to the obvious, not to be aware.Whichever it was, it meant she had constructive knowledge of the revocation of her 0-licence. •