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 
Truck lost for moving car parts
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Tyneside recovery operator whose truck was impounded after it was used without an Operator's Licence has failed in his bid to have it returned.
Jeffrey Tote, trading as JT Auto Salvage, of Newcastle upon Tyne, had sought the return of the vehicle before North Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney at a Leeds Public Inquiry.
Tote claimed he was not required to have an 0-licence for a recovery vehicle. He had not appreciated that while he could carry disabled vehicles he was not allowed to not carry parts of dismantled vehicles ( CM16-22 May).
Refusing to return the vehicle, the IC said the legislation stated that a vehicle was not a recovery vehicle if, at any time, It carried anything except a vehicle that was to be repaired or scrapped. When the police stopped this vehicle in February it was not being used as a recovery vehicle: it was loaded with six engines, several wheels and tyres, and a number of gearboxes.
The TC added that had it been an authorised goods vehicle there would have concern about its roadworthiness. Also, it was being parked overnight in a back street and the flatbed was littered with broken glass which could slide into the street to become a road safety hazard.
Macartney added that Tote's finances appeared to be inadequate: having expressed knowledge of the need to have adequate capital and reserves for a licence, Tote had stated that he was struggling to make ends meet. Ignorance of 0-licensing requirements was no protection from prosecution, so it could not be protection from the impounding of an illegal vehicle.
The vehicle ceased to be a recovery vehicle from the moment it was used as a goods vehicle, he concluded, meaning that its impounding by the VI was valid.