AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

IMPOUNDING IMPLICATIONS

3rd October 2002, Page 26
3rd October 2002
Page 26
Page 26, 3rd October 2002 — IMPOUNDING IMPLICATIONS
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

I note with great concern the latest controversial decision made by Eastern IC Geoffrey Simms concerning WC Commercials' impounded tractive unit. If 4 is allowed to stand this has very serious implications for all vehicle repairers and bodybuilders.

Mr Simms is, of course, correct in his interpretation of the 1995 Act, where goods or burden are concerned. However, he misses the point that neither a tractive unit nor a semi-trailer on their own have any capability for carrying goods or burden.

It is only when those two parts are coupled together that the capability exists for any goods or burden to be imposed on the then complete articulated vehicle. It may then be used either laden or unladen.

By any logic at all, in simply presenting a trailer at a test station WC Commercials cannot be said to be using it "or the road for carriage of goods" either for hire and reward or on its own account.

Ironically, just one of the many exemptions from the operator licensing requirements is a vehicle on its way to a DoT examination being presented laden at the request of an examiner!

Does Mr Simms also consider a rigid vehicle fitted with either a flat or curtainsided body to be carrying goods or burden? The whole idea is just nonsense.

I would urge both WC Commercials and any trade association concerned to resist most strongly this latest imposition by Mr Simms.

As one who supports wholeheartedly Lord Attlee's impounding legislation, Ida not believe that this situation falls within either the spirit or intention of it.

David S Doyen (retired), Accilane Transport, Leeds.

Tags

Locations: Leeds