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 
has ruled in favour of a firm that It overturned
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
a decision by West Midland Traffic Commissioner Nick Jones to refuse to return an impounded vehicle on the grounds that it was not a recovery vehicle and therefore needed an 0-licence. 41110 In September, a Vosa officer stopped a two-axle rigid recovery-type vehicle owned by Bolton-based Ansvar Holdings, trading as IGW Services, at a roadside check on the M6 at Doxey, Staffordshire. It was towing a two-axle trailer. The Vosa officer believed that it was being used to convey vehicles from a port to be sold. Documents showed that the load — two unregistered Range Rovers — had been collected from Bristol Docks after being imported to the country.
The driver said the vehicles were imported with a view to being sold by IGW. The vehicles were immobilised for security reasons. That would be rectified at IGW's premises, where the vehicles would be inspected and registered.
There was no 0-licence for the vehicle, which was registered to IGW, whose 0-licence had been revoked, so it was impounded.
In refusing to return the vehicle, the TC concluded that it was being used to transport the Range Rovers for onward sale, and not for recovery. Accordingly, an 0-licence was required (CM 31 January).
The tribunal said that the invoice for collecting the two Range Rovers stated "...preparing vehicles and recovering to your workshops". It seemed illogical that part of the journey to IOW's premises would be transporting and part recovery when both parts were undertaken by specialist vehicles. The tribunal also noted that the Range Rovers were unroadworthy.