Car was not disabled
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Glossop Magistrates rejected arguments that a two-axle rigid truck carrying a car was a recovery vehicle and therefore exempt from 0licensing. But they gave Kenneth Fry, a partner
in Peterborough-based Parker Fry, an absolute discharge after convicting him of unauthorised use. Fry argued that the BMW car being carried was a "disabled" vehicle as a salesman had locked it, which automatically set the immobiliser.
Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, John Heaton said a recovery vehicle was defined as a vehicle which was constructed or permanently adapted primarily for the purposes of either lifting, towing or transporting a disabled vehicle. In this case the BMW was not disabled in the sense that the legislation intended.
Convicting Fry, the magistrates said they considered that there was a difference between a vehicle which had been Immobilised and one which was disabled. Also. on Fry's own admission the truck had carried other new vehicles. As it had not been used as a recovery vehicle at all times it ceased to be exempt from 0-licensing. But they took account of the fact he had originally intended to plead guilty but was advised by the clerk of the court to pursue the case. They also noted that he had since been granted an 0-licence.