AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

local runs' defence rejeded

16th September 2004
Page 32
Page 32, 16th September 2004 — local runs' defence rejeded
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?

THE OPERATOR of an impounded vehicle, who claimed it was only used for around six miles a week on private land that was used for a car boot sale, has failed in a bid to have it returned to him.

Peter Hemingway, of Woodlesford. Leeds, had sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that it was exempt for 0-licensing because it was passing only from one private premises to other private premises in the immediate neighbourhood,provided that it did not travel in aggregate more than six miles a week.

In refusing to return the vehicle, the North Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney said the Sunday car boot sale at the Cross Green Industrial Estate was open to and used by many thousands of people every Sunday and could not be considered to be private. Hemingway did not own the site, which was owned by Leeds City Council.

He had operated without paying vehicle excise duty. His tachograph charts, which were messy, disorganised and incomplete,showed a larger mileage than the six miles a week being claimed.

Hemingway had a history of unauthorised use over a protracted period and had had an application for an 0-licence refused, Macartney added. He had chosen his own interpretation of the law without seeking advice from VOSA,a solicitor,a trade association,the police or the Traffic Area Office.

Tags

Organisations: Leeds City Council
Locations: Leeds

comments powered by Disqus