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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
Trouble on a plate
Page 30
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An apparent U-turn by VOSA over the rules governing trade plates has the motor industry up in arms — now one dealer is prepared to challenge VOSAs position in court. Chris Tindall reports.
Atruck dealer is ready to see the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) in court in a bid to change what has been called the "technically incorrect" law surrounding trade plates, the origins of which stretch back more than a decade.
The concern is such that some dealers and repairers believe the use of temporary vehicles to pull other firms' trailers to testing stations could result in them losing the 0-licence they were forced to obtain in order to comply with legislation.
In the 1992 case Booth vs DPP, the High Court ruled that a trailer being pulled to an MoT testing station by a vehicle belonging to a dealer constituted "goods carried" and should be taxed accordingly.
This case, brought against a company illegally undertaking hire-and-reward work ,resulted in case law that changed the use of trade plates for everyone, including dealers already operating within the law. VOSA, perhaps under fire after discovering a company could exploit the law governing trade plates,decided that repairers and dealers using one of their vehicles to take a customer's trailer to a test station must possess an 0-licence. as well as using trade plates.
"That changed the situation completely fora repairer," says Chris Kelly, chairman of Midlands truck dealership Keltruck. "It's a complete nonsense, We believe trade plates are there for the motor trade to move vehicles legitimately around for test.There's no need for vehicles to have an 0-licence."
This reticence among dealers to hold a licence lies not just in the hassle of applying for and maintaining one. Kelly wants to know what would happen if a trailer not belonging to a dealer, but delivered to a test station by a dealer, failed its test. Could it find itself before a Public Inquiry because of a list of other companies' failings? This is not something that has ever been tested or answered by VOSA.
Changing times
For many years after the Booth case dealers and repairers continued their businesses relatively safe in the knowledge that VOSA officers were not enforcing this part of the legislation. But according to Alistair Manson, head of national franchise dealers at the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI). this situation has changed.
kvo years ago, there were one or two instances where VOSA officers or examiners at testing stations started questioning dealers, saying 'you must have an 0-licence for this vehicle,— he says.
Pressure was placed on VOSA by the industry and eventually the then chief executive, Maurice Newey. agreed to meet the RMI, dealers and trade representatives in London to discuss the issue.
"We sat around a table and said 'It's a bit strange, why are you enforcing this?',says Manson. "The upshot was we obtained a concession from VOSA in January 2004. [It said], 'Yes,we agree you can take a trailer to test using a shunt tractor on trade plates, without an 0-licence."
The actual wording of that concession, outlined in an e-mail sent from VOSA to the RMI on 22 January 2004, reads: -A vehicle which is being used under a trade plate is exempt from 0-licensing requirements: the uses to which vehicles with trade plates can be put are set out in section 12 of the Vehicle and Registration Act 1994. We have concluded that [the regulations] cover a motor trader using a tractor unit temporarily in his possession to take a trailer to a testing station.
The e-mail continues: "I'm sure your members are sensitive to the need for a reasonable interpretation of 'temporary'."
The industry breathed a collective sigh of relief that lasted for the next 12 months.
"[But] it now comes down to the definition of 'temporary'," says Manson. "Recently, VOSA has got a bit difficult about it. 'Temporarily in stock' has never been defined or tested in a court of law."
Manson says VOSA is unsympathetic towards resolving the issue, but adds that a meeting between the RMI and VOSA's new chief executive, Stephen, Tetlow has been scheduled where this issue will be raised.
Keltruck MD John Biggin says VOSA told him three weeks ago that it intended to prosecute the company "for use of temporary vehicles". He adds: "We had got a vehicle in our stock. VOSA knew it was trade stock: it was temporarily in our possession. EVOSA] said you have been running that vehicle for six months'. We said. 'well sometimes we run vehicles for two years!"
It is the apparent U-turn by VOSA that has upset the motor trade. Bill Beadnell. chairman of independent dealer North East Truck and Van, is angry that the RMI was not able to settle the matter earlier. "It's absolutely ridiculous,he says. "It's based on one prosecution of one idiot several years ago and the industry has been bound by that precedent ever since.
"The RMI is letting us down. If we had an 0-licence we would lose it because of the volumes and discrepancies that occur. [Newey] promised that internally they would calm the matter down and be realistic."
Manson says he is aware of four cases since the beginning of the year. including Keltruck, which have come about because VOSA has started cracking down on dealers.
He adds that except for Keltruck they have been resolved. Regarding Keltruck's current position, he says: "Keltruck is one of our members.We would be backing [the court case] in terms of being very concerned that action has been brought in regards of an agreement, unless there is additional information about the case of which we are unaware.
Agreement in place
A VOSA spokeswoman confirms the meeting between Newey and the RMI took place and that an "agreement was made". She declined to comment on why VOSA staff continue to challenge dealers, but says: -The law has to be enforced as set by the Df-F.
She adds: -VOSA ensured that staff were aware of the agreement. However, we are unable to comment on individual cases."
But Keltruck management is determined to take this case further. "We are up for the fight," Kelly concludes."And we look forward to dealing with this in court.lo