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 
'Ruse' fails to impress IC
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EgWhat was EgWhat was
described as an "elementary ruse" failed when the Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms refused to return an impounded vehicle belonging to Albert Richards, of Leicester.
Traffic examiner Anita Barwell told the IC that the vehicle, which was registered in the name of Richards' brother Andrew, was detained by the VI on 10 June at Andrew Richards' address. Andrew Richards had been convicted in March of several offences connected with the use of the vehicle, including unauthorised use. On several occasions since examiners had observed Andrew Richards driving the vehicle in a laden condition.
Albert Richards said that he had purchased the vehicle from his brother for £5,300 in cash the day before it was detained in an attempt to set up a business to better himself. He relied upon a handwritten receipt issued by his brother and a completed new keeper section of a V5 document as proof of ownership. He claimed to be unaware of his brother's conviction for unauthorised use and the vehicle was used on 10 June without his authority.
Refusing to return the vehicle. the TC said that Albert Richards neither held nor had applied for an 0-licence. No evidence had been produced to satisfy him that a consideration had been paid. To substantiate ignorance of unauthorised use he would need to be satisfied Albert Richards was not simply closing his eyes to the obvious. The vehicle had been use( carry goods on the public hi way in connection with the bi ness operated by Andr Richards without the autho of an 0-licence. The case p sented by Albert Richards v totally lacking in conviction substance.
There was no satisfact. evidence to support the tra fer of ownership between brothers and he therefore cc not be satisfied that Alb Richards was the owner. Eve he had been persuaded t Albert Richards was owner, he frankly did believe that he v unaware of his brothE use of the vehicle with an 0-licence, especi as his brother had Ix convicted of that offer in March. Neither cc he accept the assert that his brother used vehicle without autho on 10 June. He thou that it was an element ruse fabricated ret spectively solely for purpose of overcori the detention.