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 
Home Office: "We will NOT be giving your money back
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• by Emma Penny After almost three months of waiting. CM has finally received a reply from the Home Office about the £2m it took from hauliers under its previous stowaway fines regime.
Cffs high-profile campaign to have the £2m repaid to hauliers— which is being kept by government despite dropping its pursuit of the £12m of unpaid fines—has obviously struck a chord at the Home Office. In the letter, Home Office Inspector David Gale says he is "aware of the letter writing campaign launched by Commercial Motor in respect of penalties paid by hauliers and others under the regime that operated until 8 Dec 2002", However, Gale then restates the Home Office line that penalties issued under the scheme were "lawfully imposed". He says: "Where such penalties were paid, liability for them was accepted by those concerned. The government is not under any obligation to return these penalties, and considers it appropriate to retain them." CM editor-in-chief Brian Weatherley. who wrote the original letter to the Home Office back in December, says the response is not good enough.
"The Home Office's assertion that 'where such penalties were paid, liability for them was accepted by those concerned' is yet another slap in the face for those drivers who checked their vehicles only to find that stowaways subsequently gained access to them due to an appalling lack of security at French ferry ports.
"Operators had no choice but to pay the fines. Paying was a prerequisite to getting their impounded trucks back so they could get on with their jobs and continue to run their businesses.
One operator still reeling from the effects of the fines is Selby-based ELBA Transport, which took out a loan In order to pay its £8,000 fine. Partner Elaine Machin says she's outraged by the Home Office's attitude: We are disgusted with the way they are going about it—we made it known we were paying under duress and we just couldn't afford to fight it."
Machin insists she will continue battling for the return of the money and jus tire for it and other haulers. The Home Office's point-blank refusal to even consider repaying the fines has also been met with disgust from the Freight Transport Association. Its external affairs director Geoff Dossetter says: "We're not surprised by this reply, but we are disappointed. We think the attitude of the Home Office and government is incredibly mean-minded considering that those who had not paid [the fines) are not being chased."
Referring to the Roth case, which the government lost, Dossetter says: "Equity, common sense and goodwill ought to lead the Home Office to repay the fines which have been the subject of such a controversial legal judgment.
Road Haulage Association chief executive Roger King agrees: This legislation was almost unparalleled, and even the government even
tually agreed that It went against natural justice— so any outstanding cases should be reviewed."
• uII copy of the Home Office letter on page 28.