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
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224 
Trade plates mususe cost £225
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MISUSE of trade plates cost a vehicle recovery firm £225 in this week. fines breakdown vehicle.
Mainline Vehicle Dismantlers told Atherstone magistrates it had genuinely believed that it was in order to use a recovery vehicle under trade plates to carry insurance write-offs. However, because of what even the prosecution described as "a legal stew", it was wrong. The company, of Great Bridge, West Midlands, denied misusing trade plates, using a vehicle without tachograph and without an excise licence. It was fined £75 on each charge.
Evidence was given that the vehicle was specially constructed with two rigid ramps that went up over the cab. An electrically operated winch pulled disabled vehicles up the ramps and an arm and pulley was used for suspended tows.
On the day in question, the vehicle concerned had been carrying two cars and a motorcycle, which were insurance write-offs, and was towing a third car, also a write-off.
David Christensen, prosecuting, said it was accepted that it was a recovery vehicle, but it was not a recovery vehicle exempted by the regulations from having an excise licence because it was carrying more than a single disabled vehicle.
A specialised breakdown vehicle was exempted from the tachograph regulations, but there was no definition of what consisted of a specialised John Dunn, company secretary of Mainline, said the decision whether the cars were to be scrapped or repaired was normally made after they had been delivered to the company's premises.
Defending, Michael Gotalee, said that in the case of Universal Salvage, Lord Justice Goff had laid down that a specialised breakdown vehicle was a vehicle specially built or adapted and kept for going to the assistance of a broken down vehicle, generally having the capacity of raising a broken down vehicle to aid in its recovery by carrying it or by towing.
The type of vehicle could vary depending upon the type of vehicle being recovered. The law was complex as a breakdown vehicle was a recovery vehicle, but a specialised breakdown vehicle might be something different. The essence was the purpose for which the vehicle was being used to recover disabled vehicles or to carry scrap vehicles. It was the purpose of the journey that was important.