Lombard North wins back Volvo tractor
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Volvo Globetrotter tractor was returned to the operator after it appealed against TC Bell’s decision
By Roger Brown
LOMBARD NORTH Central has successfully appealed against a decision by North Western Trafic Commissioner (TC) Beverley Bell and got back a Volvo Globetrotter tractor unit it had leased to an operator.
Upper Tribunal Judge Alan Gamble ordered that the Volvo, which had been the subject of a 60-month lease purchase agreement in October 2007 between Lombard and David Coombe, trading as DPC European Transport, be returned under the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001.
In December 2009, TC Bell revoked the O-licences of Coombe’s businesses, DPC European Transport and DPC HiAbs Heathrow. Coombe later entered an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) with his creditors and stopped making payments under the contract.
Following the IVA, Lombard attempted to recover the vehicle without success using different repossession agents in January and July 2010.
However, in October that year, VOSA oficers found that the truck was being operated by Eric Nichol ls, who had his O-licence revoked the previous May. Nicholls had been hiring the vehicle from the revoked operator DPC Hi-Abs from September 2010 under an agreement with them.
In a separate ar rangement, Nicholls had also been display ing the O-licence of R Balmer, trading as RB Trucking, in the window.
Lombard had been unaware of all the revocations, and the subsequent use by Nicholls, un til after the vehicle was detained by VOSA.
In making her February decision that Lombard could not get the vehicle back, the TC said she had taken into account the “high degree of fault” on the part of the owner.
However, Lombard argued on appeal that the reasoning that led the TC to her conclusion was lawed, and that her determination was “materially errone ous in law” .
Gamble agreed, saying that a high degree of fault had to be of a speciic kind, such as something involving dishonesty, which was not the situation in the case of Lombard.
He added: “In her full written reasons, the TC describes the decision of the Transport Tribunal in Close Asset Finance Limited v Secretary of State for Transport, Appeal 2003/3 as an ‘enormously helpful case’ .
“However, we hold that she misdirected herself as to the true effect of that decision, which is the leading authority on the issues arising in this appeal.
“It is crucially important that nowhere in her determination does the TC make a speciic inding of dishonesty in respect of the owner.”