AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Evasive' scaffolder's appeal for return of vehicle rejected

21st September 2006
Page 35
Page 35, 21st September 2006 — 'Evasive' scaffolder's appeal for return of vehicle rejected
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A SCAFFOLDER who "had not told the truth" has lost an appeal to theTransport Tribunal for the return of his impounded truck.

The original decision to refuse the return of the vehicle had been made by South-Eastern and Metropolitan Deputy Traffic Commissioner Timothy Swan.

He was told the vehicle, in the livery of DMS Scaffolding of Surrey, had been impounded at Leatherhead on 30 January. It was given a prohibition for an insecure fuel tank and found to have a 15.33% gross overload.

The vehicle was driven by Daren Smith, who claimed to know nothing about the missing 0-licence disc as he was only the driver. He later admitted he was the owner, but claimed he was not using the vehicle for his business. He had collected the load of scaffolding the previous Saturday and had submitted an application for an 0-licence.

It was established that no application had been received; that DMS Scaffolding had been trading since at least July 2005; that the vehicle had been stopped in August and December 2005 and Smith had been reported for driving without insurance, test certificate or 0-licence and failing to notify DVLA of the vehicle's acquisition. The business was in fact a private limited company called Direct Management Solutions. Smith had admitted before the Deputy TC that he had realised the need for an 0-licence in December 2005 and had obtained an application pack from the Traffic Area Office.

Before the Transport Tribunal, Smith said he now held an 0-licence. He claimed that at the time of the impounding, the scaffolding was only on the vehicle as he had no yard and was using it for a private journey as his wife had their car.

The Tribunal were satisfied Smith knew perfectly well he needed an 0-licence. He had simply not told the truth whenever an outright lie or evasive answer would do instead. Even if they accepted the story that he was only storing scaffolding on the vehicle, storage would still he using the vehicle for his business.


comments powered by Disqus