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 
Truck remains impounded as TC rejects own-goods argument
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A MAN WHO wrongly claimed exemption from requiring an 0-licence has lost his bid for the return of his impounded vehicle when Scottish Traffic Commissioner Joan Aitken ruled he was using it for business purposes and therefore operating illegally.
Bryce Stewart, trading as Lothian and Borders Auction Services and New-bridge Recovery, of Edinburgh,had sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that it was not being used unlawfully without an 0-licence, as it was transporting his own goods.
Traffic examiner John Dunlop said the vehicle was impounded in October while loaded with a staircas. stainless steel banisters and two fire doors on a joume between Newcraighall and Mid Calder.
Stewart said the vehicle had not been used for hir or reward and there was no evidence of him receivin any payments for work done with it.
Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC said she ha no doubt Stewart was engaged in the business c moving goods. At some stage they would be gooc he owned, by virtue of an arrangement where-. ownership transferred after they were cleared °I of premises. In other instances, the goods were heir moved into storage for receivers as part of the set hr up of auctions.At the very least, he was using a vehic in connection with a business carried out by him an it was utterly disingenuous of him to argue othervvis For reasons known only to himself and which si did not claim to understand fully, the TC said Stewa appeared to have set himself historically again applying for an 0-licence, restricted or nationz She could not save him from his own conduct ar had no doubt the vehicle concerned was being usc unlawfully without an 0-licence,