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 
Nutter passes the point of no return
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An operator who drove without a licence fails to win back his impounded truck.
Mike Jewell reports.
A Lancashire scrap operator who lost his licence last October (CM 6 November 2003) continued to operate his only vehicle in defiance of the law. The unit was impounded in January and he has failed in a bid to have it returned.
Brierfield-based Brian Nutter's licence was revoked by North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna because of a poor maintenance record after he failed to turn up at a reconvened hearing. His fully-laden vehicle was impounded after a traffic examiner saw Nutter driving it.
Adjourned hearing
Seeking the return of the vehicle before Deputy TC Tom Macartney, Nutter said he had been unaware of the date of the adjourned hearing when his licence was finally revoked. He remembered he had received the call-in letter but had thrown it under the table, after which it had been forgotten.
He agreed that there was no 0-licence in existence in January, but he thought that an 0-licence was not required if his vehicle was not being used for hire and reward."! thought I was well in order," he said. He produced documentation showing that it was insured only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, not for business.
He said the vehicle was a recovery vehicle, used for the movement of scrapped cars. He was pestered with fly tippers in his scrap business, with household items being dumped at his premises, and he had been obliged to use his vehicle to move such items on a few occasions. "Ninety-nine per cent of my work is recovery." he added.
Attractive goods
After it was pointed out that there had been a number of washing machines in the load. Nutter explained that he had to fill the load with more attractive goods such as scrap washing machines.
That was an inducement to the tip to accept other items of scrap contained within the load, which had been fly-tipped at the entrance to his premises. He was adamant that he had received no money for the load.
For the Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (VOSA), it was said that, when stopped.Nutter explained he was just trying to earn a living.This seemed to contradict the statement that he was not earning any money from the use of his vehicle. Refusing to return the vehicle.the DTC said Nutter was a scrap merchant who dealt in a variety of scrap. in addition to handling scrap vehicles.The vehicle was being used in January when laden with a substantial number of scrap appliances.
Photographs produced illustrated that about 10 or 12 scrap washing machines were being carried, which indicated that Nutter was using this vehicle for the conveyance of his own as a scrap merchant.That constituted the t thorised use of a goods vehicle and fell ot any exemption which might be appropria a recovery vehicle.
The DTC said that Nutter could be exp to be familiar with the requirements of th erator licensing regulations, and so knew t than to operate his vehicle in this ma He had been continuing to use it for his business purposes and had done so, by hü admission,several times after the revocati his licence. •