Recovery vehicle a very definite doubt
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Dismissing a case of alleged misuse of a trade licence against Western SMT Ltd, Kilmarnock, the Appleby (North Westmorland) bench chairman, Mr L. S. Chapman, last week explained: "We are unresolved with regard to the definition of a recovery vehicle and Section 16 of the Vehicles and Excise Act and in very definite doubt. At this stage, SMT must have the benefit of the doubt."
The firm had pleaded not guilty'. The case concerned a vehicle converted from a singledecker bus into a towing vehicle, which was stopped by the police. Evidence was given that it was being used on trade plates
but was not fitted with any lifting equipment nor was it carrying a trolley on which a vehicle could be suspended and towed. It was fitted with a towbar and the driver said he was on his way to tow back a bus which had broken down.
Mr P. Kershaw, representing the firm, said the question was whether it was a recovery vehicle under the terms of the law. It was carrying two 8-ton bottlejacks which, he submitted, satisfied that part of the Act which stated that a recovery vehicle was one carrying as part of its equipment apparatus for raising a disabled vehicle from the ground.