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 
COMING UNSTUCK WITH CABOTAGE RULES
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
While UK hauliers may get upset at foreign operators undertaking cabotage work, one of the most recent high-profile cases of clamping down on cabotage involved a UK firm.
This year, the Transport Tribunal dismissed an appeal by four related haulage firms whose vehicles had been impounded by Vosa, with impounding subsequently upheld by senior Traffic Commissioner Philip Brown.
Vosa originally seized the trucks, all save one, Belgian registered, ir October 2006. The trucks had been doing domestic container work, controlled from the UK.
This might not even have come to Vosa attention had there not been a series of overloading offences: one 44-tonner was found to be 70% overweight.
Vosa said that there was no way that the work could have qualified as cabotage and that there were strong links between Gary Benham, one of the men involved, and Scorpion Freight, which had its licence revoked in 2000.
The Tribunal said that it believed the Belgian companies were a device in order to enable Gary Benham to continue operating vehicles in the UK, even though he had been disqualified from holding an 0-licence (CM 14 January).