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 
TC queries Vosa actions over return of impounded vehicle
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TC refuses to return unlicensed vehicle used to carry Range Rovers and questions Vasa's authority to give it back. Mike Jewell reports.
WEST MIDLAND Traffic Commissioner Nick Jones has turned down a bid for the return of an impounded vehicle towing a trailer carrying Range Rovers on the grounds it was not a recovery vehicle so it required an 0-licence.
The TC is also sending his decision to the Vosa chief executive to ask why Vosa had apparently treated this matter differently to other impounding hearings that had come before the TCs.
In September 2007 a Vosa official stopped a two-axle rigid recovery-type vehicle towing a two-axle trailer at a roadside check on the M6 at Doxey, Staffs. The official believed it was being used to convey vehicles from a port to be sold.The clriver,Thornas Guest,said he was employed and paid by IGW Services.
Documents showed that the load, two unregistered Range Rovers, had been collected from Bristol Docks after being imported into the country and Guest said they had been imported with a view to being sold by IGW The Range Rovers had been immobilised to prevent their theft and that would be rectified at TGW premises where they would be inspected and registered.
The recovery-type vehicle did not have an 0-licence and was impounded. It was registered to IGW whose 0-licence had been revoked and was owned by Ansvar Holdings. Tan Workman, a director of both companies, applied for its return.
The IC said that in October 2007 he had received a phone call from a Vosa official indicating that the agency was considering returning the vehicle to Ansvar Holdings. He asked if Vosa had the authority to return it as a TC had decided the case should be heard at a public inquiry.
For Vosa, Paul O'Brien said it would have been unlawful to return the vehicle, as there was no provision in the regulations to return an impounded vehicle once a TC had decided to deal with the issue at public inquiry.
Howard Catherall. appearing for Ansvar, submitted that this was the legal use of a recovery vehicle for disabled vehicles. There was no question of overloading, he added, so an 0licence was not required. If it was, the company did not know this. The TC said that following the public inquiry on 6 November 2007 he was given a copy of an e-mail explaining that the impounded vehicle had been given back to Ansvar Holdings with an undertaking that it would be returned if necessary. The e-mail referred to advice having been taken on this point and ended with a note to the effect that if the TC wanted to discuss the matter further he could contact a named senior Vosa official.
Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC concluded that the operation which resulted in the impounding was not the recovery at disabled vehicles, but the carriage of vehicle. for onward sale. Accordingly, an 0-licence wa5. required. He considered Workman had donc more than deliberately turn a blind eye; he hac actual knowledge of the act committed.
The TC concluded that Vosa's actions it these proceedings had not assisted him. •