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
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214 
Farm vehicle return refused after licence warning ignored
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Building firm carried on using agricultural tractor to transport materials without a licence, despite clear warning from VOSA, says Scottish DTC.
DESPITE A CLEAR warning by VOSA, a building firm carried on using an unlicensed agricultural vehicle for transporting materials to building sites. The vehicle was subsequently impounded and its return refused by the Scottish Deputy Traffic Commissioner Richard McFarlane.That decision has now been upheld by the Transport Tribunal.
In dismissing the appeal by Kirkcaldy-based Carlton House, the tribunal said that it was in the business of building and property development. At no time had it been engaged in agriculture. Nevertheless it owned an agricultural tractor which was impounded on 9 September by VOSA officers while laden with building materials.
Following the impounding, the company applied for the return of the vehicle on the grounds that it did not know that it was being used unlawfully. The company believed no licence was needed for the vehicle and, in the absence of knowledge that a licence was required, they were entitled to the return of the vehicle.
Licence not required
Before the DTC the company's managing director Gordon Law contended that the starter pack which he had obtained from the Traffic Area Office stated that an agricultural tractor of the type which had been detained did not require a licence in certain circumstances". From that he concluded that a licence was not required.
Far from being used for agricultural purposes, the vehicle was in fact used for the haulage of the company's own goods to building sites. The company had been aware of the need for an 0-licence as the vehicle had been stopped by VOSA officers on 30 June and the company, as user, and the driver, were both cautioned and charged, with a report being forwarded to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration.
Michael Whiteford, for the company, said that nowhere in the starter pack was there a definition of what constituted the "certain circumstances" referred to as exempting an agricultural tractor from holding an 0-licence. He added that though the company had been warned of a possible prosecution on 30 June no prosecution had materialised by 9 September. He accepted that Law had not taken advice but argued that Law's thoughts up to the point when the vehicle was impounded in September were relevant.
Clear warning
The Tribunal said that nearly three months had gone by between the company being warned and the impounding with further specific opportunities to meet the regulations.
The fact that possibly Law could not, or would not, make up his mind whether to apply for a licence was irrelevant. A clear warning of prosecution delivered by VOSA, whose sole purpose was to secure compliance with road haulage law, was an unambiguous signal and in their view constituted knowledge that an 0-licence was required. They believed that this was a case of "wilfully shutting one's eyes to the obvious". Law was on notice of the need for a licence since his conversation with a traffic examiner on 30 June. •