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 
Recovery operator is fined £950 # for vehicle missing from licence
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A RECOVERY operator that failed to specify a vehicle on its 0-licence has been ordered to pay £950 in fines and costs after the vehicle was stopped at a roadside check. Ontime (Courts) Rescue & Recover of Iver. Bucks,admitted the offence when it appeared before the Wimbledon magistrates.
Anthony Ostrin, prosecuting for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, said a two-axled Scania recovery truck carrying a glazing machine was stopped in a roadside check last November. The driver. Peter Burt, said the glazing machine was being taken to the company's yard. The vehicle was not displaying an 0-licence disc, which should have been the case when used for that purpose. Although the company held an 0-licence it did not cover the use of this particular vehicle on the day of the check.
Appearing for the company, Christopher Butter! ield said the company's licence authorised no fewer than 28 vehicles.The fact that this vehicle was not specified on it derived from a misunderstanding. The vehicle was a recovery vehicle. The summons incorrectly stated it was being used for hire or reward at the time, but correctly stated that an offence under Section Two of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 was committed.
That offence was due to the purpose of the journey, which was to carry the machine for use in connection with the operator's business.
It was a common misconception that an element of hire or reward was essential for a vehicle to be specified on the licence.
At the time the company had six vehicles and it had the vehicle put on the licence the following day.They were not cowboys, said Butterfield; this offence was a technicality,which the court should take into account.
Fining the company .f750 with £200 costs, the magistrates found no wilful disregard of the licensing system and decided this was a matter of negligence.