AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No return for tractor used to haul trailers for testing

5th September 2002
Page 10
Page 10, 5th September 2002 — No return for tractor used to haul trailers for testing
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

M by Mike Jewel

The Eastern Traffic Commissioner has refused to return a tractor used by a garage to take third-party trailers for test after it was impounded by the Vehicle Inspectorate.

WC Commercials were advised by a traffic examiner in February that it would be breaking the law if it continued to haul thirdparty trailers to the Leighton Buzzard Goods Vehicle Testing Station without an Operator's Licence. The warning was repeated in May when director William Dunstan was shown the text of the High Court's decision in the case of Booth vs DPP.

No licence application was made and in July while presenting a semi-trailer owned by Hill Hire for annual test, the company's tractor was impounded.

The company sought the return of the vehicle in front of TC Geoffrey Simms on the grounds that it did not know that it was being used without licence authority For the company, it was argued that it had been in business for over 15 years with no previous suggestion that a licence was required. Enquiries made of similar firms in the area showed that they also considered themselves to be exempt.

Even a question to the FTA drew the response that an 0licence was not required. It was felt that the company had been unfairly singled out for special treatment because of its association with a customer, John Vosper, a haulier who had become involved in an acrimonious dispute with

the VI ( CM16-22 May). The impounding It lation was directeo at rogue operators obtained an unfair advantage over ha law abiding operators—but Commercials did not fall into that categ Had the directors been satisfied that a licence was required an application wi have been made, as it now had been.

Refusing to return the vehicle, the said that in the 1995 Act "goods" vi defined as "goods or burden of any desc tion". The business of WC Commerc relied upon its ability to habitually m other people's trailers between its I maintenance site and the Testing Stat Therefore, in accordance with the deci: in the Booth case, he found that constitL the movement of "burden" in connec with its business and such activities cc only be carried out lawfully under authority of an 0-licence.

However, the TC added that it might h been preferable if Me VI had pursue prosecution to give weight to its argumi He found some difficulty in resisting company's claim that a somewhat "hw handed" approach had been adopt especially the suggestion that the VI's in interest was aroused by the involvernen the company in the Vosper dispute.


comments powered by Disqus