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 
Tribunal remits impound case
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PIThe Transport Tribunal has allowed an appeal against a refusal to return an impounded vehicle by directing that the matter be reconsidered by the West Midland Traffic Commissioner David Dixon. The vehicle, belonging to Warwickshire-based Benjamin Smith, was impounded at Leamington Spa in July last year while carrying a load of tiles. Smith claimed the tiles were purchased for his private use in rebuilding stables belonging to him. The VI told the West Midland DTC Roger Seymour that Smith's business was converting barns and that Smith knew he needed an Operator's Licence, as he had previously been prosecuted for not possessing one.
Smith pointed out that the conviction had been quashed and asserted that his only business was letting caravans. However, the DTC favoured the VI evidence.
For Smith, Anthony Ostrin told the Tribunal there was insufficient evidence on which the DTC ordered that the vehicle should be impounded. He said Smith was illiterate and completely unfamiliar with 0-licensing.
The Tribunal said that the VI had erred in not cautioning Smith before interviewing him and that made their evidence unfairly obtained and unreliable, particularly if he was illiterate. The answers he gave to the VI were not sufficient to establish unauthorised use as they were clearly open to other interpretations. The Tribunal did not think that gun was established by the, albeit odd, answers that Smith gave. The OTC could have asked questions of Smith which would have cleared up any ambiguities and which might have given him the chance to establish the true state of affairs.
As Smith was also to be prosecuted for unauthorised use, the Tribunal felt they should remit the case to the Traffic Commissioner so that Smith could be examined and the result of the prosecution taken into account.