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 
Bank was deliberately misled
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Impounded vehicle was being operated without a valid 0-licence.
A FINANCE COMPANY has won the return of a vehicle after a public inquiry accepted it had been misled into believing the purchaser held a valid 0-licence — a user with a "complete and utter disregard for the licensing system".
The vehicle was returned to Bank of Ireland Business Finance after the North Western Traffic Commissioner, Beverley Bell, ruled that the bank had been "positively and deliberately misled by dishonest means" by Port of Liverpool Logistics.
Both companies had originally sought the return of the vehicle but at the beginning of the inquiry Richard Green, for Port of Liverpool Logistics, said that it was no longer seeking the return of the vehicle, only of the trailer. While there was a right to impound a vehicle, he doubted that right applied to the trailer.
Bank wanted tractor unit
Alan Wardlavy, Bank of Ireland's credit manager. said it had no interest in the trailer, only the tractor unit. He maintained that the company had been unaware it was being used without a licence at the time of impounding.
The hank had a letter from Port of Liverpool Logistics stating it had a valid 0-licence. He ageed that an earlier letter to Bank of Ireland's agents stated that a licence held by a Port of Liverpool Logistics' associate, Cargo Logistics, was being used until Port of Liverpool Logistics had its own 0-licence. He added that the bank was in the process of terminating the hire purchase agreement for the vehicle.
Traffic examiner Peter Ilsley said he understood the tractor unit and trailer were classed as a "vehicle". The trailer bore Port of Liverpool Logistics' livery. Vosa did not normally make A Pori operator loses light tor impounded truok enquiries about the ownership of a trailer.
The TC pointed out the definition of "goods vehicle" in the legislation meant both a motor vehicle and a trailer. She added that she had suspended the Cargo Logistics licence last September, before revoking it in October.
The TC said she was satisfied that the user of the vehicle was Port of Liverpool Logistics. The company claimed it had hired the vehicle to B & J Haulage for use on that company's licence but the TC believed this was a sham and a device to hide the real user, which was Port of Liverpool Logistics In adjourning consideration of the return of the trailer to enable Green to review the situation, the TC asked Vosa to see whether other vehicles were being operated illegally by Port of Liverpool Logistics — a company run by the Glanville family, which had shown a"complete and utter disregard for the licensing system ".•