AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

11 I have bought a coach which I intend to

8th July 1977, Page 51
8th July 1977
Page 51
Page 51, 8th July 1977 — 11 I have bought a coach which I intend to
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?

convert to caravanette type of vehicle hich I will use to attend otorcar rallies and stock car cing. Is it possible to modify is vehicle also to carry a stock tr and still retain its classifiWon as a passenger vehicle or )es it then become a goods !hide liable to plating and sting and requiring an hgv lying licence?

k If you convert your coach it to carry a stock car or milar vehicle, it will become a aods vehicle and, despite the ict that "'living vans" are cempt, it will need plating and sting. If the plated gross eight exceeds 7.5 tonnes 1.38 tons) the driver will need heavy goods vehicle driving :ence. The reason for this ecomes plain when one prisiders the relative definions of a "passenger vehicle" rd a "goods vehicle" conlined in Regulation 3 of the lotor Vehicles (Construction nd Use) Regulations 1973. ere "a passenger vehicle" is efined as a vehicle constructed D lely for the carriage of pas..ngers and their effects. Case iw has already established that stock car cannot be regarded s "passenger's effects". In the ame regulation, "goods vehile" means a motor vehicle onstructed or adapted for use )r the carriage of goods. The iodifications to your coach would constitute adaptation for

carriage of goods making it goods vehicle.

Support for this conclusion an be found in an appeal efore Queen's Bench Division n November 2, 1976, Plume v

■ uckling 1977 RTR 271.

Here, the circumstances were somewhat different in that le defendant had been proseuted for driving a converted oach at 50mph though the peed limit for a goods vehicle vas 40mph. However, there is 'parallel in that the coach was idapted to seat six passengers Ind it had cooking, washing Ind storage facilities and caried a stock car. Though the nagistrates had originally held hat it was a passenger vehicle Ind carried only passengers' iffects, the Appeal Court dis'greed, holding that neither a ;tock car nor kitchen equipment ;ould be so regarded, and they emitted the case to the magisrates with a direction to ;onvict.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus