AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Owner-driver cleared

8th October 1983, Page 15
8th October 1983
Page 15
Page 15, 8th October 1983 — Owner-driver cleared
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?

OWNER-DRIVER Eric Wood of Heywood, Lancashire, was clear operating a vehicle without a licence by the Bury magistrate the grounds that he had lent his vehicle to Sea Route Ferry ( chester) which had specified the vehicle on its licence.

Mr Wood denied using the vehicle without a licence and Sea Route Ferry denied aiding and abetting him.

Prosecuting for the North Western Licencing Authority, Christopher Worthy said Mr Wood's vehicle had been on hire to Sea Route and was certified on the company's licence. However, it was the user of the vehicle that had to hold the licence. Mr Wood was driving the vehicle which belonged to him and therefore he should have been the licence holder.

In evidence, Mr Wood said he had approached the company to put the vehicle on its licence after Sea Route had done some repair work on the vehicle which he could not pay for. It was kept on its licence until he had for the repair work. It was that the company shoulc come the registered keepe this had not gone through c date of the alleged offence.

Mr Wood said he though as he owed money the corr had become part owner c vehicle.

Defending, John Back!' said that Mr Wood had let vehicle to Sea Route until h paid off the repair.

The user of a vehicle wz fined as the driver if the vi belonged to him or was i possession under an agres for hire purchase or loan, any other case a person v servant the driver was. It d follow that the user o vehicle was the person taxed it. The words "on had been deliberately inset the legislation to take care situation where the owne the vehicle to someone els:

As Sea Route was in pi sion of the vehicle under . agreement, Mr Wood had I with possession and WE company's agent while h driving the vehicle. The pany wanted possession vehicle so it could recov money it had spent on it.

The magistrates dismiss charge against Mr Wooc aiding and abetting clagainst the company journed for a possible ap

Mr Wood was fined € two charges of having no licence and one charge of insufficient rest. He was oi to pay £454.98 back duty.


comments powered by Disqus