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
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
VOSA denies unfair case
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A BEDFORD operator says he succeeded in making VOSA drop three summonses against him after proving it was trying to use inadmissible evidence. However, VOSA argues the decision to drop its action against Ron Dalton was made before it received representations from his solicitor.
Dalton feared he would lose his licence and even face imprisonment after he was accused of employing an unlicensed driver and fiddling his tacho charts. But his solicitor argued there were no grounds for prosecution.
Dalton says he sacked a driver when VOSA officers found he did not have a valid HGV licence. VOSA then demanded Dalton International's records and he was accused of winding his tacho back It thought I was responsible for it all," says Dalton. "[Bull I had checked the driver's licence and gave him proper instructions."
He says VOSA was determined to take him to court and claims it tried to use a telephone conversation as evidence, even though he was not under caution at that time.
His solicitor, Steve Wedd, says: "Normally the prosecution puts together a reasonable case. However, once in a while they get it wrong: [VOSA] allowed its enthusiasm to take over the knowledge gathered on the case."
A VOSA spokeswoman denies this and says: "It was decided that evidence in relation to two of the three summonses were not strong enough to justify proceedings." christopher.tindall@rbi.co.uk