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 
No return because transporter was carrying too many cars
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN OPERATOR has failed to win the return of a car transporter which it claimed was exempt from the 0-licensing rep because it was a recovery vehicle.
The refusal of the West Midland Traffic Commissioner David Dixon to return the unit to Whitchurch-bascd WJ Furber has been upheld on appeal by the Transport Tribunal.
The transporter was impounded after being stopped on the A40 at Ross-on-Wye carrying five accident-damaged cars and towing a fifth. It was displaying a vehicle excise licence showing that it had been taxed as a recovery vehicle.
0-licence exemption for recovery vehicles is limited by law to the recovery of two vehicles.
The company had held an 0-licence, but this was revoked in June 2004. Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC pointed out that the company had specified similar vehicles on its 0-licence before the revocation.That suggested the company knew such vehicles needed an 0-licence.
Appearing before the Tribunal for the company, Colin Sinclair argued that the vehicle's detention was unlawful. Firstly, because the wording in the statutory notice referred to Vasa and not to the authorised officer; secondly, because it referred to "shall dispose" of the contents and not "intended to dispose"; thirdly, because no inventory had been made of the contents, which included all the driver's possessions in the cab and any concealed goods behind the driver's seat; and fourthly, because the service of all copies of the statutory notice had not been proved.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that it was plain that Furber knew that the transporter was recovering five vehicles at the time and that recovery vehicle exemption is limited to the recovery of a maximum of two vehicles.