News

West Midland Traffic Commissioner Nick Jones has turned down a bid for the return of an impounded vehicle towing a trailer carrying Range Rovers on the grounds it was not a recovery vehicle and required an O-licence. The TC is also copying his decision to the Vosa chief executive to ask why Vosa had apparently treated this matter differently to other impounding hearings that had come before Traffic Commissioners.

In September 2007 a Vosa official stopped a two-axle rigid recovery-type  vehicle towing a two-axle trailer at a roadside check on the M6 at Doxey, Staffs. The official believed it was being used to convey vehicles from a port to be sold. The driver, Thomas Guest, said he was employed and paid by IGW Services. Documents showed that the load, two unregistered Range Rovers, had been collected from Bristol Docks after being imported into the country and Guest said they were imported with a view to being sold by IGW.

The Range Rovers had been immobilised to prevent their theft and that would be rectified at IGW premises where they would be inspected and registered. The recovery-type vehicle did not have an O-licence and was impounded. It was registered to IGW whose O-licence had been revoked and owned by Ansvar Holdings. Ian Workman, a director of both companies, made an application for the return of the vehicle. The TC said that in October 2007 he received a phone call from a Vosa official indicating the agency was considering returning the vehicle to Ansvar  Holdings. He asked whether Vosa had authority to return it as a TC had decided the matter should be heard at a public inquiry.

For Vosa, Paul O'Brien said it would have been unlawful to return the vehicle, as there was no provision in the regulations to return an impounded vehicle once a TC had decided to deal with the issue at public inquiry. Howard Catherall, appearing for Ansvar, submitted that as this was the use of a recovery vehicle for genuinely disabled vehicles, complying with the requirements as to the maximum number of vehicles being carried, an O-licence was not required. If it was, the company did not know this.

The TC said that following the public inquiry on 6 November 2007 he was given a copy of an e-mail explaining that the impounded vehicle had been given back to Ansvar Holdings with an undertaking that it would be returned if necessary. The e-mail referred to advice having been taken on the point and ended with a note to the effect that if the TC wanted to discuss the matter further he could contact a named Vosa senior official. Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC concluded that the exercise which resulted in the impounding was not the recovery of disabled vehicles, but the transportation of vehicles for onward sale. Accordingly, an O-licence was required. He considered Workman had done more than deliberately turn a blind eye, he had actual knowledge of the act committed. The TC added that Vosa's actions in the proceedings had not assisted him.