The lawful owner of the vehicle with registration number BL12 AEM v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
[2024] UKUT 133 (AAC)
Charles Moyo v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
14 June 2023
[2023] UKUT 138 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone's truck got taken away because they couldn't prove it was theirs. They tried to appeal but didn't have enough proof, so the decision to keep the truck stood.
Key Facts
- •Charles Moyo appealed a Traffic Commissioner's (TC) decision to refuse the release of impounded heavy goods vehicle GXZ 2858.
- •The vehicle was impounded on 12 February 2022 for operating without a valid license.
- •Moyo claimed ownership, stating the vehicle was borrowed by Tiny Transport from 9-12 February 2022.
- •Moyo provided limited documentation: a V5C showing acquisition on 17 February 2022 (after impounding), and bank statements showing payments to and from Ndumiso Dlamini (alleged seller) and T Ncube (alleged intermediary).
- •The TC found Moyo failed to demonstrate ownership due to insufficient evidence, notably the absence of a bill of sale or other documentation for the alleged £15,000 purchase.
- •Moyo's appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT) was made outside the one-month time limit, but the time was extended.
- •The UT refused Moyo's application to introduce fresh evidence from Selby Nkambule based on Ladd v Marshall criteria.
- •The DVSA had disposed of the vehicle before the appeal.
Legal Principles
In impounding cases, the appellant must demonstrate ownership of the vehicle at the time of impounding.
Traffic Commissioner's decision and Upper Tribunal's reasoning
A V5C certificate is not, in itself, proof of ownership.
Traffic Commissioner's decision
The Upper Tribunal, in reviewing a Traffic Commissioner's decision, cannot consider circumstances not existing at the time of the original determination, and is not required to rehear all the evidence.
Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
The criteria for admitting fresh evidence are strict, outlined in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 and applied rigorously in traffic cases (W Martin Oliver Partnership [2016] UKUT 70 (AAC)).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1; W Martin Oliver Partnership [2016] UKUT 70 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal upheld the Traffic Commissioner's decision, finding Moyo failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the vehicle at the time of impounding. The application for fresh evidence was refused.
Similar Cases
Toland Plant Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Agency
[2023] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Bulk Tranz Haulage Ltd, Bulgaria v Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland
[2023] UKUT 87 (AAC)
NI Truck Rentals Ltd v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit
[2023] UKUT 60 (AAC)
Nugent International Limited v Presiding Officer
[2024] UKUT 8 (AAC)