Charles Moyo v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
[2023] UKUT 138 (AAC)
The lawful owner of the vehicle with registration number BL12 AEM v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
9 May 2024
[2024] UKUT 133 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A company's lorry was taken away because it didn't have the right paperwork. They were late asking for it back, and the judge said they didn't have a good excuse and their claim wasn't strong. So, they didn't get their lorry back.
Key Facts
- •Iveco lorry (BL12 AEM) impounded by DVSA on 9 January 2023 for lack of operator's licence disc.
- •Driver identified owner as Scaff-Co Ltd, Unit 17 Thorpe Hill Farm, Wakefield.
- •Notice to owner sent to that address; no application for return received by 3 February 2023 deadline.
- •Late application for return made on 22 February 2023 by Robert Knowles (claiming to be a director) on behalf of Scaff-Co Scaffolding Company Leeds.
- •Traffic Commissioner refused extension of time, citing inadequate explanation for delay and weak merits of the claim.
- •Appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed.
Legal Principles
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (1995 Act): Prohibition on using goods vehicles on a road for carriage of goods without a licence.
1995 Act, Section 2(1)
Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 (2001 Regulations): Authorised persons can detain vehicles if they believe they've been used in contravention of the 1995 Act.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 3(1)
2001 Regulations: Grounds for return of a detained vehicle include the owner's lack of knowledge of the contravention.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 4(3)(c)
2001 Regulations: Notice requirements for impounded vehicles, including publication in the London Gazette and service on the owner.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 9
2001 Regulations: Definition of 'owner' – the person who can satisfy an authorised person they were the lawful owner at the time of detention.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 2
2001 Regulations: Service of notice – proper address defined, including registered office for incorporated bodies.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 22
2001 Regulations: Time limits for applying to a traffic commissioner for return of a vehicle, subject to extension of time.
2001 Regulations, Regulation 10, 23
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008: Power to proceed with a hearing in a party's absence if justified.
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, Rule 38
Excel A-Rate Business Services Ltd (2005/471): Considerations for granting extensions of time – explanation for delay and merits of the application.
Case law referred to
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Traffic Commissioner's decision to refuse an extension of time was not erroneous in law or fact. The Commissioner correctly applied the relevant legal principles, considering both the explanation for the delay and the merits of the claim. The explanation for the delay was weak, and the merits of the claim were weak due to the lack of knowledge of the relevant legislation and confusion regarding the identity of the operating entity.
Similar Cases
Toland Plant Ltd v Driver and Vehicle Agency
[2023] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Nugent International Limited v Presiding Officer
[2024] UKUT 8 (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)