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 
Second refusal for garage
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
which didn't ask questions to. A garage has had its applica
tion for the return of an impounded tractive unit refused for the second time. The vehicle was used to take third party trailers for testing.
WC Commercials was advised in February 2002 that it would be breaking the law if it continued to haul third-party trailers to the Leighton Buzzard Test Station without the authority of an Operator's Licence. Similar advice was given again in May to
director William Dunstan. However, no licence application was made and, in July, the company's unit was impounded.
The company had sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that it did not know it was being used without a licence.
Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms refused to return the vehicle, saying that in the 1995 Act 'goods" were defined as "goods or burden of any description".
He said that the business of WO Commercials relied upon moving other peo ple's trailers between their site and the test station. This constituted the movement of "burden" in connection with their business and this could on be carried out lawfully with an 0-licence (CM5-11 Sept 2002).
On appeal, the Transport Tribunal directed the TO to reconsider the matter of the company's knowledge (CM 24-30 April).
Simms again refused to return the vehicle. He acknowledged that, in a previous case, the Tribunal had ruled that "knowledge' meant actual conscious knowledge. However, he added, where a person Wed to make enquiries "because he did not want to know", that was dishonest and they could not complain if they were treated as having actual knowledge.
The company had been given three clear warnings that a licence was required, yet even when the traffic examiner produced legal authority, managing director William Dunstan had refused to read the relevant passage in the High Court's decision.