Decision

Decision for Jonathan Whitehouse & Harry Whitehouse t/a Skip It Brownhills v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

Published 18 December 2020

1. Background

On 1 October 2020, DVSA traffic examiner Kathrine Cox impounded vehicle DX56 GNZ after it was found to be in commercial use without a licence. DVSA had been aware for some time that Skip It Brownhills appeared to be operating without a licence and had been on the lookout for their vehicles.

On 7 October 2020, Jonathan Whitehouse, on behalf of the partnership, applied for the return of vehicle DX56 GNZ. The ground for appeal was that he did not know that the vehicle was being or had been used in contravention of Section 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the requirement to hold an operator’s licence). Jonathan Whitehouse said that the 7.5 tonne vehicle had been used for “carrying our own goods and plant in connection to our paving and landscape business, travelling to and from sight (sic), where we work all day, not exceeding our 50 mile radius from base and the grandfathers right. We were under the impression no operator’s licence was required.”

The applicant requested a hearing, which duly took place in Birmingham on 10 November 2020.

2. Hearing

2.1 Ownership

Mr Whitehouse produced satisfactory evidence that he was the owner of the vehicle.

2.2 Evidence of DVSA

For DVSA, traffic examiner Kathrine Cox made the following points:

• they had had intelligence that the Whitehouses were operating without an o-licence and had been doing so since at least 2019;

• various traffic examiners had sighted the partnership’s other vehicle, MX54 MKU, during the first lockdown period. It had also been photographed on the public road, overloaded with two full skips;

• DVSA was aware that the partnership had commenced making an application for an operator’s licence in November 2018, although the application had not been finally submitted until August 2020. The fact that an application had been long in the preparation and subsequently made showed that the partnership was aware of the need to hold an operator’s licence;

• Ms Cox had spotted vehicle DX56 GNZ on the road carrying a laden skip on 1 October and had followed it into the premises of Green Lane Motor salvage where she had detained it.

2.3 Evidence of Jonathan Whitehouse

Jonathan Whitehouse said that he had confused the rules relating to operator licensing with those relating to driving entitlement and tachographs. He had assumed that because he had grandfather rights to drive a 7.5 tonne vehicle (without taking a C1 category driving test) that meant that he could also operate it. He had thought that provided he carried his own goods and kept within a certain radius a licence was not required.

Mr Whitehouse said he could not explain why, although submitting an application for an operator’s licence in August 2020, he had remained unaware of the need to have one.

Asked why he had not acted upon the central licensing office’s letter of 21 August 2020, advising him that he could not lawfully operate HGVs until the application was granted, Mr Whitehouse said that he had not read the letter.

Mr Whitehouse largely accepted DVSA’s contention that skip hire formed part of his business, although “not the main part” which was landscaping.

3. Conclusions

After considering the oral and written evidence I find that the grounds cited for the return of the vehicle – that the applicant did not know that the vehicle was being or had been used without the required operator’s licence – are not made out.

I find that the applicant had actual knowledge that an operator’s licence was required. The partnership created its application for an operator’s licence on the online system on 20 November 2018. It clearly knew at that point that it needed an operator’s licence. For some reason it did nothing further until May 2020, when the trading name of Skip It Brownhills was added to the application. The application was finally submitted on 6 August 2020. Throughout this period, it operated at least one skip hire vehicle (DX56 GNZ was operated from around May 2020). CLO wrote to the partnership on 21 August 2020, specifically pointing out that HGV operation was unlawful before the application had been granted (it is still in the process of being considered). I do not believe Jonathan Whitehouse’s statement that he did not read this letter. The partnership had just applied to CLO Leeds for an operator’s licence and would have read the return correspondence. Indeed, the letter asked the partnership to provide a copy of the newspaper advertisement. The partnership did so three days later, which suggests very strongly that they had indeed read the letter and therefore knew that they could not operate before their application was granted.

4. Decision

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the ground for the application for the return of the vehicle is not made out: the application is thus refused. This decision will be notified to the applicant and to DVSA and it will be for DVSA to dispose of the vehicle once the 28 day period for appeal against this decision has ended.

Nick Denton

Traffic Commissioner

11 November 2020