Decision

Impounding Decision for Mohammed Islam

Published 1 September 2022

1. EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1.1 MOHAMMED ISLAM

1.2 Applicant

-v-

1.3 DRIVER AND VEHICLE STANDARDS AGENCY

1.4 Respondent

2. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

3. Background

On 23 May 2022, DVSA traffic examiner Anita Barwell impounded a 53-seater coach RIG 1413 at the DVSA weighbridge site at Crick, Northants. The vehicle was being driven by Mohammed Islam. It was carrying 44 passengers but was not displaying an operator licence disc. DVSA had previously written to Mr Islam on 22 September 2021 and 13 May 2022 to warn him that he appeared to be operating a coach without a licence and alert him to the fact that the vehicle could be impounded if he continued to do so.

When stopped on 23 May 2022, Mr Islam told TE Barwell that he was not carrying passengers for hire and reward. The people on board were his staff employees, working for Yasar Transport, on a staff outing.

TE Barwell spoke to some of the passengers and ascertained that all on board were managers of a KFC franchisee, Demipower Ltd. They were on their way from Luton to Liverpool for a gala dinner. TE Barwell was given the contact details of a Richard Campbell at Demipower: she spoke to him and was told that Demipower had booked the coach through an online broker and had paid £1700 for the journey to Liverpool and back.

TE Barwell then spoke to “Adam” at the coach broker, UK Coach Rentals. He stated that the Liverpool job had been given to “Mo” and confirmed when asked that this was Mohammed Islam. In a later email he further confirmed that Mr Islam had been paid £1600 for the job.

TE Barwell concluded that Mr Islam was indeed operating for hire and reward, without the necessary operator licence. She interviewed him under caution at the stop site and he gave a “no comment” interview. The vehicle was impounded.

4. Application for the return of the vehicle

On 7 July 2022 Mohammed Islam made an application for the return of vehicle RIG 1413. The ground cited was that the vehicle was not being, and had not been, used in contravention of Section 12 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. In the section headed “details of the application”, Mr Islam attached a letter dated 23 May 2022 from a “Rajesh Nadar, Sales Manager” (although because the letter contained no address or company name, it was unclear what he was sales manager of). The letter stated, in essence, that Mr Islam had been driving as a “voluntary helper” on 23 May 2022 and was not being paid for his services. The letter did not say to whom Mr Islam was providing his voluntary services. It did, however, accuse DVSA (at length) of holding Mr Islam and the passengers hostage and of malicious and deliberate cruelty.

5. Hearing

Following Mr Islam’s application for the return of the vehicle, a hearing was arranged in Cambridge for 4 August 2022. Mr Islam was notified of the hearing by letter of 13 July 2022. The letter asked him to submit evidence of ownership of the vehicle, such as the receipt for its purchase, together with any other information in support of his application, by 25 July 2022. Mr Islam was advised that a V5 document in itself was not sufficient to establish ownership.

No documents were received from Mr Islam. The hearing duly took place in Cambridge on 4 August 2022. Present were Mohammed Islam and DVSA traffic examiner Anita Barwell.

6. Ownership of the vehicle

I asked Mr Islam if he had any other evidence of ownership of the vehicle apart from the V5 certificate (which I had previously checked, and which recorded Mr Islam as the registered keeper of the vehicle). Mr Islam said he did not. He had acquired the vehicle “a long time ago” and no longer had the invoice or receipt of payment. Pressed as to roughly when he had acquired the vehicle, he said that it was just before the first Covid lockdown – i.e., around March 2020.

Mr Islam explained to me that he had been acting under the instructions of Rajesh and had provided his services as driver and owner of the coach free of charge. He had also paid for the fuel for the trip. He had done all this in the hope of mingling with people and making contacts to help develop his events business.

TE Barwell said that this was inconsistent with the account given by Mr Islam when first stopped: he had said that the passengers were his employees on a staff outing. Mr Islam said it had been difficult to hear TE Barwell’s questions with the engine running: he must have misunderstood what she was asking.

Mr Islam said that he knew some but not all of the passengers. He could not tell me why in that case he had not asked some of them to corroborate his account either in person at this hearing or by a written statement.

Asked about the letters from DVSA of 22 September 2021 and 13 May 2022, Mr Islam said that he assumed that these must have been referring to the coach’s possible illegal activity before he had purchased it. He had never operated for hire and reward.

I adjourned the inquiry at this point in order to make a written decision.

7. Consideration of the evidence

7.1 Ownership

Mr Islam acquired the vehicle just over two years ago. It is not therefore unreasonable to expect records of its purchase to have been kept. If nothing else, Mr Islam could have requested the person or business from whom he acquired the vehicle to have supplied a copy of the invoice: he could also have provided evidence of payment from bank statements. However, he has done none of these things. In the absence of any documentary evidence of ownership therefore, and given that such evidence should not have been too difficult to provide, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mohammed Islam is the owner of RIG 1413. Accordingly, the application for the return of this vehicle fails at this point.

7.2 Knowledge

Even if he were the owner of the vehicle, I conclude that the evidence is overwhelming that he was operating it for hire and reward on 23 May 2022 and knew that this was contrary to the law. The passengers said that they were employees of Demipower Ltd and TE Barwell confirmed on the phone with Demipower that they had paid for the provision of the coach to take staff to a gala dinner in Liverpool. The coach broker confirmed that it had paid Mr Islam to carry out the job. Mr Islam received payment from the broker for the work and personally drove the coach. He had previously received letters from DVSA warning him that operation for hire and reward without a licence was illegal and could lead to the vehicle being impounded. Mr Islam denies all this but has not produced any evidence in support of his account, apart from a letter from “Rajesh” which does not provide any contact details for the supposed writer. I am asked to choose between TE Barwell’s account – supported by evidence from the coach broker - and Mr Islam’s. I have no hesitation in preferring the former.

8. Decision

I conclude that Mr Islam had full knowledge on 23 May 2022 that he was operating contrary to Section 12 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. The ground of appeal is therefore not made out.

Mr Islam’s application for the return of the vehicle is therefore refused. My 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

5 August 2022