Impounding decision for DK15 CHX
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for DK15 CHX
In the West Midlands Traffic Area
IMPOUNDING HEARING
APPLICATION FOR THE RETURN OF VEHICLE DK15 CHX BY THIND TRANSPORT LTD
WRITTEN REASONS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER MR DORRINGTON FOR THE DECISION MADE AT A HEARING ON 22 APRIL 2025
OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMISSIONER IN BIRMIGHAM
SUMMARY OF MY DECISION
The DVSA had proven a lawful basis to impound vehicle registration DK15 CHX on 11 March 2025 and the application made by Thind Transport Ltd for the return of that vehicle was refused because none of the four grounds set out in regulation 4(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 (as amended) were met by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
Thind Transport Ltd had previously held a standard goods vehicle operator’s licence until it was revoked on 11 November 2023. The correspondence address for that operation was 12 Meredith Road.
The DVSA suspected that Thind Transport Ltd carried on operating after the revocation of its operator’s licence. As a result standard letters were sent to the address at 12 Meredith Road on 25 June 2024 and 09 July 2024 detailing their suspicion and directing Thind Transport Ltd to make an application for an operator’s licence (see pages C10 and C11 of the electronic bundle).
Traffic Examiner Sean Bateman observed vehicle DK15 CHX, a 32 tonne grab lorry, in a laden state being driven on a public road on 11 March 2025 and the vehicle was stopped. Following his roadside investigation a decision was made to impound that vehicle. Thereafter an interview under caution was undertaken by the DVSA with the sole director of that company, Mr Jasbir Singh. At that interview Mr Singh introduced a pre-prepared statement. Thind Transport Ltd then made an application for the return of vehicle DK15 CHX. That application was listed for a hearing before me at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham on 22 April 2025.
HEARING ON 22 APRIL 2025
Mr Jasbir Singh attended represented by Mr Ahmed from Invergold Associates Limited, a specialist road transport consultancy business.
Traffic Examiner Sean Bateman attended on behalf of the DVSA.
I explained that impounding hearings were adversarial in nature and what that meant. I explained that I had read all of the documents in the electronic case bundle and in addition those documents provided to me from Mr Ahmed namely a small bundle consisting of 5 x A4 photographs and a statement for Mr Jasbir Singh.
I explained that the hearing was divided into two halves; in the first half the DVSA had to prove a lawful basis to impound vehicle DK15 CHX. If they did then in the second half the applicant, Thind Transport Ltd, had to prove that it met at least one of the 4 grounds upon which a detained (impounded) vehicle can be returned. I explained that there are only 4 grounds upon which a vehicle can be returned and if none of those grounds are met then the application would be refused and the vehicle would remain detained (impounded) by the DVSA.
I then heard from Traffic Examiner Batemen who read out his “Impounding Report”. His evidence contained in that report was not challenged by cross examination despite me making it clear that if the evidence was not challenged then it could be deemed to have been accepted.
I then asked Mr Ahmed if his client accepted that the DVSA had a lawful basis to impound vehicle DK15 CHX on 11 March 2025. After a brief discussion between Mr Ahmed and Mr Singh I was told his client did. In any event, from the evidence before me, I was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the DVSA did have the lawful authority to impound DK15 CHX because the DVSA had written to Thind Transport Ltd on 25 June and 09 July 2024 (see pages C10 and C11 of the electronic bundle) suspecting that this vehicle was being operated without an operator’s licence and on the day of the stop that 32 tonne grab vehicle was clearly fully laden with soil (see page C14 for example) whilst being driven on a public road by a paid driver with the tachograph machine locked into Thind Transport Ltd who were recorded as the registered keeper.
The hearing then proceeded to the second stage; whether any of the 4 grounds that allowed the release of a detained vehicle were met. After hearing from Mr Singh and Mr Ahmed I retired for 35 minutes before giving a short oral decision and then explained that written reasons would follow within 48 hours.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
As explained above, the burden of proof was initially upon the DVSA to prove it had a lawful basis to impound vehicle DK15 CHX. Once that was established the burden of proof shifted to the applicant to prove it met at least one of the 4 grounds that would allow the vehicle to be released. The standard of proof that was applied at all stages in the hearing was the civil law standard; the balance of probabilities. In other words what was more likely than not to have happened.
THE LAW
Regulation 4(3) of The Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 as amended by The Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 details the 4 grounds upon which a detailed vehicle can be released. It states:
“…(3) The grounds are—
(a)that, at the time the vehicle was detained, the person using the vehicle held a valid licence (whether or not authorising the use of the vehicle);
(b)that, at the time the vehicle was detained, the vehicle was not being, and had not been, used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act;
(c)that, although at the time the vehicle was detained it was being, or had been, used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act, the owner did not know that it was being, or had been, so used;
(d)that, although knowing at the time the vehicle was detained that it was being, or had been, used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act, the owner—
(i)had taken steps with a view to preventing that use; and (ii)has taken steps with a view to preventing any further such use”
Section 2 of the Act refers to the requirement to hold a valid operator’s licence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
All findings of fact have been made after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to the evidence that was before me.
It was accepted that the ground “(a)” of regulation 4(3) could not apply because Thind Transport Ltd did not hold any type of operator’s licence (either interim or full) at the time of the stop on 11 March 2025 and had not held any type of operator’s licence since 11 November 2023. As at the date of the hearing today Thind Transport Ltd had still not applied for an operator’s licence.
The wording of ground “(b)” is such that it not only includes the time of the DVSA stop but also any time before that stop by the use of the words “…and had not been, used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act.” [emphasis added]
In section “I”, page 2, of the electronic brief is a 4 page signed statement from Mr Singh dated 21 March 2025.
On page 2 of section “I” of the electronic bundle Mr Singh stated, amongst other matters:
“…I fully acknowledge that at the time of the stop, the vehicle did not have a valid operator’s licence or MOT certificate. The absence of an MOT was a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate act.”
On page 4 of section “I” of the electronic bundle Mr Singh stated:
“I was not seeking to rely on welfare benefits, and in desperation, I took the unprecedented decision to continue operating without an operator’s licence. I acknowledge that this was the wrong course of action but I felt forced into an impossible position where I had no other way to provide for my family.”
He also stated under “Details of Application” at section 6 of the application form for the release of vehicle DK15 CHX:
“I accept this breach, and acknowledge responsibility for the vehicles use. The vehicle was being driven by a driver called Sukhdeep Singh who I had employed on a self employed basis. The vehicle was carrying soil on its way to a landfill sight.”
I formally found that what was said, as quoted above, amounted to a clear admission that Thind Transport Ltd had been, knowingly, operating without an operator’s licence.
The evidence contained in Traffic Examiner Bateman’s “Impounding Report” was evidence based, credible, cogent and persuasive. It was also not put to challenge by any cross examination in the hearing.
At pages B12 and B13 in the electronic bundle is a table showing the number of days that vehicle DK15 CHX had been used between 01/9/24 and 11/3/25. That table was created from the tachograph vehicle unit data. I found that this evidence was proven and as a result demonstrates that out of a total of 191 possible days vehicle DK15 CHX was used on 154 of those days by 3 different drivers.
I have formally found that in conjunction with the unchallenged evidence of Traffic Examiner Bateman in his “Impounding Report” that it was more likely than not that the statements made by Mr Singh, as quoted above in paragraph 19 above, included the 154 days that vehicle DK15 CHX had been proven by Traffic Examiner Bateman to have been used before it was stopped and impounded. It is more likely than not that out of those 154 days the 32-tonne grab lorry, registration DK15 CHX, was used commercially for the majority of the time. People simply do not use vehicles of that size for general personal use (going to the shops, to do the school run etc) and Mr Singh would not, on balance, have used that vehicle exclusively for his personal use for 154 days, or the majority of those days, as a result. In any event he provided no, or no persuasive, evidence that he had.
I have also formally found that on 11 March 2025 it is more likely than not that vehicle DK15 CHX was being used for a commercial purpose and therefore required an operator’s licence to be in force. The idea that it was laden with so much soil as shown in the DVSA photographs (for example page C14 of the electronic bundle) extracted from a personal job for Mr Singh at his home was not at all persuasive since the tangible evidence in support of that assertion provided by Mr Singh are the first 4 (undated) A4 photographs passed to me which do not prove, on the balance of probabilities, what Mr Singh told me.
Looking at all of the evidence in this case it is more likely than not that vehicle DK15 CHX was fully laden with soil and driven by a paid driver on a public road on 11 March 2025 for a commercial purpose rather than for a non-commercial purpose.
Therefore, Mr Singh failed to satisfy me that the vehicle was not being used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act at the time the vehicle was stopped on 11 March 2025.
In addition, Mr Singh also failed to satisfy me that the vehicle had not been used before the stop on 11 March 2025 in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act because of the admission made in his statement of 21 March 2025 and because I have already formally found at least the majority of the 154 days that vehicle DK15 CHX was used between 01 September 2024 and 11 March 2025 were for a commercial use.
As a result, ground “(b)” for the release of vehicle DK15 CHX was not proven by Mr Singh.
After repeating the findings already made, ground “(c)” could not succeed because Mr Singh had admitted that he took the decision to operate without an operator’s licence and because at least the majority of the 154 days that vehicle DK15 CHX was used have been found to have been for a commercial purpose. It was therefore more likely than not that Mr Singh did know that vehicle DK15 CHX was being, or had been, used when an operator’s licence was required.
After repeating the findings already made, ground “(d)” did not succeed because of the sheer number of days I have found it had been operated commercially (at least the majority of the 154 days it had been used). It therefore could not be said that Mr Singh had taken any steps with a view to preventing that use. Indeed, he had confirmed in the statement I quoted from in paragraph 19 above that he had decided to operate without an operator’s licence because “…I had no other way to provide for my family.” As at the date of the stop on 11 March 2025 no application had been made for an operator’s licence either by Mr Singh or Thind Transport Ltd and I was satisfied that but for the stop on 11 March 2025 Mr Singh, through Thind Transport Ltd, would have carried on as before because there was no persuasive evidence before me to demonstrate otherwise. I noted that an application for an operator’s licence still had not been made as of 22 April 2025.
For ground “(d)” to succeed both limbs of it, (d)(i) and d(ii), must be satisfied because of the use of the word “and” at the very end of the text for (d)(i). For the above reasons I was satisfied that limb (d)(i) was not proven and as a result ground “(d)” overall could not be proven by the applicant because it had not, and could not, satisfy both elements of the statutory test.
Pulling everything together; the DVSA had proven that they were lawfully entitled to stop vehicle DK15 CHX on 11 March 2025 and then impound it and Mr Singh had failed to prove any of the 4 grounds that would have allowed the vehicle to be released.
The application to release vehicle DK15 CHX was therefore refused as no grounds to release that vehicle had been proven. The DVSA may now dispose of that vehicle as they see fit.
Mr Singh had explained to me the financial hardship caused to him and his family by vehicle DK15 CHX being impounded. However, there are only 4 legal grounds that allow for the release of an impounded vehicle and none of those relate to financial hardship. I therefore had to put to one side all submissions and evidence before me that related to the issue of financial hardship as they were not relevant to the legal tests that were before me that are set out in paragraph 13 above.
Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
23 April 2025