Impounding decision for UXZ4813
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the West of England in the matter of the detained vehicle UXZ4813
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
IN THE MATTER OF DETAINED VEHICLE – UXZ4813
AIB GROUP (UK) PLC - Applicant
-v-
THE DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES AGENCY (DVSA) - Respondent
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
On a finding that the Respondent was entitled to detain vehicle UXZ4813, the Respondent conceded that, although at the time the vehicle was detained it was being, or had been, used in contravention of section 12(1) of the 1981 Act, the owner did not know that it had been so used. The Respondent has already made arrangements for the return of the said vehicle.
Background
Vehicle UXZ4183, a TEMSA coach, was impounded by the DVSA on the London Road, Oxford on 9 July 2026. At the time of the stop the vehicle had been carrying passengers.
The Law
By reference to sections 1 and 12 of the 1981 Act, no person shall use a passenger service vehicle on a road for hire and reward:
- which is adapted to carry more than eight passengers; or
- if not so adapted is used in the course of a business for carrying passengers who are
charged separate fares.
Section 12A and Schedule 2A provide that any passenger carrying vehicle, adapted to carry more than eight passengers, operating on a public road for the carriage of passengers (either for hire or reward or in connection with any trade or business) without the authority of a PSV Operator Licence, can be detained.
The Public Service Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2009 allow for the detention and disposal of vehicles, which are not being operated legally. The Regulations also allow the owner of a detained vehicle to apply within the specified period to a traffic commissioner for the return of the vehicle. Regulation 3(1): Where an authorised person has reason to believe that a vehicle is being, or has been, used on a road in contravention of section 12(1) of the Act, that person may detain the vehicle and its contents.
The Application
An application for return of the detained vehicle was received in the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 27 July 2026, within the statutory deadline. This application referred to the owner as by AIB Group (UK) Plc. In Section 4 the applicant requested a hearing. It was confirmed that this a UK-based subsidiary of Allied Irish Banks (headquartered in the Republic of Ireland).
The application was made under the following grounds:
- 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);
- that, at the time the vehicle was detained, the vehicle was not being, and had not been, used in contravention of section 12(1) of the 1981 Act;
- that, although at the time the vehicle was detained it was being, or had been, used in contravention of section 12(1) of the 1981 Act, the owner did not know that it was being, or had been, so used;
- that, although knowing at the time the vehicle was detained that it was being, or had been, used in contravention of section 12(1) of the 1981 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.
The Applicant subsequently confirmed that Ground d) was not being pursued.
The Hearing
As per appellate Tribunal decision in 2005/542 James Thorogood, 2009/417 James Innes t/a JC Innes & Sons, 2013/037 UK London Skip Hire (Barking) Ltd, it was determined that a hearing was required. The Senior Traffic Commissioner deployed me to hear this application. Discretionary powers under regulation 25 extended the timetable for the just and fair disposal of this matter.
The hearing took place on 1 September 2026 in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The Applicant was present via video link in the form of Ms McGill from AIB Group (UK) Plc, represented by Darren Finnegan, counsel of Lincoln House Chambers. The Respondent Agency was present in the form of a number of enforcement staff (referred to below) and represented by Tim Akers, counsel of 6 Pump Court.
My colleague for the West of England issued a number of Case Management Directions to support a fair hearing. These were communicated under cover dated 31 July 2026. Those sought to address an apparent conflict. This application is now pursued by AIB Group (UK) Plc only. The Applicant was required to clarify the grounds upon which it sought return of the vehicle. That was subsequently clarified (to which I refer).
Directions required no later than 14 days prior to the hearing, the Applicant to lodge an unredacted copy of the finance agreement relating to the subject vehicle, to confirm the identity of the person using the vehicle, how the vehicle came to be used and exact details of why the vehicle use was said to be lawful (with corroborating documents) and to lodge a copy of any Operator’s Licence with my office and to serve a copy on the Respondent.
In the same time frame, the Respondent was required to lodge a statement setting out the reasons for impounding the vehicle, to include the name of the decision maker, relevant compliance history, information as to previous applications, previous enforcement and roadworthiness history with evidence to support its conclusion that the user does not hold an operators’ licence, with any additional evidence in response to be lodged and served no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
Both parties were required to set out their legal arguments and in particular to address Regulation 10(3)(a) of the Public Service Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2009 and relevant legislation in relation to the carriage of passengers within Great Britain by vehicles operated by operators from Northern Ireland, any other relevant issues, including adherence to DVSA policies. Whilst the Applicant purported to provide Submissions, it failed to address operations from Northen Ireland. The Respondent failed to adhere to the Direction. I was forced to extend the deadline to noon on the Friday before, with the hearing immediately after the intervening Bank Holiday. What was produced did address the question of operations under a Northern Ireland licence and referred to the Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which came into force on 1 April 2025 and amended the domestic legislative framework.
I further extended the deadline to allow for me to properly consider my decision and to produce these written reasons. Inevitably, this document cannot be a verbatim transcript of proceedings but identifies the areas where I have placed weight on particular evidence.
The Issues
Section 6 of the application records the following statement:
- ” In relation to vehicle registration UXZ4813 which is for a tensor HD 13 10.8 single deck coach
- We attach our hire purchase agreement between AIB group UK plc and Quinn coaches Limited for this vehicle.
- We consider ourselves the legal owner of the vehicle. However, we are not the user of the vehicle and understand that the vehicle was always used under the operator’s licence of Quinn coaches.”
Paragraph 30 to 32 of the Applicant’s Submissions dated 23 August 2026, and Ms McGill’s statement, confirmed the grounds to be:
- the vehicle was being used in accordance with a valid operator’s licence and ought to be returned,
- for the same reasons, the vehicle was not being used in breach of section 12(1),
- in the alternative, the applicant had no knowledge of the vehicle being so used.
I read the documents provided to me in advance of the hearing and watched two recordings from a body mounted police camera. It is fair to record that neither party complied with the Directions in their entirety. Neither party had cause to complain about the admission of additional evidence, resulting from the failure to clarify the issues.
For the sake of clarity, the hearing was between the identified parties, and it was for those parties to pursue their separate cases within the parameters set by the Case Management Directions. The Applicant’s submissions suggested that the Directors of Quinn Coaches: Phelim Quinn, Conleth Quinn and Derry Cronin, would be in attendance. Mr Finnegan also indicated that a Tommy Calinan might make himself available and that Driver Presland might also be available. Mr Finnegan asked that they might appear via video link. I received proofs of evidence from Ms McGill, Conleth Quinn, and Driver Presland only. In the event, Conleth Quinn and Driver Presland both attended in person. Ms McGill of AIB made a request to avoid travelling to Cambridge.
Ownership
The Respondent’s Skeleton did not appear to challenge the ownership, but the Applicant was required to prove that to the civil standard.
The burden for proving ownership lies with the Applicant. As per the Upper Tribunal Decision in 2011/029 David Pritchard, it is for the applicant to prove ownership of the relevant vehicle before I am required to consider other issues, although it might be appropriate for me to hear all the evidence. The application asserted that the Applicant was the lawful owner of the vehicle. I referred to the summary of the relevant case law in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 7.
I was referred to the V5 document in the name of Quinn Coaches. As a matter of law, a logbook/registered keeper check is not conclusive evidence of ownership. The Grounds had already alerted me to reliance on a hire purchase agreement between AIB Group (UK) Plc and Quinn Coaches Ltd. The statement of Emma McGill, Head of Asset Based Lending Operations for AIB Group (UK) PLC dated 20 August 2026 refers to a finance agreement of 24 April 2025 Quinn Coaches Ltd for three vehicles including UXZ4813. She produced the terms and conditions which were incorporated into the contract including paragraph 3.2:
- “The Company [AIB] owns the Goods [the vehicle] and the Customer [Quinn Coaches] is hiring them from the Company. Property / Ownership in the Goods will pass to the Customer only if the Customer exercises the option to purchase under clause 12.”
From records she confirmed that Quinn Coaches had not exercised the option to purchase, with the Applicant remaining in ownership. The content of the PSV500 form was apparently based on legal advice, with privilege waived by Ms McGill. Based on all the evidence, most heavily from an institution operating within another regulated environment, I was satisfied that the Applicant had proved ownership and as to its locus to pursue the application.
Lawful operation
I refer to the suggestion at paragraph 34 of the Applicant’s submissions, but the legal burden fell on the Applicant to satisfy me that the vehicle was being operated lawfully. The Applicant asserted that the vehicle was being operated by Quinn Coaches Ltd at the relevant time. In support of the application, I was supplied with a witness statement from Conleth
Quinn dated 19 August 2026. He identified himself as a director of Quinn coaches and asserted that UX Z4813 was operated under an operator’s licence (BVL057490) When that vehicle was stopped on 9 July 2026. He suggested that this company operates 29 vehicles across the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, was based in Northern Ireland, mostly engaged in private hire or tour work.
He further stated that Quinn Coaches Ltd was approached by Callinan Coaches Ltd, which is based in the Republic of Ireland, to perform a number of tours in Great Britain. He produced a contract and stated that the vehicle was engaged on the ‘English Odyssey’ tour dated April 2026, although Mr Quinn described this as a generic series of tours.
Mr Quinn suggested that Driver Presland had started the tour on 27 June 2026 and wants to finish on 10 July 2026 with the “coaching part” finishing on 9 July 2026 as passengers sorted their own transfers back. Mr Quinn understood that Callinan Coaches had operated this work until recently and referred to a change in regulation which had prompted Callinan to ask Quinns to conduct the work. Mr Presland confirmed in his evidence that he commenced his operation of the vehicle in Great Britain, when the tour commenced.
The Respondent’s Skeleton identified that this was a closed-door operation which took place wholly within Great Britain. Vehicle UXZ4813 travelled from Northern Ireland to Great Britain empty, collected its passengers in England and thereafter carried those passengers on a tour of England. It referred to Quinns Coaches Ltd being established in Northern Ireland, holding an operator’s licence issued by the Northern Ireland authority. It was common ground that it did not hold a GB PSV operator’s licence granted the 1981 Act. On the Applicant’s own evidence, at the conclusion of the tour, passengers made their own arrangements to journey home.
Driver Presland was said to have produced a Driver & Vehicle Agency (Northen Ireland) International Licence, No BOL003117 in the name of Quinns Coaches which was said to own the coach. The Applicant relied on that operator’s licence in pursuit of Grounds a) and b), namely 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); that, at the time the vehicle was detained, the vehicle was not being, and had not been, used in contravention of section 12(1) of the 1981 Act. It was finally agreed between the parties that Driver & Vehicle Agency (Northen Ireland) International Licence, No BOL003117, did not give authority to operate a domestic operation within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. I was not required to hear further legal argument. I did not find myself in the position of my colleague who heard the decision at first instance for 2011/060 Nolan Transport. I do record that no evidence was placed before me which demonstrated such authority on the part of any of the named entities.
The Respondent invited me to make a determination on who was operating UXZ4813 at the relevant time. That was not necessary for these purposes.
I was satisfied on the common evidence that the operation of the tour amounted to domestic passenger operations within Great Britain. It took some time for counsel to reach an agreed position, despite the clear Case Management Directions given by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. It was subsequently agreed that there was no licence in place authorising the relevant operation. Even after reaching that understanding, it proved impossible for the parties to reach an accommodation by consent, despite an early indication that Ground d) regarding knowledge would not be challenged.
The detention
As a result, I was requested by both parties to make a determination in respect of the seizure of the vehicle. The statement provided by Traffic Examiner David Copley dated 13 July 2026 was adopted as his evidence. This referred to events on Thursday, 9 July 2026, when he was deployed as part of a joint enforcement action by the Respondent Agency and Thames Valley Constabulary. At approximately 19:04, it was determined that the relevant vehicle was to be impounded, for the reasons set out above. The public notice was published in the London Gazette on 16 July 2026, with a deadline of 6 August 2026. He confirmed that notification requirements were met on 16 July 2026 (Oxford Mail).
At around 17:30 hours, he was in a marked Thames Valley Police vehicle with Police Constable Mark Neill, attached to the Commercial Vehicle Unit positioned at an observation point near Junction 8A of the M40 in Oxfordshire when vehicle UXZ4813, an unliveried single deck Passenger Service Vehicle, came into view. DVSA records did not identify a current operator. The vehicle was followed to the Oxford Belfry Hotel, A40 London Road, Milton Common, Oxfordshire. Passengers disembarked.
Inquiries using ANPR indicated that the vehicle had been engaged in transporting a tour group through England during the preceding 12 days. Mr Copley observed luggage labelled with “CEI Tours” tags.
PC Neill approached Driver Ian Malcolm Presland, with an address in Dudley. He was wearing clothing bearing “CEI Tours” branding. Mr Copley observed a fuel card in the name of Callinan Coaches. In evidence he was less sure exactly what part of CIE uniform Driver Presland was wearing. Mr Presland confirmed this as a tie but no gilet. A download of the Vehicle Unit data identified Driver Thomas Joseph Callinan operating the vehicle on a journey from Ireland to England on 24 June 2026. Driver Presland indicated that he was operating the vehicle on behalf of Callinan Coaches. He produced a tour itinerary which identified the operator as Callinan’s Coaching. Driver Presland also produced a bank statement which showed payments being made to him by Callinan Coaches UK Ltd.
Based on the information available to him at that time, Mr Copley had formed a suspicion that the vehicle was being operated unlawfully. He therefore cautioned Driver Presland before interviewing him further over a vehicle. The ‘transcript’ unusually forms part of his statement. The statement of PC Mark Neill was also exhibited. He was asked about his Callinan Coach uniform, but responded that he was working for CIE tours, which he described as a Southern Irish tour operator, but not the operator of its own coaches. The transport was subcontracted to Quinns Coaches. He was given his instructions for the tour by a Tommy Callinan. Driver Presland believed that he was being paid by Quinns Coaches and provided evidence of payments to his bank account. He understood that Callinan hired the driver to Quinns, which supplies the coaches.
Driver Presland was said to have produced a Driver & Vehicle Agency (Northen Ireland) International Licence, No BOL003117 in the name of Quinns Coaches which was said to own the coach. Mr Quinn referred to that being displayed on the vehicle. He stated that Quinns Coaches was operating the tour, under contract to CIE which he described as a separate company based in Ireland. Mr Presland started driving this tour at Windsor on 28 June 2026 and stayed within the United Kingdom. The tour was due to end that day. He denied that the tour was being operated by an Irish operator, using an NI vehicle to circumnavigate cabotage regulations. He stated that Quinns Coaches was supplying the coach directly to CIE.
Mr Copley referred to a screenshot from the Callinan Coaches website. The webpage suggested that Callinan Coaches organise and provide coach tours throughout Ireland, the United Kingdom and Europe: “7 to 21 day tours around Ireland and the United Kingdom” .
The Respondent referred to the fact that UXZ4813 was unliveried, although Mr Quinn suggested that the name of Quinn Coaches and its address was “printed at the door”. I referred to the photographs. A check of the DVSA search application did not identify a current operator in relation to the vehicle. The passenger luggage was labelled “CEI tours” and the driver, Mr Presland, was wearing clothes with “CEI” branding. A fuel card was located in the name of Callinan’s Coaches. A download of the vehicle unit data identified a different driver by the name of Thomas Joseph Callinan bringing the vehicle from Ireland to England on 24 June 2026. In the first instance, Driver Presland described referred to Callinan, but he did then refer to a further party, Quinns Coaches. Mr Presland produced a Northern Irish Driver & Vehicle Agency International Licence BOL003117 in the name of Quinns Coaches. Nevertheless, Driver Presland indicated that “Tommy Callinan” gave him his instructions. He was paid by Callinan Coaches UK Ltd but that “only” CIE was paying Quinns coaches to operate. No record could be found of Callinan Coaches Ltd or Quinns Coaches Ltd applying for or holding a PSV operator’s licence. As Mr Quinn confirms, there has been no invoicing between Quinns Coaches and Callinan Coaches, and the contract was unsigned.
The statement of Driver Presland dated 18 August 2026, refers to operating the vehicle and was taking passengers to the Oxford Belfry Hotel & Spa. He refers to the procedures employed by the officer and Examiner, with reference to the body-worn camera. He stated that he told them the vehicle was being operated by Quinn Coaches but supplied a payslip from Callinan Coaches UK Ltd. He referred to being stopped in Leeds 7 days later, which was not the subject of this hearing. In evidence he referred to DVSA encounters at Stone Henge and Leeds Castle after this incident, but where different vehicles were not detained.
He stated that he had referred DVSA to a contractual relationship between CIE and Quinn Coaches. He also referred to a Whatsapp Group (during the recording at item 5) of the bundle, but during the recording at item 6 he produces a bundle of written instructions and then refers the Examiner to a ‘text’ instruction from his boss “Callinan” (c 3:00 minutes.) At 3:41 Driver Presland refers to cabotage problems in the past – “What we do now is operate over Quinns, which is a Northern Irish operator” and “he”, by implication being a Callinan, hires the driver to Quinns to do the tour. At 8:43 he confirms that he was given his instructions buy Tommy Callinan but believed his wages were paid by Quinns coaches (9:15) correcting his earlier indication – “down to Quinns to sort the drivers out this end”, but then further corrects that at 11:50 by reference to Callinan Coaches UK on 3 July 2026. At 14:20 he was unable to explain if “the driver” was hired to Quinns, like “an agency”, “wouldn’t like to say without to talking to him”. At c 15:46 the Examiner communicated his belief and intention to impound, on the basis that “CIE Callinan Coaches are operating.” Driver Presland refers to having worked for Callinan Coaches but that does not appear to have been registered by the Examiner. The Driver subsequently refers to his “impression”. The Examiner repeats his belief at 29:00 by reference to cabotage provisions. The Driver questioned the application to a Northern Irish operator and asserted that Quinns Coaches was supplying the coach for CIE directly. At 6:56 pm the interview was terminated and the Examiner formally confirmed that the vehicle was being seized.
Mr Quinn indicated that more drivers were required in order to take this work on, so his company arranged to use agency drivers supplied by Callinan Coaches UK Ltd. I was supplied with a document dated 17 December 2025 purporting to be an agreement with DH Team Ltd. Mr Presland is named on another unusually formatted ‘Appendix’ to the unsigned
contract. There was no invoice or evidence of payment for driver services. He apparently spoke to a DVSA officer on 9 July 2026 to claim that he was the operator. He also referred to an insurance policy in its name.
I reminded myself of section 81 of the 1981 Act which deems the user of a vehicle to be the driver, if s/he owns it (under hire purchase or loan etc.), or, in any other case, the person who employs/contracts the driver. Reference was also made to the decision in 2018/066 ABUS Ltd. The weight which can be attached to that decision is somewhat limited given that reference to the intention of Parliament was made without the benefit of full argument. However, it did refer to the Tribunal decision in 2004/377 EA Scaffolding Ltd, where the Tribunal also approved of the traffic commissioner’s reliance on a Court of Appeal decision in Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v. Night Trunkers Ltd & Another [2001] EWCA Civ 360, in consideration of the equivalent provision in the Goods Act. I also had the benefit of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s summary of the law in his statutory guidance.
I referred to the evidence of Driver Presland confirming that he was operating the vehicle on behalf of Callinan Coaches. He produced a tour itinerary which identified the operator as Callinan’s Coaching. Mr Quinn subsequently described that in evidence as generic. Driver Presland also produced a bank statement which showed payments being made to him by Callinan Coaches UK Ltd. As recorded above, a fuel card was located in the name of Callinan’s Coaches. A download of the vehicle unit data identified Driver Thomas Joseph Callinan bringing the vehicle from Ireland to England on 24 June 2026. In the first instance, Driver Presland described referred to Callinan, but he did then refer to Quinns Coaches when he produced International Licence BOL003117 in the name of Quinns Coaches. Driver Presland indicated that “Tommy Callinan” gave him his instructions. He was paid by Callinan Coaches UK Ltd.
In argument it was suggested that the Examiner was told at the roadside that the vehicle was being operated by Quinn Coaches Ltd, and that the driver was being paid by a UK company. The driver presented evidence that his wages were being paid by a company established in the UK. Written submissions had failed to address the authority to operate within Great Britain. At various points during the hearing, it was implied that provisions relating to the pursuit of lines of inquiry and the exclusion of evidence relating to criminal investigations might be relevant. I noted a suggestion in Ms McGill’s statement that the Respondent might in effect be required to conclude all inquiries at roadside. Issues as to who opened an internal fridge when the driver was asked to retrieve his belongings appeared to have little relevance. There was no conclusive evidence as to how the other receptacle was opened. The presence of another fuel card apparently in the name of Quinns appeared largely immaterial. The Applicant called the detention of the vehicle into issue, and the Respondent was entitled to describe what the decision maker relied on. The suggestion that the Examiner had pre-determined that there was operation by Callinan or confusion arose from having seen a photograph of a different coloured coach in CIE livery with Callinan legal lettering (during a previous enforcement briefing) had confused the Examiner, were entirely refuted. I had already watched the bodycam footage of the interview with Driver Presland and observed Mr Copley’s interaction. The evidence on the briefing referred to a possible interception of a vehicle being operated under a Callinan itinerary but on a different journey. There was no meeting in respect of this vehicle.
Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations provides that: Where an authorised person has reason to believe that a vehicle is being, or has been, used on a road in contravention of section 12(1) of the Act, that person may detain the vehicle and its contents. It does not require the Respondent to identify the operator. This test should not be confused with reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, although similarly (as
reflected in the case law referred to), there must be more than arbitrary belief. He suspected operation by another entity, but simply put Mr Copley was unable to find a valid operator’s licence for operation in Great Britain. The witness statement of Michael Cheeseman, Commercial Delivery Team Leader for the Respondent, dated 18 August 2026, refers to Quinn Coaches Ltd (Company Number NI613493), based in Newry, County Down and a similarly named entity which previously held operator’s licences within Great Britain under Director Thomas Joseph Callinan. He could find no record of Callinan Coaches Ltd or Quinn Coaches Ltd having applied for or held an operator’s licence. I was therefore satisfied that Mr Copley had reason to believe that the relevant vehicle was being used in contravention of section 12(1).
Paragraph 19 of the Applicant’s submissions expressed every sympathy for the position of the Examiner, but the Applicant asserted that the Respondent had failed to follow its own policy. The Applicant’s submissions referred to 2011/060 Nolan Transport – paragraph 265, where the appellate Tribunal considered what the position would be if the Agency failed to follow its policy, (described at paragraph 259), and did impound a vehicle at random. The appellate Tribunal did not provide a settled view. It dd suggest that it would be open to an owner to put the Respondent to proof that it had the right to impound and, in doing so, to raise the question of whether or not it had followed the policy. Even if this point failed, in the absence of a warning letter, it would then be difficult to resist a claim for the return of the vehicle on, for example, the ‘lack of knowledge’ ground. It was therefore in the Respondent’s interests to ensure that the policy is followed. The principal judge repeated this view in 2012/37 F & M Refrigerated Transport Ltd, which was described as a cautionary tale from which the Respondent Agency might learn. Again, it was suggested that a failure to follow the policy set out in the Operations Manual may result in a challenge to the right to detain.
In F &M Refrigerated Transport Ltd, the appellant (Applicant at first instance) produced a copy of what it said was the relevant policy: Section 48 of VOSA’s Operations Manual. The Applicant failed to disclose the current policy but sought to rely on the dicta in Nolan and F & M. As a matter of judicial experience, policies rarely remain frozen. I referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s efforts to keep his Statutory Documents updated, not least to reflect changes in case law. In this case, the name of the Respondent Agency has changed. In response to questions put by the Applicant, evidence was provided during the hearing of a DVSA internal memo, no. 726, issued on 13 March 2026 amending the policy as follows: With prior agreement from the Policy Team or Nest, it will be possible to deviate from the current impounding policy to impound a vehicle or add an operator to the UK impound list. It was confirmed that Mr Copley spoke to Ms Read, who then spoke to Ms Hicks. Ms Hicks later returned a missed call from Mr Copley for a matter of seconds. It was said was that Ms Read was not issued with a pocketbook for the purposes of taking notes. I found it necessary to then hear from Ms Hicks, without a proof of evidence before me.
Caroline Hicks gave evidence as the Head of Regulatory Services for the Respondent Agency with responsibility for several teams involved in enforcement decision making including prosecutions and the National Enforcement Services Team (NEST). In reference to the above memorandum, she confirmed that Ms Della Read (Enforcement Delivery Manager for the relevant “network”) had telephoned Ms Hicks on 9 July 2026. This was unexpected and she was unaware of ongoing operations. She did not make a search for pre-impounding correspondence. From the information supplied by Ms Read she gained the firm belief that Callinan were operating. She described being provided with all the reasons including information suggesting that Quinns was the owner. She clarified this in cross-examination. She had a very brief conversation with Ms Read. She was confident in the training provided to DVSA Examiners and was satisfied that in being referred to the
involvement of the driver, the tachograph, itinerary of use of the vehicle that she received a comprehensive explanation via Ms Read. Ms Hicks believed that she had all the relevant information to give authority. She did not speak to the police officer. Nothing in Ms Read’s explanation caused Ms Hicks to doubt whether she should give that authority.
As she explained: “ownership does not deem operation” and at that time she had reason to believe that Callinan were operating the vehicle. Her evidence was that it would have been “best practice” to issue a pre-impounding warning and was mindful of the Tribunal decision in Nolan. She went on to describe the power of detention as the most draconian power available to the Respondent Agency, so it tries to make people aware of their obligations. That does not require the Respondent to write to but in this case, she was satisfied that “they”, meaning Callinan, had clear knowledge as the Agency had already detained 3 of its vehicles in similar circumstances. She was unaware that there were two Callinan companies. Ms Hicks was satisfied that she could authorise Mr Copley to deviate from the standard policy. It was later confirmed that two pre-impounding letters had been issued to Callinan in the past.
Driver Presland and Conleth Quninn were called to give further evidence on their interaction with Mr Copley. Driver Presland provided the mobile phone to the Examiner. That was not recorded. I ascertained that this exchange took place after Ms Hicks had given her authority. However, the Examiner was not satisfied by the information. Mr Presland was told that the coach was being impounded due to it being used in breach of cabotage. He was told that the Examiner suspected that it was being operated by Callinan Coaches.
Determination
At the time, the Examiner had grounds for that belief and was entitled to disregard information given to him. He suspected that the vehicle was being operated by Callinan Coaches. I noted that the contract subsequently produced by Mr Quinn lacked any form of detail including payment terms or any reference to set-off of driver hire beyond that at pages 121 to 123, which might have added to his belief. Fundamentally, there was no valid operator’s licence in force, giving him authority under Regulation 3 to detain the vehicle. His decision was based on the information set out above. He was given authority to proceed based on that information. I can find no departure from the Respondent’s policy, as presented to me.
The Respondent’s procedures and approach may be open to comment, but application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other provisions relating to retention of material during a criminal investigation are outside the scope of this hearing. It is apparent that the Respondent’s internal procedures do not extend to the employment of a ‘policy book’ of the type employed by police forces in the conduct of major investigations, specifically to record important decisions and reasons. Having heard from the individual witnesses, the absence of written reasons does not undermine the credibility of the relevant belief, although it would however not have assisted in their recollection of the weight attached to relevant evidence. That aside, there was no valid operator’s licence in force.
Mr Finnegan suggested that even if I found that the detention was in line with the Respondent’s policy, it would be disproportionate to permit the detention. That falls far outside the authority granted to me by Parliament under the Public Service Vehicle (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2009, but I would remark it does appear to fall far short of the type of persistent failure described in F & M and which might prompt the appellate Tribunal to reconsider its analysis of the proportionality of the regulatory regime. Parliament’s intent cannot have been to require Examiners to complete all lines of inquiry
before detaining a vehicle. That would undermine the effectiveness of the impounding regime and its contribution to road safety generally, to which the Tribunal referred in Nolan. The policy apparently allows the Respondent to review its decision at any time, without recourse to a traffic commissioner. As identified by the Tribunal in the Nolan appeal, proportionality is further provided through the ability to raise these arguments in respect of knowledge as part of the judicial process undertaken by the traffic commissioner. Having found that the vehicle was properly detained, knowledge is no longer at issue in this case, having been conceded by the Respondent. In anticipation, the Respondent confirmed arrangements for return of the vehicle to the owner at the conclusion of the hearing.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
3 September 2026