Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency v Classic Restoration And Services Ltd

A recovery vehicle exemption depends on the vehicle being constructed or permanently adapted primarily for lifting, towing or transporting disabled vehicles, and being used for a prescribed purpose. No particular form of construction or adaptation is required. Permanence is a question of fact and degree.

A disabled vehicle is not confined to one that has broken down. It must have a significant disability requiring recovery or transport to premises for repair. Whether work amounts to repair or restoration, and whether the vehicle was disabled rather than merely dismantled during works, are questions of fact and degree. The exemption cannot be used to circumvent operator-licensing requirements.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Guildford Magistrates on 4 July 2018. The respondent company had been prosecuted for using a goods vehicle for hire or reward without an operator’s licence, contrary to section 2(5) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The magistrates acquitted the company, finding that the vehicle was a recovery vehicle and that it was being used to transport a disabled Bentley chassis for repair. The Administrative Court considered whether the vehicle had been permanently adapted for the statutory purposes and whether the Bentley was a disabled vehicle being removed for repair.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed in substance. The magistrates were entitled to acquit the respondent on the facts found.
2. Under Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the relevant definition was that in Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. A vehicle must be constructed or permanently adapted primarily for lifting, towing or transporting disabled vehicles and must be in use for one of the prescribed purposes.
3. No particular physical feature or method of adaptation was required. Whether adaptations were permanent, including a bolted winch and removable ramps, was a question of fact and degree. The magistrates were entitled to find that the adaptations were intended to be permanent and that their primary purpose was statutory.
4. The expression disabled vehicle was not limited to a vehicle which had broken down. However, a vehicle had to suffer a significant disability requiring recovery or transportation to premises for repair. That principle was consistent with Squires v Mitchell [1983] RTR 400, although the current legislation did not use the expression broken down.
5. The Bentley had become disabled when its leaking fuel tank damaged its timber frame. The magistrates were entitled to find that the necessary removal and reinstatement of the frame and fuel tank formed part of the consequential repair, notwithstanding the extent of the work and the fact that the vehicle had originally been undergoing restoration.
6. A vehicle dismantled or rendered unusable as part of planned restoration or other works did not thereby become a disabled vehicle for the purposes of the exemption. The statutory tests prevented a business from fitting equipment to a goods vehicle and then transporting vehicles without a licence by treating dismantled components as disability.
7. The Administrative Court was concerned with whether the magistrates were entitled to reach their findings of fact. It was immaterial whether the judge might have reached a different factual conclusion. The fourth question was answered yes, although it was technically misframed because it concerned a recovery vehicle, not a goods vehicle.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 16 January 2019, the court determined an appeal by way of case stated and upheld the magistrates’ acquittal.
• Guildford Magistrates’ Court: On 4 July 2018, the respondent was acquitted after the magistrates found that the vehicle was exempt from the operator-licensing requirement as a recovery vehicle.