Georgia Kelly Ash v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

Where vehicle impounding depends on mandatory notification requirements, each notice must be served on the correct statutory recipient. Service on the wrong chief constable is a procedural irregularity which requires the appeal to be allowed. Notification of the Association of British Insurers is also required where prescribed by the Regulations. Allowing the appeal on that basis does not establish ownership or require the vehicle’s return. Ownership remains a separate issue to be determined on the balance of probabilities.

The appellant appealed against the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England’s refusal to return an impounded goods vehicle under regulation 4(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001. The vehicle had been detained after the appellant was stopped while driving it. The Traffic Commissioner found that she had not proved ownership.

Before the Upper Tribunal, the principal issue was whether the statutory notices required by regulation 9 had been correctly served. The notice intended for the chief officer of police had been addressed to the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, although the vehicle had been stopped in Leicestershire. The Tribunal also considered whether the Association of British Insurers had been notified.

1. The appeal was allowed because the notice required by regulation 9(1)(b)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 had been served on the wrong chief constable. Regulation 9(1) imposed a mandatory obligation to serve the prescribed notices on the specified recipients.
2. The Tribunal accepted that the Association of British Insurers had been notified as required by regulation 9(1)(b)(iv). That did not cure the failure to serve the correct chief officer of police.
3. The procedural defect did not establish that the appellant owned the vehicle. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not proved ownership on the balance of probabilities, and allowing the appeal did not itself require the vehicle to be returned.
4. The Tribunal also recorded that the appellant’s regulatory history included driving without a tachograph, carrying an unrestrained third person in the cab and driving without a driver CPC. Any future operator-licence application could require explanations for those matters, together with proof of insurance and compliance with the basic requirements of section 13 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed on 30 May 2023 because the notice required by regulation 9(1)(b)(iii) had been served on the wrong chief constable.
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: application for return of the impounded vehicle refused on 15 December 2022 because ownership had not been proved on the balance of probabilities.