The lawful owner of the vehicle with registration number BL12 AEM v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency

For the purposes of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001, “owner” means the person shown to the authorised officer’s satisfaction to have been the lawful owner when the vehicle was detained. The statutory notice procedure may therefore be valid even if notice is not served on the person who was in fact the lawful owner.

A traffic commissioner may extend time for a late claim where necessary to deal with the case fairly and justly. In exercising that discretion, the explanation for delay and the merits of the proposed claim are relevant. A weak merits case, coupled with an unpersuasive explanation for delay, justified refusal of an extension.

The appeal concerned the detention and impounding of a goods vehicle by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The vehicle examiner was told that it belonged to an entity described as Scaff-Co Ltd, and the address supplied matched the address previously used by a similarly named company in connection with an operator’s-licence application.

The notice required by the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 was sent to that entity and address. A later claimant applied out of time for return of the vehicle, asserting that the notice had been sent to the wrong company and address. The Traffic Commissioner refused an extension of time. The central issues were whether the notice requirements had been met and whether the discretion to admit the late application had been unlawfully or irrationally exercised.

1. Proceeding in the appellant’s absence. The panel was satisfied under rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 that the appellant had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. The appellant’s representative had indicated that he was attending but did not appear and did not subsequently seek a further hearing.

2. Meaning of “owner” and service of notice. Regulation 2 of the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 defines “owner” as the person who can show to the satisfaction of an authorised person that he was the lawful owner at the time of detention. The definition does not itself determine actual ownership. It permits the statutory notice to be served on the person whom the DVSA examiner reasonably considered, on the information available, to be the owner for the purposes of the Regulations.

3. The driver identified the owner and address, and the address corresponded with the address previously supplied by a similarly named company. It was not irrational for the examiner to proceed on that basis. The notice requirements under regulation 9(1)(b), including service at the proper address under regulation 22(6)(c), were therefore satisfied even if the notice did not reach the actual lawful owner.

4. Late application. Regulation 23 conferred a discretion to extend the period for applying for return of the vehicle where necessary for the case to be dealt with fairly and justly. Applying Excel A-Rate Business Services Ltd (2005/471), the relevant considerations included the explanation for delay and the merits of the proposed claim. The claim’s merits were weak because the owner relied on ignorance of the requirement for an operator’s licence when using a vehicle in connection with its business. The explanation for delay was also weak: the owner knew of the detention promptly, did not act for several weeks, and delayed further before filing the late application.

5. The Traffic Commissioner correctly understood the facts and committed no error of law in refusing an extension. The appeal was dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — dismissed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 23 February 2023.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England Traffic Area — refused to extend time for the application for return of the detained vehicle.