Impounding: Written decision regarding an impounding by the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area for Shaun Charles with regards vehicle H6GLG
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-25)

The Traffic Commissioner for the West Midland's written reasons from an oral decision for an impounding in relation to  Shaun Charles with regards vehicle H6GLG

In the West Midlands Traffic Area

Impounding Hearing: Shaun Charles with regards vehicle H6GLG

Public Inquiry held in Birmingham on 03 July 2025

Written reasons of the Traffic Commissioner from an oral decision made at a hearing

Summary of Decision

The DVSA had proven a lawful basis to impound vehicle registration H6 GLG on 21 May 2025 and the application made by Mr Shaun Charles for the return of that vehicle was refused because Mr Charles had not proven he was the legal owner of vehicle H6 GLG and, in the alternative, 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 Mr Charles.

Background

Mr Charles is a co-director of S&K Car Transportation Ltd with a Mr Timothy Thompson. S&K Car Transportation Ltd had held a standard goods vehicle operator’s licence under reference OG2038526 until it was revoked on 22 November 2024 by the Traffic Commissioner for Wales. Both S&K Car Transportation Ltd and Mr Charles were disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for two years until 23 November 2026.

The DVSA sent a pre-impounding letter to the correspondence address held on VOL for S&K Car Transportation Ltd on 18 December 2024. That document appears at page 37 of the electronic bundle. The address used for that letter is the same as the registered company address recorded at Companies House namely Derwyyd Garage, Cynwyl Elfred, Carmarthan, SA33 6TP.

On 8 May 2025 Traffic Examiner Bell noted that vehicle H6 GLG was being operated and driven by Mr Timothy Thompson. After speaking to Mr Thompson (see more under my “Findings of Fact” below) vehicle H6 GLG was then stopped by Gloucestershire Police on 21 May 2025. Traffic Examiner Comer then attended and after making further inquiries a decision was made to impound the vehicle.

Mr Charles then made an application for the return of the vehicle and requested a hearing. The only ground that was pursued by Mr Charles for the return of the vehicle was “It was not being, and had not been, used in contravention of section 2 of the 1995 Act” (see pages 10 and 11 of the electronic bundle).

Hearing on 03 July 2025

Mr Charles attended, unrepresented.

Traffic Examiner Amy Comer 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 that I had no additional documents before me. I also explained how the hearing would be conducted.

It was at this point that Mr Charles asked me whether he should have a copy of the electronic hearing bundle. Further enquiries were then made and the following was discovered after a short adjournment:

(a) The use of the correct email address by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner was confirmed by Mr Charles.

(b) The electronic letter explaining the hearing time and date etc together with a link to the electronic bundle was sent to that email address on 25 June 2025.

(c) On 27 June 2025 at 1404 hours the link from that electronic letter was used and the electronic bundle for the hearing was accessed. The electronic case management system used by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner records every date and time the electronic hearing bundle is accessed and stores that information for posterity.

(d) The electronic bundle was not accessed again by Mr Charles or anyone else using the electronic link that had been sent.

(e) Mr Charles stated that he was not computer literate and never had been. Despite me asking if he wanted to request an adjournment on two occasions he chose not to do so.

(f) I explained that it was for him to get help from someone who was computer literate to assist him if he needed it. That was a reasonable thing to expect.

(g) I determined that there was no persuasive reason to adjourn the hearing on my own volition as Mr Charles had been able to access the electronic bundle, had had the opportunity to get help with it from someone else but, for whatever reason, had decided not to do so and the electronic hearing bundle had not been accessed again which was a matter for him.

Traffic Examiner Comer then read out the whole of her Impounding Report that appears at pages 25 onwards in the electronic bundle.

Out of fairness to Mr Charles I then handed him a paper copy of the two key items of evidence in the case; a copy of the application form for the return of the vehicle (pages 9 to 24 of the electronic bundle) and the full Impounding Report from Traffic Examiner Comer together with all of the exhibits (pages 25 to 71 of the electronic bundle).

I then rose for 65 minutes to allow Mr Charles to read those documents. He was also left with a laptop provided by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner with access to the electronic case bundle.

Upon my return I explained that Mr Charles could question Traffic Examiner Comer about her evidence if he wanted to. Mr Charles took that opportunity and cross questioned her about several documents in the papers and in general.

I then heard from Mr Charles and I asked him some questions in order to understand more about what he was saying given that he had provided no tangible evidence in support of his application.

Traffic Examiner Comer had no questions for Mr Charles.

Mr Charles then addressed me and I retired to consider whether I could reach a decision on the day. After deliberating for some time I returned and gave a short oral decision; that Mr Charles had not proven that he was the legal owner of vehicle H6 GLG and, in the alternative, that he had not satisfied the ground for which he had sought the vehicle to be returned. I then reserved writing the written reasons for my decision. These are those written reasons.

Burden and Standard of Proof

The burden of proof was initially upon the DVSA to prove it had a lawful basis to impound vehicle H6 GLG. If that was established the burden of proof shifted to the Mr Charles to prove (a) he was the legal owner of the vehicle and (b) that he had satisfied the ground he had claimed for returning the vehicle 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; [emphasis added – this is the ground that Mr Charles relied upon]

(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 in the electronic case bundle that was before me and to the oral evidence that I heard.

The revocation letter, and written decision of Traffic Commissioner Davies, that appears at page 84 onwards of the electronic bundle put both S&K Car Transportation Ltd and its directors, Mr Charles and Mr Thompson, on notice that from the date of revocation there was no operator’s licence in force to allow the operation of vehicles over 3500kg to be used commercially. The DVSA treat (quite rightly) a revocation decision letter from the Traffic Commissioner as a pre-impounding letter.

That revocation letter (page 84 of the bundle) was sent to the correct correspondence address for S&K Car Transportation Ltd. That address is also the registered address for the company recorded at Companies House. It is more likely than not, relying on the Upper Tribunal appeal case of Philip Drake UKUT [2023] 0098 (AAC) that it was delivered to that address and that as a result of being delivered there the operator was served with that letter.

The pre-impound letter (page 37 of the bundle) dated 18 December 2024 from the DVSA was sent to S&K Car Transportation Ltd using the correspondence address held on VOL which is also the company’s registered address at Companies House. It is more likely than not, relying on the Upper Tribunal appeal case of Philip Drake UKUT [2023] 0098 (AAC) that it was delivered to that address and that as a result of being delivered to that address the directors of that company were served with that letter.

It is more likely than not that Traffic Examiner Bell was on duty on 8 May 2025. At page 38 onwards of the bundle is his statement. It says (page 38) “On Thursday 8th May 2025 I was on my way to the Gloucester area on DVSA duties.” On page 39 it states in the first paragraph “…records showed that it was currently not specified on a Goods Vehicle Operator’ Licence. Records also showed that the road tax had recently expired.”

The second paragraph on page 39 states “The DVSA search Ap showed the vehicle had been specified on the Operator’s Licence of S&K Car Transportation Limited…” and in the next paragraph “The Iveco Goods vehicle according the DVSA search Ap was plated with a Gross Vehicle Weight of 5200kg…” Further down on page 39 it states “I explained to the driver I was from the DVSA…” and in the final paragraph on page 39 it states “A DVLA check of Mr Thompson’s driving licence showed he had the correct licence to drive the vehicle combination.”

It is more likely than not that Traffic Examiner Bell would only have had access to (a) the operator licencing records, (b) the road tax records (c) the DVSA search Ap and (d) the DVLA driving licence data base to check the licence details for Mr Thompson if he was on duty at the time with full access to DVSA technology.

Mr Charles was not present on 8 May and his suggestion that Traffic Examiner Bell was not on duty is just that, merely a suggestion and was dismissed for the above reasons.

The evidence of Traffic Examiner Bell is credible and persuasive and was accepted as such.

From his evidence I further find that vehicle H6 GLG was recorded as having a gross plated weight of 5200kg, was towing a 3 axle trailer with a maximum permitted weight of 3000kg and the maximum train weight was 8200kg.

I find that loaded on the trailer were two Lexus cars.

I further find that the driver, Mr Thompson, was a director of S&K Car Transportation Ltd on 8 May 2025. That meant, as a matter of law, that he was able to speak on behalf of the limited company.

In that capacity I find that he (a) told Traffic Examiner Bell he was moving the two Lexus cars for what is more likely than not to have been a commercial purpose and (b) that he was warned by Traffic Examiner Bell that the vehicle could be impounded.

Mr Charles failed to satisfy me that the vehicle did not have a plated weight of 5200kg. Not only did the search by Traffic Examiner Bell demonstrate that the vehicle was plated at 5200kg but the application to up-plate the vehicle from 3500kg to 5200kg appears at pages 58 to 61 of the bundle. That application is signed by Mr Charles on 13 March 2021. Mr Charles had provided no tangible evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle had been down-plated to 3500kg after 13 March 2021.

Vehicle H6 GLG was then stopped by the Police on 21 May 2025. The evidence presented by Traffic Examiner Comer in her Impounding Report was credible and persuasive and stood up to scrutiny from Mr Charles. It was accepted as such by myself.

All of the allegations made by Traffic Examiner Comer in her Impounding Report were found to be proven. In particular the proven allegations of Traffic Examiner Comer are:

(a) That vehicle H6 GLG was plated to 5200kg when it was stopped on 21 May 2025 (and see page 71 which is the second page of Exhibit 22 that shows the plated weight of the vehicle as being 5200kg); and

(b) Since it was up-plated to 5200kg it had been put through MOT as an HGV; and - That it was towing a trailer with a permitted maximum gross weight of 3000kg on 21 May 2025; and

(c) The vehicle and trailer combination were loaded with vehicles on a commercial journey from Cardiff to Halifax; and

(d) The Police had confirmed that vehicle H6 GLG was insured to S&K Car Transportation Ltd; and

(e) No valid operator’s licence was in force to cover that journey; and

(f) Mr Thompson stated in his interview under caution that he could speak on behalf of S&K Car Transportation Ltd; and

(g) Mr Thompson stated in his interview under caution that S&K Car Transportation Ltd was paying for the fuel/running and upkeep of vehicle H6 GLG.

The registered keeper of vehicle H6 GLG was S&K Car Transportation Ltd when it was stopped (page 48 of the bundle).

Mr Charles had been in email correspondence with the caseworker at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (pages 98 onwards of the bundle). In the email of 26 June 2025 (page 98) Mr Charles had been told to produce evidence of ownership of vehicle H6 GLG.

Mr Charles produced no tangible evidence of ownership either before or at the hearing.

It was more likely than not that since S&K Car Transportation Ltd was the registered keeper, and since the vehicle was insured to S&K Car Transportation Ltd and since Mr Thompson confirmed in his interview under caution that S&K Car Transportation Ltd was paying for the fuel/running and upkeep of vehicle H8 GLG and since Mr Charles had not even produced a lease agreement between himself and S&K Car Transportation Ltd or any documents to show legal ownership was his, that S&K Car Transportation Ltd was the legal owner of the vehicle.

Mr Charles had had sufficient time to get some tangible evidence of legal ownership and had been told to do so in the email of 26 June 2025 (page 98). Were he the legal owner of the vehicle then I am satisfied that he could have produced tangible evidence of that. His reasons for being unable to produce such documentary evidence were not persuasive at all.

No evidence of the vehicle being covered by any valid operator’s licence has been produced for me to consider.

Mr Charles claimed that an operator’s licence was not required. That is fundamentally incorrect. An operator’s licence is required when any vehicle over 3500kg is used commercially. Here I am satisfied that the vehicle itself was plated to 5200 kg towing a trailer with a maximum permitted weight of 3000kg and that this combination was being used commercially to transport other people’s goods. A standard national operator’s licence was therefore required.

Even if Mr Charles was right that vehicle H6 GLG had been down-plated back to 3500kg before 21 May 2025, something I do not accept as being correct, an operator’s licence would still have been required because the vehicle and trailer combination together with the load (2 cars) was over 3500kg and the combination was being used commercially to transport goods belonging to another. A standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence would still have been required.

Pulling everything together:

(a) Mr Charles and Mr Thompson had been put on notice that S&K Car Transportation Ltd could operate a vehicle over 3500kg when the operator’s licence for S&K Car Transportation Ltd was revoked.

(b) The revocation letter was a form of pre-impound letter.

(c) The pre-impound letter from the DVSA of 18th December 2025 (page 37) was properly served on S&K Car Transportation Ltd and therefore on its directors; Mr Charles and Mr Thompson.

(d) Vehicle H6 GLG had been plated to 5200kg since 2021 right up until the date of the hearing on 03 July 2025.

(e) On 8 May 2025 vehicle H6 GLG and trailer combination was moving two cars belonging to another commercially whilst being driven by Mr Thompson, a director of S&K Car Transportation Ltd. Traffic Examiner Bell warned Mr Thompson that the vehicle could be impounded.

(f) On 21 May 2025 vehicle H6 GLG was stopped by the Police. No operator’s licence was displayed and no valid operator’s licence was produced at any time to cover the vehicle on that day. The vehicle was towing a trailer with a maximum permitted weight of 3000kg. The combination was loaded with two cars belonging to another that were being transported commercially from Cardiff to Halifax.

(g) Vehicle H6 GLG was, at all material times, owned by S&K Car Transportation Ltd and not Mr Charles.

Decisions

Repeating all of my findings there was no question at all in my mind that the DVSA had proven a lawful basis to impound vehicle H6 GLG on 21 May 2025; the revocation letter for S&K Car Transportation Ltd was a form of pre-impound letter, the pre-impound letter of 18 December 2024 (page 37) had been properly served, the director, Mr Thompson, of S&K Car Transportation Ltd had been warned on 8 May 2025 by Traffic Examiner Bell that the vehicle could be impounded and on 21 May 2025 that same vehicle driven by Mr Thompson was stopped. That vehicle was plated to 5200kg towing a trailer with a maximum gross weight of 3000kg and the combination was loaded with two vehicles belonging to another and the journey was for a commercial purpose when no valid operator’s licence was in force at the time when a valid standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence was required.

As Mr Charles had not proven that he was the legal owner of vehicle H6 GLG when it was impounded, and since it was he who applied for the return of that vehicle, I had no jurisdiction to hear this application because only the legal owner of an impounded vehicle can apply for its return.

In the alternative, and after repeating all of my findings again, Mr Charles had failed to prove that on 21 May 2025 vehicle H6 GLG did not need to be covered by a valid operator’s licence. For the reasons I have given the vehicle needed to be covered by a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence.

For the avoidance of doubt I also looked at the other three grounds for the return of a vehicle that were not relied upon by Mr Charles.

The first was that the user of the vehicle held a valid operator’s licence (whether or not authorising the use of the vehicle). That could not apply since neither S&K Car Transportation Ltd, Mr Charles or Mr Thompson held a valid operator’s licence of any kind on 21 May 2025.

The second ground not pursued by Mr Charles was that the person making the application did not know that it was being, or had not been, used in contravention of section 2 of the Act. That could not apply because both Mr Charles and Mr Thompson were directors of S&K Car Transportation Ltd that had held an operator’s licence. They were warned when that licence was revoked that they could not operate without an operator’s licence and both the company and Mr Charles were disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence at the time of the stop on 21 May 2025. In addition, the directors of S&K Car Transportation Ltd had been served with the DVSA pre-impounding letter (page 37) and Mr Thompson had been warned by Traffic Examiner Bell on 8 May 2025 that any further use of vehicle H6 GLG in the manner it was being used could result in the vehicle being impounded.

Mr Charles could not persuade me, as director of a company that had recently held an operator’s licence, that he thought the vehicle and trailer combination loaded with two cars and used for commercial purposes would not require an operator’s licence. It is absolutely basic operator licensing law that any vehicle, or combination of vehicle and trailer, used to transport goods for commercial purposes needs a valid operator’s licence when the gross weight of the vehicle exceeds 3500kg or the combination weight of the vehicle and trailer exceeds 3500kg. Ignorance is no defence and all (former) operators are deemed to know the basic laws to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime – so held the Upper Tribunal in the appeal case of LA & Z Leonida T/A ETS 2014/024.

The third ground not pursued by Mr Charles, but which I considered, was “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 had (i) taken steps with a view to preventing that use; and (ii) has taken a view to preventing any further such use.” That could not apply as after the pre-impound letter of 18 December 2024 had been served Mr Thompson was found by Traffic Examiner Bell on 8 May 2025 to be driving vehicle H6 GLG when it required a valid standard national operator’s licence to be in force and he, as a director of S&K Car Transportation Ltd, was warned about any such future use. However, the same vehicle and trailer combination was stopped by the Police on 21 May 2025 again driven by Mr Thompson and in circumstances when the vehicle and trailer combination required a valid standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence to be in force. With the same director stopped after the pre-impound letter and so soon after being warned on 8 May 2025 I could not even begin to be persuaded that steps had been taken with a view to preventing that use.

In summary:

(a) The applicant for the return of vehicle H6 GLG was Mr Charles. He was not the legal owner of that vehicle when it was impounded. I therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this application.

(b) In the alternative, the ground pursued by Mr Charles for the return of vehicle H6 GLG was not proven.

(c) In the further alternative none of the other three grounds, not pursued by Mr Charles, were proven from the evidence before me.

The application for the return of vehicle H6 GLG was refused. The DVSA were and are at liberty to dispose of that vehicle as it sees fit.

Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington 09 July 2025.