Evidence required in impounded vehicles cases

The recent case of Earthworks Services Ltd before Sarah Bell highlighted the importance of the amount of evidence required to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner in impounding cases.

Earthworks failed to prove that the vehicle was genuinely being operated by a licensed third party (Sangra Transport Ltd) at the time it was stopped.

Although Earthworks persuaded the Commissioner that they owned the vehicle, they did not meet the high evidential threshold required to show it was lawfully operated under another operator’s licence on the day of impounding.

What was accepted

The Commissioner accepted that:

  • Earthworks Services Ltd lawfully owned the vehicle
  • Ownership transferred from Henry Construction Projects Ltd around May 2023

This meant that the refusal was not about who owned the lorry.

What was not accepted (and why the application failed)

As the case centred on the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the key issue was Ground (a) under the legislation:  Whether the vehicle was being used by someone who held a valid operator’s licence, even if that licence did not specify the vehicle.

Earthworks claimed:

  • The lorry was on hire to Sangra Transport Ltd
  • Sangra Transport held a valid licence
  • The driver was working for Sangra Transport

The Traffic Commissioner rejected this view.

Why was the Commissioner not persuaded?

There were five core points of contention that influenced the commissioner.

  1. Control of the operation

Rather than focusing purely on the paperwork, the Commissioner focused on who actually controlled the operation.

This was determined through the following questions:

  • Who gave the driver instructions?
  • Who handled defect reporting?
  • Who downloaded the tachograph?
  • Who the driver thought his boss was at the roadside

On all of these, Earthworks/John Noone appeared to be in control, not Sangra Transport.

  1. Driver evidence undermined the case

When asked to provide evidence, the driver’s responses clarified where the control truly resided.

The driver:

  • Could not identify Sangra Transport at the roadside
  • Said his boss was John Noone
  • Took instructions from Earthworks staff
  • Had never met anyone from Sangra Transport
  • Previously had always been paid by Earthworks

From this, it was possible for the Commissioner to conclude that the driver’s later clarity appeared to be after instruction and did not demonstrate genuine contemporaneous understanding.

  1. Critical witnesses did not attend

Two people should have given evidence, but did not:

  • Sean Dundon (director of Earthworks and later Sangra Transport)
  • Harvinder Sangra (signatory to the alleged hire agreement)

The Commissioner explicitly asked: Why would those best placed to give evidence not attend? This absence seriously damaged credibility.

  1. Paper trail was incomplete

The Commissioner found:

  • A hire agreement alone is not enough
  • Self-billing invoices ≠ proof of payment
  • No bank evidence showing wages paid by Sangra Transport
  • No operational evidence showing Sangra was acting as operator

In impounding cases, the TC highlighted that ‘the absence of evidence’ is ‘evidence’.

  1. Common directors = higher scrutiny

Because of overlapping relationships between Earthworks, Sangra Transport and associated individuals and family links, the Commissioner applied particularly careful scrutiny, as required by law.

The decision

The Commissioner applied the correct statutory test: Has the applicant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was operated under the control of a licensed operator?

As a result, Ground (a) was not satisfied and the application for the return of the vehicle was refused.

Important points

This decision reinforces several important principles:

  • Documents won’t trump reality
  • The person who gives the orders matters more than contracts
  • Informal “we all know each other” arrangements are risky
  • Impounding cases require forensic evidence
  • The burden of proof is firmly on the applicant

Our specialist team can support you with compliance awareness so that you do not get caught out by changes. Contact Jared Dunbar today for help.