A bid for the return of an impounded vehicle by Tabassum Hussain of HZ Executive Travel has been turned down by TC Claire Gilmore
A bid for the return of an impounded vehicle by Tabassum Hussain, sole Director of Manchester-based HZ Executive Travel, has been turned down by TC Claire Gilmore following an Edinburgh Public Inquiry.
The company had applied for a PSV O-Licence on 22 September. That application was still under consideration. HZ Executive Travel was incorporated on 14 March.
On 2 July 2019, Mr Hussain was the driver of a 16-seater minibus which was subject to a roadside inspection. The examiner who carried out the inspection reported that Mr Hussain initially evaded officers who were trying to stop the vehicle. When stopped at Chester Zoo, the passengers who had been on board had alighted. Mr Hussain said that the passengers were his family and friends.
When analysed, the tachograph data showed that the vehicle had travelled significant distances in the weeks before the stop. That information, together with the large sums found to be being spent on diesel – despite Mr Hussain’s claim that he was unemployed – led the officer to conclude that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. A pre-impounding warning letter was issued to Mr Hussain, but no response was received from him.
Evidence was given by a Traffic Examiner that, on 27 August, while carrying out a routine check, he and a Vehicle Examiner observed the minibus parked in the car park at Stirling Castle. The vehicle was not displaying an O-Licence disc, nor was it specified on any O-Licence.
When they approached the vehicle, Mr Hussain identified himself. He said that he was the owner of the
vehicle having purchased it from a dealer called Copart around three months previously. He had carried out repair work on the vehicle but was unable to produce any proof of purchase or other documentation proving his ownership. Numerous bags and jackets were observed within the vehicle.
The passengers he was transporting were his family and friends. He denied using the vehicle for hire and reward. At first, he said that he was in the process of applying for an O-Licence, but later said that he had not yet applied and was sorting his finances out first. A download of the tachograph unit showed that it had travelled 3,037km in the period 19-27 August alone. Further analysis showed that the vehicle had travelled 6,036km in the period 24 July-27 August.
Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC said that she concluded that Mr Hussain had failed to show he was the owner of the vehicle. The V5 produced was alone not sufficient, and the copy invoice produced bore neither his name nor the vehicle registration number. There need not be evidence that another entity owned the vehicle – the evidence was that it had been involved in an accident and had been written off. In such circumstances, ownership often transferred back to the insurance company. There was also HZ Executive Travel in the background. Therefore, there was a possibility that another entity owned the vehicle.
According to his evidence, Mr Hussain agreed to transport the passengers around the UK when asked by his friend to do so. The evidence was that he had already been to the Kelpies and Stirling. There was, therefore, a degree of organisation in relation to the transportation, and payment was made for fuel to enable that transportation to take place. The passengers were not his ‘family and friends’, but rather more distant, being ‘friends of a friend’.
It seemed likely, therefore, that the vehicle was being used for reward.
