Traffic Commissioner (TC) Sarah Bell has refused to return a stretch limousine impounded in February by DVSA after it had made a test purchase, because she was satisfied it was used illegally and could not be satisfied that the applicant for its return was the owner.
Gurtan Bozbay, a director of Welwyn Garden City-based GB Limousine had applied for the return of the vehicle at an Eastbourne Public Inquiry on the grounds that it was being operated under a PSV O-Licence held by a Stewart Henry.
At the outset, the TC asked Mr Bozbay to be clear as to whether the application was by him as an individual or by GB Limousine. He confirmed he personally claimed the vehicle. Mr Bozbay then handed in an unsigned agreement with Mr Henry but was unable to confirm the O-Licence number or the Traffic Area of issue. The TC requested her office make searches of Companies House and VOL to see if a connection to Mr Henry and a valid O-Licence could be found. In the meantime, the hearing continued.
In relation to ownership, Mr Bozbay relied on a receipt addressed to him from a Weymouth-based limousine business dated 23 April 2017 together with a V5 in his personal name. The receipt identified the purchase price and he said it was a cash payment. When asked for the provenance of the cash used, he referred to a sale of another limousine. When asked who owned that vehicle, he said he could not recall if it was he or GB Limousine.
After the TC pointed out that the impounded vehicle was insured by the limited company, Mr Bozbay said that all the vehicles on the business’s websites were owned by GB Limousine. He also admitted that he did not really distinguish between himself as an individual and a director.
The TC said that when a registered keeper check was done the dates suggested Mr Bozbay/ First Choice Limos/GB Limousine transferred ownership of the vehicle he had said he sold was transferred on 25 May 2017. In such circumstances it was unlikely to be the same cash.
The onus was on Mr Bozbay to satisfy her that he was the owner of the impounded vehicle. The reality was that she was not sure if even Mr Bozbay knew who the owner was. She gave particular weight to the fact that the vehicle was insured by GB Limousine; the failed O-Licence application in 2017 was in the name of GB Limousine; and that Mr Bozbay had said that the vehicle was purchased in anticipation of the licence application being successful. She was not satisfied that he was the owner.
Mr Bozbay did not challenge the lawfulness of the DVSA actions on 5 February. She was satisfied on the evidence that DVSA has demonstrated that it had reason to believe that the vehicle was being used illegally and could accordingly detain the vehicle.
The searches instigated at the start of the hearing did not locate any PSV O-Licence in the name of Mr Henry or a limited company with Mr Henry named as a director. Mr Bozbay had said he had seen Mr Henry’s licence approximately one year before but had not done any checks since the application by GB Limousine was refused on 16 November 2017.
Mr Bozbay subsequently admitted that Mr Henry was not the operator on 5 February. He said that although he and Mr Henry intended to use a ‘contract hire’ arrangement at some stage, it had not actually started by the impounding date. When he took the booking prior to 5 February 2018 that was how he intended to fulfil the booking. However, he failed to make any such arrangements, being distracted by family issues.
In his interview under caution, Mr Bozbay stated that Gurtan Bozbay trading as GB Limousine Ltd was the operator on 5 February 2018 and the driver was employed by ‘him’ that day. Mr Bozbay confirmed the driver was acting under his instruction.
Consequently, she was satisfied that at the time the passengers were picked up it was Mr Bozbay who was operating, and it was his driver working under his instruction doing the booking arising from the test purchase.
Whether it was Mr Bozbay as an individual or as sole director of GB Limousines was irrelevant. Mr Bozbay knew he and GB Limousine needed an O-Licence. Both entities had previously been refused licences. It followed that the application must fail.
