TC Rooney refuses to return minibus impounded on a ‘trial run’ for a school contract
Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney has refused to return an impounded minibus that was on a trial run in July in order to obtain a school contract.
The TC was told that on 18 July 2017, the 16-seat minibus, driven by Andrew Gingell, was the subject of a check by DVSA at Chew Valley School. The vehicle was on a journey from Brislington to Chew Valley School and was carrying passengers.
Mr Gingell indicated he owned the vehicle. He agreed he was the owner and driver of the vehicle.
When asked why the vehicle was not run under a PSV O-Licence he said “because it is not for reward or gain”. He said he was paying for the fuel himself.
On 25 July 2017, Traffic Examiner (TE) Richard Francis took a telephone call from Lorraine Pearce, a parent of a child carried on the minibus. She said that Mr Gingell charged a daily fee per passenger.
Seeking the return of the vehicle, Mr Gingell said that he had originally facilitated the school contract for Tony Sheppard. Because of that, he believed that Lorraine Pearce mistakenly thought it was he, Mr Gingell, who was operating it.
The impounded vehicle was family transport. He had undertaken the school journeys in the detained vehicle for about a week and a half. The passengers on the bus were his son and his son’s friends, about six or seven in total.
Felicity Hine, for DVSA, pointed out that that was at odds with the evidence of the TE who counted 16 or 17 children leaving the bus. Mr Gingell strongly denied being paid.
In reply to the TC, Mr Gingell said that Tony Sheppard had started to run the service in early 2015. The contract was with parents. Mr Shepherd stopped running the service sometime in 2017. He decided to try to run the service himself. Since having the vehicle detained, he had started an application for an O-Licence on the online system but had not submitted it pending the outcome of the hearing.
Referring to the statement of DVSA Vehicle Examiner David Rosier, giving an account of an encounter with a minibus driven by Mr Gingell at Bath racecourse on 4 August 2017, Mr Gingell said that he had borrowed a minibus to take a group of friends to the racecourse. He had dropped his friends and was heading home to get changed into more appropriate clothes, later to return to join the group.
In his decision, the TC said that it was common ground that Mr Gingell had taken some payment for at least some of the journeys. Whether he took, or intended to take, payment for the journey on 18 July, it was his own evidence that he was running the service on that day as a “trial” because he wanted the contract in the future.
He had no hesitation in finding that the operation on 18 July 2017 “went beyond the bounds of mere social kindness”. It was a systemic operation intended, at the very least, to deliver a future contract.
If it was not for “hire”, and he was far from sure that was the case, it was certainly intended to be for “reward”, the reward being a future school transport contract. The ground for the return of the vehicle was not made out.