A MOG and A Run in with VOSA !!!!

[renewablejohn]

Why don'y you just call Atkinson Voss and listen to them?

 

After all they sell these things you know.

 

Just because they sell them does not make them experts in the field of VOSA. They also repair them but they wont be getting my custom again.

[HCR]

Because it wouldn't be the first time that VOSA had got things badly wrong, and the fact that "VOSA said..." is no defence in a court of law.

 

The ULW for a 3.3m wb Ford-engined RB44 chassis only seems to be 2049kg, with basic body the military spec gives an ULW of 3000kg, so it is extremely unlikely that it falls under the C&U Regs definition for a Dual Purpose Vehicle.

 

On the contrary, I'd say written advice from VOSA (providing it can be shown it was based on the relevant facts) is an excellent defence in court.

[Treewolf]

VOSA unfortunately has no authority to determine the law and is as susceptible as any other organisation to misinterpretation. Only the courts have the authority to make definitive interpretation of the law. Whilst it is entirely reasonable to expect VOSA to know the law, and having such a letter from VOSA may be taken into account in mitigation, it does not constitute a valid defence since it is well establish in UK legal precedent that ignorance of an offence is not a defence (it undoubtedly shows that you have been diligent and taken reasonable steps to act within the law, however).

 

There is always, and has always been, and probably always will be huge confusion about what a "dual-purpose vehicle" actually is in law, but the definition - the ONLY legal definition - comes from the Regulation 3(2) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & use) Regulations 1986 which states that a DPV is "a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either..." and then goes on to list various other conditions (such as full or part time all-wheel-drive etc).

 

There are no exceptions to this, and all other regulations (such as the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984), which is the legislation which determines speed limits) use the C&U definition. So, unless the unladen weight is 2040kg or less the vehicle cannot be a DPV and nothing that VOSA says makes the slightest difference to this.

 

Without being privy to the correspondence between Ray and VOSA it is pointless to speculate how and why they advised him as they did, and I don't even know the ULW of his RB44. All I can say is that if his RB44 has an ULW over 2040kg then I believe that he has been wrongly advised and he can, if he wishes, seek further advice. Alternatively he may choose not to, and since anyone who stops him at the roadside is likely to know even less about the situation than VOSA then showing them the VOSA email is likely to satisfy them anyway.

 

I seem to recall that VOSA has a disclaimer to the effect that they cannot offer specific legal advice.

[Robert_S]

Why don'y you just call Atkinson Voss and listen to them?

 

After all they sell these things you know.

 

:lol:

[HCR]

VOSA unfortunately has no authority to determine the law and is as susceptible as any other organisation to misinterpretation. Only the courts have the authority to make definitive interpretation of the law. Whilst it is entirely reasonable to expect VOSA to know the law, and having such a letter from VOSA may be taken into account in mitigation, it does not constitute a valid defence since it is well establish in UK legal precedent that ignorance of an offence is not a defence (it undoubtedly shows that you have been diligent and taken reasonable steps to act within the law, however).

 

You seem fairly well versed in legal matters, but the ignorance maxim is a bit of an oversimplification really. There are several cases in various common law jurisdictions that have gone slightly different ways, but I would look to R v Crosswell in which it was said

 

However, in order to make out this defence, (the accused) must show that he considered the legal consequences of his actions and sought legal advice; the advice was obtained from an appropriate official; the advice was erroneous; he relied on it; and his reliance was reasonable

 

This was the ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, so is obviously not binding on our courts, but it is certainly persuasive. The Crosswell case is very similar to the Unimog example; a chap going about his business was unsure of the law so he contacted the relevant government agency for advice. He followed that advice in good faith, but the advice was wrong. This was known as officially induced error

 

English law has got its knickers in a twist over this before, and it's about time it looked to Canada, or the US with its entrapment by estoppel doctrine.

[john p]

VOSA unfortunately has no authority to determine the law and is as susceptible as any other organisation to misinterpretation. Only the courts have the authority to make definitive interpretation of the law. Whilst it is entirely reasonable to expect VOSA to know the law, and having such a letter from VOSA may be taken into account in mitigation, it does not constitute a valid defence since it is well establish in UK legal precedent that ignorance of an offence is not a defence (it undoubtedly shows that you have been diligent and taken reasonable steps to act within the law, however).

 

There is always, and has always been, and probably always will be huge confusion about what a "dual-purpose vehicle" actually is in law, but the definition - the ONLY legal definition - comes from the Regulation 3(2) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & use) Regulations 1986 which states that a DPV is "a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage both of passengers and of goods or burden of any description, being a vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed 2040 kg, and which either..." and then goes on to list various other conditions (such as full or part time all-wheel-drive etc).

 

There are no exceptions to this, and all other regulations (such as the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984), which is the legislation which determines speed limits) use the C&U definition. So, unless the unladen weight is 2040kg or less the vehicle cannot be a DPV and nothing that VOSA says makes the slightest difference to this.

 

Without being privy to the correspondence between Ray and VOSA it is pointless to speculate how and why they advised him as they did, and I don't even know the ULW of his RB44. All I can say is that if his RB44 has an ULW over 2040kg then I believe that he has been wrongly advised and he can, if he wishes, seek further advice. Alternatively he may choose not to, and since anyone who stops him at the roadside is likely to know even less about the situation than VOSA then showing them the VOSA email is likely to satisfy them anyway.

 

I seem to recall that VOSA has a disclaimer to the effect that they cannot offer specific legal advice.

 

Basically with the paper work he s got hes gonna drive away from any vehicle check IMO (roadworthiness excepted)

[john p]

Just because they sell them does not make them experts in the field of VOSA. They also repair them but they wont be getting my custom again.

 

it would be like asking woodburner shops about the price//availability of wood!

[stoxs]

iF YOU CAN GET WRITTEN AND SIGNED PERMISSION FROM VOSA THEN THATS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.

 

The police will not argue with a decission from vosa.

Police dont argue with DVLA either lolol.

Another story but DVLA requested police officers number and name because the officer accused me of comitting an offence when i had permission form DVLA .

 

Keep on trucking, oopps sorry tractorring, opps sorry chipping, oopps sorry hauling.

 

Best change the sign writting to combined Ag services.

[458 Lott]

UK legal precedent that ignorance of an offence is not a defence (it undoubtedly shows that you have been diligent and taken reasonable steps to act within the law, however).

 

I dis agree with this statement.

Under your human rights you have the right to a belief if you believe the iformation given to you then you are protected.

to underpin this with the amount of legislation being passed these days it is very unlikely that one could keep up with new laws and coment upon them let alone judicaly challangeing them.

 

hope this helps

[[email protected]]

just carry on driving the dam thing until you get solid advice.....and next time don't upset your neighbours and they wont dob you in it with vosa.

:lol: