Mike Bradbury, an agricultural fencing contractor with over 40
years experience in the industry, was served with five summonses in
relation to driving his agricultural specification Mercedes Benz
Unimog 1600 on the A49 in Herefordshire.
A Unimog is a "High Speed" agricultural tractor, they have been
in existence for decades in the UK and indeed worldwide. However to
add confusion, there is a lorry version of this vehicle which local
Councils use for various purposes.
Mr Bradbury had pointed out the agricultural spec on the side of
the vehicle to VOSA - (it read MERC AG). He agreed that there is no
doubt the Unimog is considered to be a brilliant invention, it is a
hybrid heavy duty vehicle designed to be used both on and off the
road.
By virtue of the Vehicles Excise and Regulation Act 1994, (VERA)
the Law in the UK states that anyone driving a vehicle on the road
including a trailer, with a combined weight of 3,500kgs, requires
an "O" Licence (Operators Licence). This licence, costs money and
is controlled by VOSA. The driver is also required to hold a C + E
licence (equivalent to the old HGV licence).
An exception to the above requirements is a person engaged in
agriculture, including an agricultural contractor. This exemption
also applies to the requirements for a Road Fund Licence, which is
zero.
Mr Bradbury had taken appropriate advice from both the NFU and
VOSA, and was confident he was operating within the law.
However, in July 2010 he was stopped during a routine roadside
check by VOSA - he was not speeding or committing any offence
whatsoever.
Right up until the day before the trial neither Mr Bradbury nor
his solicitor knew the details of the case being made by VOSA. It
transpired that VOSA appeared to be saying that because Mr Bradbury
was using his vehicle for "hire and reward" i.e. because he was
carrying some fencing posts, (which incidentally were nothing to do
with the job and were rubbish which he had not got round to
disposing of), to a job on a farm, that this was a "hire and
reward" situation. This was incorrect as there is no definition of
"hire and reward" in the legislation, and as Mr Bradbury was an
agricultural contractor engaged to do work on the farm for the
farmer, this could not possibly have been the case. It would have
been different if, for example, Mr Bradbury had been transporting
goods/grain to a depot on behalf of the farmer, then he would have
needed an "O" licence.
Ros Caldicott - experienced criminal defence solicitor with
Lanyon Bowdler, who was representing Mr Bradbury says "The day
before the trial I was emailed by the solicitor, a high street
practitioner based in Walsall, who was acting for VOSA. This
solicitor had no idea what a Unimog was, and had presented a
skeleton argument which disclosed a completely different basis for
which the vehicle was used, i.e. that the Unimog was not an
agricultural vehicle. This was clearly not the case, and I had to
put together a defence the night before the trial."
Ros goes onto say "Mr Bradbury, has at all times been operating
within the law and the case has caused him great stress and
anxiety, and has made his wife quite ill. The consequences
for him had it gone wrong would have been very costly in terms of
the prosecution costs and fines, as well as the cost of obtaining
an "O" licence."
For more information about Lanyon Bowdler, please visit their
website here: www.lblaw.co.uk