Case No. UKUT-00272-(AAC)

16. At the appeal hearing, the appellant repeated the argument he made to the Head of the TRU, that he/his company was the owner of the vehicle and therefore had authority in law to secure its return. In presenting this argument, the invoice purportedly indicating that the vehicle had been purchased by “Andrew Murphy” for £6,822 from Brian McKeever Transport, was highlighted (page 18). The invoice was undated, but Mr Murphy confirmed at the hearing that the vehicle had been purchased in January 2021 with the money having been exchanged by bank transfer on the day of purchase. He also highlighted the V5C document which stated that the registered keeper of the vehicle was “Andrew Murphy Transport” (page 12 of the appeal bundle) and it was covered under a fleet insurance policy issued on 5 February 2021 (page 22/23 of the appeal bundle). He had provided in evidence, an email from himself to the DVA dated 15 September 2021, seeking an MOT test date for the vehicle (page 20 of the appeal bundle) and confirmed orally that he knew there was no valid MOT on the vehicle on the date it was detained (16 September 2021). All of these documents and points, he argued, was evidence of his company’s ownership of the vehicle, which in turn gave him authority to have it returned to him under Regulation 4 of the Enforcement Regulations 2012.17. The Respondent argued that the burden of proving ownership rests on the appellant, which was agreed. It was also agreed that the application was for return of the vehicle only and not for return of the trailer. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that there was no proof that the bank transfer had taken place, no proof of the Appellant’s accountants having recorded the spend on the vehicle, and that an undated invoice was not sufficient to evidence ownership. 18.The term “owner” is defined in Regulation 2 as follows:“2.