[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions >> Lloyd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E00379 (18 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2002/E00379.html Cite as: [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E00379, [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E379

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

E00379

Excise Duty - Restoration of car - Car seized from user - Owner not involved in transportation of excise goods - User deceived owner as to use to which car would be put - Customs offered no evidence - Commissioners agree to conduct further review on the basis of findings of fact - Findings of fact by Tribunal

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

Appellant

ANNE LLOYD

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Adrian Shipwright (Chairman)

Bernard J Coode FFA

Lynneth M Salisbury

Sitting in public in London on 1 July 2002

The Appellant appeared in person

Richard Smith of Counsel for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002


 


DECISION
1. This is an appeal by Anne Lloyd ("the Appellant") against a decision on review by Customs and Excise contained in a letter dated 2nd January 2001 not to restore to her a vehicle, a Ford Escort, registration number K 852 MMD ("the Car").
2. Mr Smith who appeared on behalf of the Respondent very properly requested an adjournment after it became clear during the course of Anne Lloyd's evidence that she appeared to have been deceived in the circumstances and was not reckless as to the use to which the car was to be put by a third party.
3. Mr Smith told us after the adjournment that the Respondents propose to tender no evidence in this case.
4. Mr Smith informed us that Customs and Excise would complete a further review. He also undertook that in so far as possible this would be carried out by the reviewing officer who had been present during the hearing and had heard the evidence. He also said that Customs and Excise would take on board the evidence at the hearing in the course of this further review.
5. For the convenience of Customs and Excise in carrying out their further review we set out some of the more significant findings of fact we make from the evidence that we had heard. These are as follows.

(a) The Appellant was the registered keeper of a Ford Escort car registration number K 852 MMD.

(b) The Appellant had insured the Car for Mrs Green (one of the people in the Car when it was seized) to drive. This was to allow Mrs Green to take the appellant to work and to pick up the Appellant's children from school.

(c) The Appellant worked full-time from 9 AM to 5:30 PM. The appellant picked up her children from school when she could but Mrs Green collected them in the Car when she could not.

(d) Mrs Green would take the Appellant to work in the Car when she could not collect the children. Mrs Green would then have access to the Car all day.

(e) The Appellant trusted Mrs Green "would respect that it was my car". The Appellant was not aware that it had been used for other purposes. It was to take the Appellant to work and to pick up the children.

(f) Mrs Green asked to use the Car "to pop up to see her sister". Mrs Green initiated this claiming her car was "off road" at the time.

(g) The Appellant is a single mother. She agreed to Mrs Green's request to borrow the Car. The initiative for this came from Mrs Green who claimed her car was "off road" at the time. This was the excuse used by Mrs Green to obtain use of the Car. The Appellant agreed to Mrs Green's suggestion because Mrs Green in the Appellant's view had been "doing a favour" for the Appellant by collecting her children and driving her to work. It seemed reasonable for Mrs Green to use the Car in those circumstances to visit relatives.

(h) The Appellant had not been reckless as to the use of the Car and was not aware of what use it was, in fact, to be put having been deceived by Mrs Green into believing that it was for a family visit in the United Kingdom.

(i) We found the Appellant to be a truthful and honest witness. We believe her when she says that she lent the Car to Mrs Green and had insured it for Mrs Green to drive because of the Appellant's circumstances and the service that Mrs Green had provided. We find the borrowing to have been initiated by Mrs Green and that the Appellant was unaware of the use to which the Car was to be put by Mrs Green and would not have agreed to such a use.

(j) We also find that the Appellant had no knowledge of the use to which the Car was actually to be put or that Mr and Mrs Green might be importing alcohol and tobacco into the United Kingdom or even that the Car was to be taken out of the United Kingdom.

6. The question of costs is left open with liberty to apply to both sides.
ADRIAN SHIPWRIGHT CHAIRMAN RELEASED: 18 December 2002

LON/01/8007