A VRT station has had a fine imposed by Transport Malta (TM) annulled after the Administrative Review Tribunal found that the way how a vehicle re-test was carried out, on instructions by TM inspectors, was irregular.

The case was filed by Matthew Scicluna after his garage was fined a total of €1,595 by the Authority.

The Authority had said that on October 27, 2009 its inspectors conducted an inspection on a vehicle which had been issued a 'passed' certificate in Mr Scicluna's garage.

The re-test was carried out in Mr Scicluna's own garage.

During the re-test is was found that the vehicle was not lifted all the way from rear to have the wheels free to rotate. The inspection light was not functioning during the checking of the car from underneath.

No assistant tester was present.

The front brake hoses were not checked on full steering lock. The vehicle emissions pass test result on printout did not have the actual reading in respect to the CO value and there was an excessive smell of unburnt petrol.

It then resulted that the vehicle failed the emission test and there was a major
difference in CO value when compared to the first test.

Mr Scicluna, among other arguments, said the re-test was carried out on the insistence of the Transport Malta inspectors even though they knew that the test could not be carried out because only one attendant - Charlo Farrugia - was present.

Mr Farrugia had been about to close because of a hospital appointment, and he had told the inspectors that the test could not be carried out because the second attendant was not present. However the inspectors insisted that the test be carried out anyway.

Mr Scicluna also argued that he did not know what the car had been through between the first test and the re-test and therefore could not be held responsible.

The tribunal said the Transport Malta inspectors were within their rights to check the vehicle, but the inspectors exceeded their discretionary authority when they insisted on the re-test being carried even though the second attendant was not  present.  

The tribunal noted that the inspectors had confirmed that the second attendant, required by law, was not present but they still insisted on the test being held anyway.

This, the tribunal said, reflected a nonchalant attitude by he inspectors, and what had taken place, therefore, did not conform with the law.

It was no argument for the inspectors to plead that the tester, Mr Farrugia, had not objected to the re-test despite being alone. The fact that the inspectors knew that rules were not being followed, but had still carried on was wrong.

Furthermore, Mr Farrugia had pleaded that he did actually  protest to the inspectors. The tribunal said it tended to believe his version.

The tribunal therefore upheld Mr Scicluna's appeal