A court has let a man off the hook over a series of e-scooter parking tickets issued in his name rather than in the name of the company registered as the lawful owner.
This was the outcome of six separate appeals filed by Vladimirs Puzanovs, a company representative who was fined over a number of parking contraventions.
Legal sources say the case could set a precedent and impact hundreds more such fines if they were brought to court.
The contraventions involved e-scooters operated by BLT Malta Ltd and spanned a three-week period between May and June 2021.
Traffic officials who came across the vehicles parked on pavements in various areas of Sliema, St Julian’s and Msida issued the tickets in the name of Puzanovs.
He was subsequently found guilty by a Commissioner for Justice and ordered to pay a fine of €23.29 for each booking.
But the man’s lawyers filed an appeal before the Magistrates’ Court arguing that the summons should have been issued in the name of the company as the licensed owner listed on the logbook.
At least, they argued, it should have been made clear that Puzanovs was simply the company’s representative.
Magistrate Victor George Axiak yesterday started off by noting that, as was customary in proceedings before Commissioners for Justice, there was no documentary evidence to show whether the appellant’s pleas had been raised at that first instance.
Summons should have been issued in the name of the company
There was no transcript of witnesses’ testimony and nor did the commissioner provide reasons to justify the finding of guilt.
All the court was presented with were black and white copies of two photos showing the scooters parked on the pavements.
The court observed that in terms of article 2 of the Registration and Licensing of Motor Vehicles Regulations, the owner was defined as “the person, whether as an individual or in representation of a company… in whose name a motor vehicle is registered and licensed”.
Such a certificate was presented in the records of the case and that document clearly listed “BLT Malta Ltd” as the registered owner.
The name of the appellant was also listed underneath the company name, clearly implying that he was the person representing that company.
Document clearly listed BLT Malta Ltd as the registered owner
Making further reference to the Interpretation Act, the magistrate concluded that Puzanovs should have been cited in his representative capacity rather than in his personal capacity.
Moreover, it was for the prosecution to prove that the appellant did actually represent BLT Malta Ltd by producing relative documentation from the Malta Business Registry.
This was necessary because a person listed as representative on the vehicle logbook could possibly no longer be associated with the company at the time of the incident, said the magistrate, upholding the appellant’s plea and revoking the commissioner’s decision.
Lawyers Christopher Chircop and David Mallia were defence counsel.