no road tax, got clamped!

[tifo]

i had a thread on here which seems to have gone now ...

i got clamped on 12 Jan 08 as my road tax had run out end Dec 07. The car was a few metres away from private land but on a road.

the DVLA/NCP guys told me that i can 'disclaim' the car and it will be scrapped or i can buy the road tax and keep the car, then no £80 removal fee. There will be no charge etc if i disclaim.

i decided to disclaim it and gave them the key. I also informed DVLA on the form they gave me.

today i've received a letter asking me for £75 as an 'out of court settlement' for not displaying a tax disk. This is surprising as i was told the fact i've allowed them to scrap the car would end the matter.

anyone advice?

[patdavies]

There are 2 offences here

1) Not having VED - this is what has been dealt with by disclaim/removal.

2) Failure to display a valid VED disk - this si what your latest £75 is for.

Technically, DVLA are right - if you didn't have a valid disk, then it is impossible to display it. But they are being a bit OTT if they have already removed and crushed the vehicle.

[10110001]

Section 33(2) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 says that a person is liable to a fine upon conviction for failure to display a valid tax dicsc.

Your post indicates you havn't been convicted yet, and this letter may be a without prejudice offer where you pay £75, and no proceeding will be brought.

[tifo]

Originally Posted by patdavies

But they are being a bit OTT if they have already removed and crushed the vehicle.

I think so, especially since they told me that once they crush the car there is nothing to pay, that's what the disclaimer was for.

The letter is an offer to 'settle out of court' for £75 on this offence only, but also states there may be other proceedings as required. It states that even though the vehicle may have been taxed or taken away, the offence was still committed and hence the fine and that if i haven't licensed it, i should do so now. Standard letter i think. How can i license it when i've disclaimed it and it was taken and crushed?

Should i ring them and ask why the fine when they clearly told me otherwise?

[10110001]

Originally Posted by tifo

I think so, especially since they told me that once they crush the car there is nothing to pay, that's what the disclaimer was for.

Good point, you can potentially ask for the replacement cost of the vehicle if your previous car has been damaged beyond economical repair while in DVLA's possession. Do not use the word 'crushed' in your correpondence.

Originally Posted by tifo

The letter is an offer to 'settle out of court' for £75 on this offence only, but also states there may be other proceedings as required.

It looks like DVLA is trying to convict you twice for the same offence, you can plead autrefois acquit.

Originally Posted by tifo

Should i ring them and ask why the fine when they clearly told me otherwise?

Yes, ask DVLA for their final offer to settle all claims against you. Do not use without prejuduce, you might need to show a magistrate that you tried to seek an amicable resolve.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by 10110001

It looks like DVLA is trying to convict you twice for the same offence, you can plead autrefois acquit.

No, there are two distinct offences.

1) Having no VED or SORN - for which the vehicle was seized, disclaimed and crushed.

2) Failure to display a valid VED - for which the OP has a £75 settlement offer to avoid court.

[tifo]

Originally Posted by patdavies

No, there are two distinct offences.

1) Having no VED or SORN - for which the vehicle was seized, disclaimed and crushed.

2) Failure to display a valid VED - for which the OP has a £75 settlement offer to avoid court.

I understand the two reasons above, but only one can apply at any time.

How can you have #2 if #1 applies, i.e. no VED means there is nothing to display for which the car was seized and crushed. If #2 applied, then #1 would not, i.e. i had the tax but did not display it.

This way i'm being done twice.

[tifo]

if i pay the £75 and they agree to end any action, does this mean i get a criminal conviction as it is apparently a criminal offence or would that be only if it went to court?

what are the rules here?

[10110001]

The DVLA is asking you to mitigate by paying £75, I dont think this attracts a criminal record, or probably not the sort that carries credence as far as insurance or employment decisions go.

If you don't pay and and attend court, you can ask to have the charge dismissed on the grounds the DVLA did not give you an opportunity to mitigate when your disclaimed your car.

Its a risk, and you need to decide whether £75 is worth it, or there is a opportunity to claim for the financial loss of replacing your car and your time in preparing cases for court.

The rules are the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. If a magistrate follows these rules verbatim then you will be convicted. You are relying on the magistrate believing the DVLA interpreted the law inappropriately, or you are charged with same offence by another name and common law prohibits Double Jeopardy. Remember also, that a magistrate does not have an authority to rebuke an Act of Parilament, if you win, the DVLA will probably appeal.

From a magistrates perspective, the case is likely to result in a conviction but with null penalty, no fine and give the prosecutor an informal ticking off for not allowing the defendant to mitigate.

[tifo]

Originally Posted by 10110001

The DVLA is asking you to mitigate by paying £75, I dont think this attracts a criminal record, or probably not the sort that carries credence as far as insurance or employment decisions go.

If you don't pay and and attend court, you can ask to have the charge dismissed on the grounds the DVLA did not give you an opportunity to mitigate when your disclaimed your car.

Its a risk, and you need to decide whether £75 is worth it, or there is a opportunity to claim for the financial loss of replacing your car and your time in preparing cases for court.

The rules are the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. If a magistrate follows these rules verbatim then you will be convicted. You are relying on the magistrate believing the DVLA interpreted the law inappropriately, or you are charged with same offence by another name and common law prohibits Double Jeopardy. Remember also, that a magistrate does not have an authority to rebuke an Act of Parilament, if you win, the DVLA will probably appeal.

From a magistrates perspective, the case is likely to result in a conviction but with null penalty, no fine and give the prosecutor an informal ticking off for not allowing the defendant to mitigate.

Thanks for the advice. I don't mind the £75 as long as i don't get a record of any kind but don't want to pay it if i don't have to as they seem underhanded.