does anyone know of a way to unregister a car with the DVLA without claiming to have scraped it?

Export it or scrap it. The whole idea of continuous registration is that a car can't be "lost" from the database as long as it exists in the UK.

if i return the reg document declaring it scrapped, is there an obligation to actually scrap it or can it be claimed as salvage?

If you declare scrapped they will never issue another registration document for it, so you can never put it back on the road.

Overseas posting by any chance?

If you "self scrap" they will require proof that it has been scrapped or dismantled. You'll have to ask them what the minimum actions required would then have to be done to satisfy them. One famous story was a guy who sent them a video of the car being crushed by a tank.

You may want to keep the bits of the car for future projects, so it is understandable that you may not want to destroy the vehicle.

Exporting the vehicle is the only other way I know.

When you report a car stolen, the DVLA get notified, and they (should) ammend the vehicles register to remove your responsibility to it. But it remains on the register. You can and should - protect yourself by writing to DVLA to have them "remove your interest" in a vehicle that has been stolen. Which makes me wonder if you can legally "remove your interest" in a vehicle not stolen but remains in your possession, I suppose you theoretically can, but it would probably leave you open to prosecution under VERA for keeping an unregistered vehicle.

There is something in law about a vehicle without gear box or with engine in such a state that no prospect of vehicle being made mobile (and no intention of owner to put it back on the road) is no longer a motor vehicle.

Smart v Allan 1962

Which could help you.

no, im in good ol' england.

If you "self scrap" they will require proof that it has been scrapped or dismantled. You'll have to ask them what the minimum actions required would then have to be done to satisfy them. One famous story was a guy who sent them a video of the car being crushed by a tank.

 

You may want to keep the bits of the car for future projects, so it is understandable that you may not want to destroy the vehicle.

 

Exporting the vehicle is the only other way I know.

 

When you report a car stolen, the DVLA get notified, and they (should) ammend the vehicles register to remove your responsibility to it. But it remains on the register. You can and should - protect yourself by writing to DVLA to have them "remove your interest" in a vehicle that has been stolen. Which makes me wonder if you can legally "remove your interest" in a vehicle not stolen but remains in your possession, I suppose you theoretically can, but it would probably leave you open to prosecution under VERA for keeping an unregistered vehicle.

 

There is something in law about a vehicle without gear box or with engine in such a state that no prospect of vehicle being made mobile (and no intention of owner to put it back on the road) is no longer a motor vehicle.

 

Which could help you.

what im trying to do is remove their interest from my car without trying to create an estoppel.

when you register anything, you hand over what ever it is to another party. this is why if your car is found on the road without licence duty then the dvla can tow it away and scrap it. in reality dvla own your car with your consent.

I think you're trying to do what in the USA some people theoretically think, that because they are constitutionally allowed the right to free travel, that right overrides the laws that require them to register their motor vehicles.

We in the UK have the same laws requiring all motor vehicles (which are not exempt) to be registered. We don't have a constitution to give us the same theoretical hopes that they have in the USA. I'll bet you won't actually find any Americans who go through with this idea.

Unless you remove the engine and have an intention to never use the vehicle on the road again, you will not be allowed to unregister the vehicle.

Just out of interest

There are vehicles that are exempt from continuous registration, vehicles which have been stored off road - untaxed, prior to the SORN laws coming into effect (something like 1995) are exempt from SORN regs & fines, unless they subsequently become taxed - or voluntarily SORN'd again, then they have to from that point on be subject to SORN regs.

Statute law applies to PERSONS.

Statute laws regarding 'motor vehicles' applies to 'motor vehicles'.

The questions that you need to know the answers to according to law are:

1. who or what is a PERSON?

2. What is a 'motor vehicle'?

if i describe 'cherries' as round red fruits, does that mean all round red fruits are 'cherries'?

I don't think I follow what pleasuredome is trying to acheive here.

I think he is trying to unregister his car so that he thinks then he wont have to tax it to run it on a road.

I suspect he has been taking lessons in law and thinks he has found a loophole to exploit

I think he is trying to unregister his car so that he thinks then he wont have to tax it to run it on a road.

 

I suspect he has been taking lessons in law and thinks he has found a loophole to exploit

Thanks for that flyingdoc. A none starter I guess then!

i dont THINKi wont have to pay 'vehicle licence duty', i KNOW i wont have to.

there are foreigners who have been here in england for years who have driven their cars without ever registering them, who have to pay no vehicle licence duty.

the dvla says that after 6 months they MUST register their car with them. in legalese, the word 'must' is equivilant to the word 'may', and there is no obligation to do anything in which you 'must' make application for.

every englishman has a lawful right to travel freely on the queen's highways. you have the right to own and use a private conveyance on the roads as long as you are not acting in commerce.

a driver is someone who acts in commerce; a vehicle is a conveyance used in commerce; a passenger is someone who pays. anyone acting in commerce has to register their vehicle and pay duty on it and apply for a licence to drive the vehicle.

did you claim to be acting in commerce? by making an application for vehicle registration, driver's licence etc, just like i did, you did claim that.

hence the reason why i want to unregister because i am not acting in commerce.

Thanks for that flyingdoc. A none starter I guess then!

thats a cracker. it must be the way you tell them

seriously though, if YOU believe it to be a non starter, then so be it for YOU.

Good luck with that....

and interestingly the Northamptonshir police are cracking down on just the drivers you are talking about - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues-media/175739-checks-target-foreign-vehicles.html

however I would be interested to know what statutes you are relying upon

Good luck with that....

 

and interestingly the Northamptonshir police are cracking down on just the drivers you are talking about - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues-media/175739-checks-target-foreign-vehicles.html

 

however I would be interested to know what statutes you are relying upon

Officers can seize vehicles if they have been in the UK for longer than six months and are not registered with the DVLA, Pc David Lee said.

"After that period it must be taxed, insured and go through an MOT if it is older than three years," he said.

officers who seize privately owned cars are acting unlawfully. what they will try to do is get the owners to consent to statute law, which if the owners do, will mean they will have to go down the route of registration, licences etc. if the owners fail to consent, the police will have no choice but to give the cars back.

if they ever tried to take my private car, i'd sue them. but i would inform the police and the dvla from the start what the status of my car is and myself in regard to it, so that there would be no problems.

I personally think that the polices power to seize vehicles at roadside are in contravention of the human rights act - right to a fair trial, and would love to see someone take this on.

As a law student i would be very interested in your arguement for your point of view - what statutes are you demending on?

I personally think that the polices power to seize vehicles at roadside are in contravention of the human rights act - right to a fair trial, and would love to see someone take this on.

As a law student i would be very interested in your arguement for your point of view - what statutes are you demending on?

the police can seize vehicles because the vehicles were registered. the dvla have rights to that vehicle because of registration, and the owner gave the dvla those rights by applying and subbmiting volunterily, although the owner believing he was obligated to do so at the time on the basis of hearsay or someone in 'authority' saying that he 'must'.

i'm not using any statute, i'm using the common law. statute law overides common only when you consent to it, in other words its a contract, which is the reason why the police will ask you if you 'understand'. so i have to be particular about if and when i use statutes.

edited to add: everything the policeman said was true in the quote. imo, this article is being used as propaganda to intimidate people into applying for vehicle registration. the police could seize a private car, but they will know they are running a huge risk in doing so.

statute law overides common only when you consent to it

Sorry but I have to say that is complete an utter rubbish. Statute law is just that - its law and it applies to you whether you consent or not.

Surely all vehicles are registered by the garage prior to sale?

This is an interesting thread, however will you not also have problems when you come to insure the vehicle?

Sorry but I have to say that is complete an utter rubbish. Statute law is just that - its law and it applies to you whether you consent or not.

a statute is a legisaltive rule of society which is empowered by law.

a society is a group of people joined together by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.

do you belong to 'society'? do you know the name of that 'society'? were you obligated to join that 'society'? are you free to leave that 'society'?

statutes act on the PERSON. a PERSON is a legal fiction, a coporate entity. do you believe yourself to be a PERSON or a Human? do you have an obligation to act on behalf of the PERSON?

why does the policman ask you 'do you understand?'. why does he need evidence of the PERSON?

why does the customs officer ask for your permission to search through your luggage at the airport, to take swobs, to smash items if they believe it to be concealing drugs? if it was the law and mandatory there would be no reason to ask.

Ah I was misunderstanding - I thought we were talking about reality not exostentialism.

A Person is not a legal fiction - there is a tried and tested definition of what is termed a Legal or Natural Person (legal person may be a company) and statutes apply to them whether or not they consider themselves to be part of the society.

I am all for challenging the system, for fighting for and championing the ever diminishing bundle of rights that the individual has, but pardon me for saying that your mantra actually makes no sense, and is of no real value in such a forum as this.

You cannot challenge the system from without as you appear to be attempting. How, for instance, are you going to get a court to uphold your claim- when part of your claim is that the very statutes that the court relies on for its authority are fictions.

whilst these debates are interesting and entertaining, most people come here for hard, factual and reliable advice. not philosophy.

oh an by the way - by CHOOSING to live in the UK you are CHOOSING to be part of the society and therefore bound by the laws of the country.

Ah I was misunderstanding - I thought we were talking about reality not exostentialism.

interesting that i keep witnessing this exostentialism in reality because they keep asking for my consent.

A Person is not a legal fiction - there is a tried and tested definition of what is termed a Legal or Natural Person (legal person may be a company) and statutes apply to them whether or not they consider themselves to be part of the society.

but pardon me for saying that your mantra actually makes no sense, and is of no real value in such a forum as this.

How, for instance, are you going to get a court to uphold your claim- when part of your claim is that the very statutes that the court relies on for its authority are fictions.

oh an by the way - by CHOOSING to live in the UK you are CHOOSING to be part of the society and therefore bound by the laws of the country.

whilst these debates are interesting and entertaining, most people come here for hard, factual and reliable advice. not philosophy.

you cannot beat a system in which you empower it by your consent.

A police officer asks if a person understands because courts have accepted that the wording of the caution is understood by most people, but also accepts that there may be some who need to have the meaning explained in a different way, therefor they are asked 'do you understand'.

In the case of the customs officers, they can have the authority to search, but asking is just being polite and it is a lot easier to do things with consent . If the person refuses they can search anyway.

its starts off as a BILL and then becomes a statutory INSTRUMENT.

it starts of as a bill and becomes an act of parliament... and acts of parliament are laws and laws are enforceable with or without your consent.

Yes there are times when authorities ask for, and require consent, but there are, equally times when consent is not required or asked and no amount of protestation that you do not consent will prevent that law being enforced upon you.

statutes are not laws,

plain and simple - but 100% wrong....