Hi

I am trying to prove that an area of land that I parked my SORN vehicle on is private.

DVLA charged me with using it on public land, I refuted this and took it to court.

They now say that the proof that the council / highways agency do not maintain this area is not proof that it is private land,

and have adjourned the case for me to pay the fine or find proof that it is private.

The area in question is a group of 3 parking spaces next to a group of garages.

The garages are linked on records to the houses nearby, the spaces are not.

So far I have asked the County Council,

district council and land registry along with a local housing company,

but the land is not registered...

the district council advised me that in order to park a SORN vehicle I should have written permission from the owners, but I cannot locate the owners!

The DVLA prosecutor told me that I should have made sure that it was private before I parked my car there,

but I am now not sure how I was meant to do that,

or how I get proof now that it is not public land

(which I believe means it should be maintained through public funds - which it is not!).

I do plan to ask the houses around (I have asked my neighbours who would be the obvious claimants),

but does anybody have any experience / advice on this?

Land registry.

It would seem to me if there is a group of 3 parking spaces you would not be allowed to put a sorned vehicle on it.

As there is public access to it, it has no physical boundries or restrictions of access like my private drive has ( walls, gates)

Its a kin to argue with the police that you do not need insurance to drive on tescos car park,

yes its private but public have free access so you need insurance.

.

Is this the sequence of events

- DVLA prosecuted you in magistrates court for having an untaxed vehicle on a public road,

your defence was that it wasn't a public road,

DVLA asked for an adjournment to enable you to provide more evidence that it wasn't a public road?

Isn't it DVLA's responsibility,

as the prosecuting authority,

to prove its case to the magistrates?

Not that you have to prove their allegation wrong?

Innocent until proved guilty and all that.

Not quite.

Prosecution... The land is not private, it has public access.

Defence its private

Prosecution it has public access

Judge steps in. Adjourned for proof of defences claim its private land.

Its a civil case so the preponderance of proof are less,

but the judge has adjourned the case

then the judge is being reasonable

and awaits proof of private land as per the defences defence.

Land registry.

It would seem to me if there is a group of 3 parking spaces you would not be allowed to put a sorned vehicle on it. As there is public access to it, it has no physical boundries or restrictions of access like my private drive has ( walls, gates)

Its a kin to argue with the police that you do not need insurance to drive on tescos car park, yes its private but public have free access so you need insurance.

 

.

I would agree if we were talking about insurance, that is required, under the Road Traffic Act 1988,

not only on public roads but on any road which has public access or any public place.

But the vehicle taxation requirements are in different legislation, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

Section 29 2(B) of that says vehicles do not need to be taxed " if the vehicle is being neither used nor kept on a public road", and then in section 62 defines public road for the purposes of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 as "“public road”—

in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is repairable at the public expense."

I still think that it is DVLA's responsibility to prove that the car was on a public road as defined in the 1994 legislation, not for OP to prove it was private.

The Disctrict Council's comment about having the permission of the owner of the private land might well be true but is completely irrelevant to a prosecution for untaxed vehicle.

 

Its a civil case so the preponderance of proof are less,

but the judge has adjourned the case

then the judge is being reasonable

and awaits proof of private land as per the defences defence.

Why do you think it is a civil case? Normally if you don't agree an out of court settlement with DVLA they will enforce s29 of VERA by a criminal prosecution in the magistrates court. Maybe OP can confirm what has happenend

As above, the requirement for SORN is that the vehicle is not kept or used on a public road - a road repairable at public expense.

So for the offence, the location has to be both 'a road' and 'repairable at public expense' (Eng. Wales & N.I.)

My apologies, your right, its a criminal case.

I'll just go sorn my car and Pak it at Tesco's and see how Lon it stays there.

Public access is key here.

I'll just go sorn my car and Pak it at Tesco's and see how Lon it stays there.

Public access is key here.

If it is a Tesco car park and not a public road, a SORN would be valid - public access is irrelevant.

 

 

I'll just go sorn my car and Pak it at Tesco's and see how Lon it stays there.

Public access is key here.

Public access is irrelevant here, it's about tax not insurance. Which bit of VERA 1994 mentions public access?

Mind you as there seems to be public access the SORN'd vehicle does need to be insured. Is it OP?

You don't need tax to park in a Tesco car park, but unless you happen to have have a private road connecting your house to Tescos you'd get prosecuted for driving to Tesco untaxed.

Ok fair enough...

The judge will be waiting for your proof its private land.

Good luck

Not that it is private land, the requirement is that it is not a public road.

And as the defence has raised that the land is private and not public,

it’s for the DVLA to prove beyond reasonable doubt the sorned vehicle was on a public road not for the op to prove the opposite in my opinion

Sorry for the delay.

The DVLA prosecutor spoke to me before we got into the magistrates court on the day of the hearing

advised me that she would be requesting an adjournment after I mentioned my defence of it not being a public road (as it is not maintained at public expense).

She has asked for proof that it is privately owned,

I am struggling to find that proof.

I believe the public access is irrelevant under this act

- had I parked in front of my garage (in a garage block, not attached to house),

it would be private land as it appears on the deeds to the house.

This area next to the garages is not on the deeds,

nor is it registered with the land registry

(but it is much more convenient than me parking in front of the garage block).

The car was not insured, and that was never mentioned, but it is now sold.

I have until the end of Feb to submit the proof to DVLA (and they drop the case),

pay the fine or it goes into magistrates again.

The garage block and the parking spaces are at the end of a cup-de-sac,

so although technically accessible to the public,

there would be no benefit to anyone apart from residents.

For SORN to be valid, it doesn't matter if it is public or private land, only that it is not a public road - which has to be a road and repairable at public expense.

Is this the sequence of events

- DVLA prosecuted you in magistrates court for having an untaxed vehicle on a public road,

your defence was that it wasn't a public road,

DVLA asked for an adjournment to enable you to provide more evidence that it wasn't a public road?

 

Isn't it DVLA's responsibility,

as the prosecuting authority,

to prove its case to the magistrates?

 

Not that you have to prove their allegation wrong?

Innocent until proved guilty and all that.

I would like to think that they should have to prove that it is public

- would make my life easier,

I think the only way that I would be able to get that would be to have my day in court

- which could backfire terribly if I’m wrong!

For SORN to be valid, it doesn't matter if it is public or private land, only that it is not a public road - which has to be a road and repairable at public expense.

Which was exactly my argument,

I produced pictures from the local council website showing that the area in question was not maintained by the council (on behalf of the highways agency)

- but apparently this was not proof.

Some waffle about it being possible for unclaimed land still to be classed as publicly maintained.

I honestly don’t think she was familiar with the area in question and was doing her job to make me pay the fine,

she has the legal training not me

I argued until she walked out on me!

There is a guiding case on this and that is concerned with a person given a PCN for not having a tax disc in a vehicle in Cheam Library car park.

It was found that despite being a public place and the access road though it may even be a highway the parking spaces arent so no tax needed.

The council argued that the vehicle must have got there via public road but it was decided that was immaterial, no-one saw the vehicle before it was in the space so only that relevant and parking space not a highway.

Now, Dawood v Camden is more recent so there is an opposite argument but it appears the DVLA are not using that.

I would suggest you look up these 2 bits of case law.

As for the argument you dont have permission

-again irrelevant as that is not a criminal matter but one of TRESPASS and the DVLA seem to have admitted that they concede it isnt a road by using that point.

What you will also need is pictures of the land paying careful note to any changes in the road surface, any markings etc.

If it has different tarmac or none at all then it is easier to show that it is not maintained at the public expense.

If you go to Knatts Valley,

near Sevenoaks there are miles of roads that are private but have no ownership indicated on the Land Registry.

Buy a house in that bit of the back of beyond and look at the deeds and you will see that the roads dont belong to any named person and there is only vague references to your responsibility to maintain them with the consent of your neighbours.

It was found that despite being a public place and the access road though it may even he a highway the parking spaces arent so no tax needed. The council argued that the vehicle must have got there via public road but it was decided that was immaterial, no-one saw the vehicle before it was in the space so only that relevant and parking space not a highway.

The requirement to display a tax disc was similar to the requirement for SORN, they could only be committed if the vehicle is used or kept on a public road, not necessarily a highway.

Thank you

Yesterday the Land Charges Department of the local county council got back to me stating that ‘Our records show that the area in question, shown on the plan below, is not considered to be highway maintainable at public expense.’

I believe that this should be all the evidence I need for them to drop the case? I forwarded it to the DVLA prosecutor yesterday, so will let you know!

Thank you

Yesterday the Land Charges Department of the local county council got back to me stating that ‘Our records show that the area in question, shown on the plan below, is not considered to be highway maintainable at public expense.’

I believe that this should be all the evidence I need for them to drop the case? I forwarded it to the DVLA prosecutor yesterday, so will let you know!

You'd hope that will convince them to drop it. But if they persist in saying they need more proof that it's private land that's when I would respond saying tax is only required if the vehicle is on a road maintained at public expense (refer them to VERA s29) and the onus is on them to provide evidence that where your vehicle is parked is such a road.

Take this and your photographs along. If you cant take photos use google earth and print off the best resolution satellite and streetview piccies you can. Look up the Cheam Libray case and use it as well. (Score v LB of Sutton - the point (iii) is the important finding but take a copy of the lot). Always throw in as much as you can so you are not relying on one bit of evidence that others will try and interpret differently. The DVLA lawyer will know that good money has been wasted in this prosecutuion so they will try and get something out of it

The rest of the points in Score v Sutton are about public land for insurance purposes (ie car parks being accessible to the public) the decision make it clear there is a big difference between a road as defined by 1994 Act and a place that is accessible by the public as in the more vague terms of the 1988 RTA. The latter is defined by case law as a place where vehicles may pass between 2 points so a parking space certainly doesnt fit that definition anyway and again there is plenty of case law to support that.

The case is being withdrawn from court

Thank you for your support and advise - a win for the little people!

Well done, Smiley. You must be extra smiley today.

I'll amend your thread title, thank you for letting us know.

HB

You will never know whether there has been an outbreak of common sense or they knew they were trying it on in the first place and hoped you would throw the towel in and allow them to collect a few quid for the non-existent tax and have been caught out.

Theproblem with any battle with organisations like this is that there is no accountability on the part of the decision maker so regardless of how rubbish, malevolent or perverse their processing they dont even get a ticking off.