What a great insight you have given here Big Bill, alot to take in for regular folk like me, (still reading through all of it) and so after all said and done are you saying TRESPASS could be the cure-all against the DVLA ? In our claim I meant trespass in the literal sense of them going onto our private land, which they needed to do in order to lift our car (remembering only inches of the two wheels were on public road, leaves about 98% or more of car on our land). I wonder if the new (incoming) government might re-look at these injustices meted out by the DVLA/Labour coalition !

Hi Bookworm, I thought it worked just that way too, but each case is different I guess! In our case the vehicle in question was a classic Merc, with private no plate etc., it was a project that £xxx had already been spent on. This seems to be our problem, vehicle book value does not correspond with our claim ! So either we agree a figure with DVLA or return with proofs to court ? This is the whole reason we had it under 'SORN' it was not yet ready for the road. We are not really convential people, I mean look we like old things ! It was never really about the money for me, I remain deliriously happy having fought them and won !!!!

I appreciate your point regarding precedents, how courts work etc., I knew this, so I made a point of outlining how 'unlike' our case was to this case law precedent. What was HELD in this case law: ' AT the time when the injury was sustained, the GREATER part of the lorry was on the road, therefore lorry was using the road and accordingly, the defendants were liable under the agreement of 17 June 1946'. I think that we can't afford to just roll over for these rogues (DVLA) so readily, and have just a little faith that judges to 'can' use common sense. But what really got them (DVLA) was when the judge wanted an answer to the 'trespass' allegation and they did not have one due to their arrogance and reliance on this case law.

Hi Big Bill, Randall v Motor Insurers Bureau 1968 - This clarification in the law arose out of a commericial interest that of: Motor Insurers Bureau - Third Party Risks, Mr Neville Anthony Scott (Insured Commerical Lorry Driver) v Mr Eric Frank Randall (Victim - Plaintiff). The vehicle was flly tipping, Mr Randall's injury was caused by the back wheels still on private property, whilst fleeing from the scene of the crime, but the greater part of the vehicle was on public highway at the time of incident, speeding to his getaway. Legislation governing Sorn did not form any part of social consciousness in 1968. To use this case law as a defence in this instance is just the kind of bamboozle that DVLA rely on to get away with this crap. I personally refuse to be mystified by the nonsense that they want us to accept as law........we are not criminals, therefore I do not accept punishment ! I don't think they were lax, thats all they had - simple as that, nor was I lucky, I just did some homework !

Hi Miss muppet Yep, but we went for max £5K (small claims max), they offered £2.5k. Its either we negotiate directly with DVLA on this settlement or we go back to court with 'statement of loss' - a little bit more work to go !

8) Hi everyone, This is my first time posting on any site but I really wanted to let you know that it is possible to bring these predators to book. I never really believed I could do it, it just goes to show ! It was my partners vehicle, he had declared it 'sorned' and had it parked just outside his garage, problem was two wheels were just over on to what was deemed a public road. I don't think he realised it would be a problem (his garage is more of a tool shed then a garage), he and his neighbours never gave it a thought it could be a problem, as their residences are situated in a cul de sac, no thru traffic whatsoever. It occurred just after the DVLA got the expanded powers in 2008. Anyways to cut a long story short it appears we got them on trespass (at least that is what the judge seemed mostly concerned about, do not have the judgement yet from the court so can't be sure) as of course in order to seize the vehicle they had to go onto what is his private area/or curtilage of his property. They used case law to back their case - Randall vs Motor Insurers Bureau 1968; can you believe it ! I think they always use this case law to uphold the distinction between private vs public and jurisdication. DVLA/their solicitors did not bother to respond to the allegation of trespass for the defence, they arrogantly relied on this case law which we were able to rubbish, as there was not the slightest resemblance to our case. Hope this little insight can help someone in a similar nightmare.