Ulicensed Vehicle Fine Whilst Car Impounded

[Stupidstu13]

Hi all after you was so much help about the vehicle being impounded i wondered if you would be able to help me out with this one.

 

I have received a fine from the DVLA for £54 for not having the vehicle licensed even though it was on sorn and on my driveway, as i found out whilst arguing with the DVLA and the local council when the car was impounded the driveway does not belong to me it is there as access to my garage. The reason i need your help is because i feel that it is unfair that i am being punished for the same offence twice as the car is impounded and about to be crushed as i cant afford the release fees and the fact that i have just received the fine through the door. I phoned the DVLA and mentioned this to them but they said this is a completely different offence and that it is not them that have impounded the vehicle yet i have also received a letter from them as well stating that if i do not pay the release fees to the impound the vehicle will be crushed. Im not sure what i should do as i have only owned the car for 2 weeks and did not have a logbook to tax the vehicle also it had not MOT and i know you cant claim that you did not know but i honestly didn't know that it was not my drive and that you can tax a car via the green slip of the logbook. Please can you advise me as to what i should do whether to pay the £54 and take it as a maaive loss and be punished twice or to let it go to court and see if i can win there. Please help.

Many Thanks.

Stuart.

[Alphageek]

The driveway doesn't belong to you???

 

Do you live in rented accommodation?

[patdavies]

Who is responsible for the maintenance of this driveway/garage access. If it is not maintained at public expense, it is not public highway in terms of SORN and road tax. Ownership is irrelevant.

 

The reason for the second 'fine' is that the law allows the DVLA to issue a late licensing penalty for an untaxed car being on the public road and also a 'supplementary charge' equal to the VED since last liability (ie expiry of last tax disk or exchange of ownership).

 

If the driveway/access road is maintained by a private body and the vehicle was on SORN, then they have no business taking it and you need to fight that.

 

If it was off the public highjway but not on SORN, thne new powers do allow themm to remove the vehicle from private property.

[angel81uk]

 

If it was off the public highjway but not on SORN, thne new powers do allow themm to remove the vehicle from private property.

 

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but can I ask where I can find info on these new powers? As far as I was aware the new powers covered Public Highways and added Public Places but not private property.

[crem]

angel81, your thread says you had your car on SORN, so the new powers patdavies is referring to shouldn't affect your situation. You say they now accept you were not on the public highway so why did they take your car?

[buzby]

What I'm not clear on, is did YOU declarw SORN on the vehicle, or was it SORNed by the previous keeper? When a vehicle has a change of keeper, the SORN dies, and the new RK needs to declare SORN. If the vehicle was only yours two weeks previously, and you didn;t declare SORN yourself, then the fine for no tax will be backdated to when the Registered Keeper changed.

[angel81uk]

angel81, your thread says you had your car on SORN, so the new powers patdavies is referring to shouldn't affect your situation. You say they now accept you were not on the public highway so why did they take your car?

 

Don't want to thread jack, but they took my car as they claim it was SORN in a public place (not a private parking space). They're telling me that under the "new powers" they are entitled to do so. I've not been able to read up on these new powers myself yet so I was hoping patdavies might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm not saying that the part of the act he is referring to applies in my case.

[patdavies]

OK.

 

The base Act is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. The Finance Act 1995 Schedule 4 inserted Schedule 2A into VERA, which allows the immobilisation and removal of unlicensed vehicles on the public highway (as defined by VERA 1994)

 

The Finance Act 2008 Schedule 45 extended this to private property but not the curtilages of private dwellings.

 

Finance Act 2008 Sched.45 s.5

(1) Paragraph 1 (immobilisation) is amended as follows.

 

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “on a public road” substitute "in any place other than a place to which this Schedule does not apply".

 

(3) After that sub-paragraph insert—

 

"(1A) This Schedule does not apply to—

(a) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it, or

(b)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more of those dwellings."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2009 by patdavies

[Stupidstu13]

Hi all i do live in rented accommodation and the driveway is maintained at public cost. I didn't renew the sorn when i brought the car as i stupidly thought that when you buy a car on sorn its like a tax disk and you either buy tax for the vehicle or re-sorn it when it runs out.

[buzby]

On the face of it, Pat - this change is pretty dramatic. So, the private land argument is now out the window, and the only defence is if 'adjacent' to a home, house, houseboat or other residential property?

 

They'll be lifting cars 24x7 on that basis, and the public won;t have a legt to stand on!

[crem]

So what is the purpose of that change to the law? Other than to ensure they can issue even more fines to people who have clearly taken steps to keep the car OFF the ROAD as in : SORN = Statutory OFF ROAD Notice?

 

Opps stupid me, just answered my own question there didn't I. It's so they can issue even more fines to people!

[patdavies]

So what is the purpose of that change to the law? Other than to ensure they can issue even more fines to people who have clearly taken steps to keep the car OFF the ROAD as in : SORN = Statutory OFF ROAD Notice?

 

Opps stupid me, just answered my own question there didn't I. It's so they can issue even more fines to people!

 

The purpose of the change in the law (as far as I can see) is to allow them to remove vehicles which are not on SORN.

 

If the vehicle is on SORN, then the new power doesn't apply.

 

In summary:

 

1) If the vehicle is on a road maintained at public expenses (the definition of public highway for VERA 1994) then it must have and display current VED. if it does not have VED, it can be immobilised and/or removed.

 

2) If the vehicle is off the public highway, then it must have VED or SORN.

 

3) If it does not have VED or SORN, then it can be immobilised and/or removed as long as it is not within the normal curtilage of a dwelling

[S C O R N]

So if I OWN a couple of scrap cars in MY field on the other side of the road to my house which I forget to re-SORN, then the authorities can trespass on MY land, and steal MY property and fine me for the privilege. To me this is no different to vandals or theft. Whatever happened to freedom and democracy!!!

[patdavies]

So if I OWN a couple of scrap cars in MY field on the other side of the road to my house which I forget to re-SORN, then the authorities can trespass on MY land, and steal MY property and fine me for the privilege. To me this is no different to vandals or theft. Whatever happened to freedom and democracy!!!

 

I don't make (or defend) the law; I simply advise how it is.

 

In the scenario you paint, depending on the planning status of the field, environmental and planning laws may also give a Council the right to enter and remove/dispose of the vehicles