SORN classic

[johnnyboy44]

Hi

 

I SORN my 1967 jag back in 2002 it has been laid up until now but i moved home in 2005. i had forgotten to change the address so now that i have MOT'd the car and sent off the v5 when i went to tax it (although exempt) a note flashed up saying i have made an offence by not SORN or changing the address. When i orginally SORN the car in 2002 i have never recieved any correspondance from the DVLA at all. I haven't had anything from them other than an email confirming my tax disc is in the post! is this going to cost me £00000's?

 

regards

j

[dx100uk]

sorry so you have annually sorned it since 2002 and are worried you will get fined for not advising new ad

or you only sorned it ONCE in 2002 & have never since?

 

dx

[nehpets]

Sounds to me like you've made a genuine error and accept that some kind of penalty is due. I don't think it's going to "cost you thousands"! The only thing which can potentially cost that much is getting caught using the car on the road with no tax disc - in that case they can ask for back dated tax from when the last tax disc or SORN ran out. You best bet is to ring the DVLA and they can look it up using the vehicle reg number. Worst case senario is that they sent a penalty to your previous address which you failed to receive which could of lead to a CCJ against you in your absence.

 

 

N.

[crem]

As an aside, I still fail to see why you are required to SORN a vehicle every 12 months (other than the obvious financial income of fining people for not renewing a SORN!)

 

It seems logical that if you declare a car "off the road", then it should remain so until you declare you have put it back on the road and want to tax it. As you do not pay a fee to declare SORN, then there is no financial loss to the government.

 

Many people seem to have misunderstood that the SORN expires like a VED does and didn't read the small print to the contrary and instead went with common sense and logic. Big mistake! "Government/DVLA" and "logic/common sense" should never be expected to be in the same sentence should they!

[buzby]

Absolutely - although I cannot fault them for stating that the SORN (Like VED) must be renewed annually whilst you remain the RK. It is the innatentive that get wellied every time.

[crem]

Absolutely - although I cannot fault them for stating that the SORN (Like VED) must be renewed annually whilst you remain the RK.

 

Why? I can think of no VALID reason.

[gwc1000]

Why? I can think of no VALID reason.

 

No, nor can I. It is not as if DVLA will lose track of such vehicles, especially when you consider that if a vehicle changes hands, a SORN is not transferrable, and the new keeper must declare SORN if it applies.

[buzby]

Why? I can think of no VALID reason.

 

Because if you accept (and you've no choice) that Continuous Registration is a reality, then the arrival of SORN has to follow the same format otherwise it provides a massive loophole.

 

I'm not supporting the proceedure - just that their Documentation EXPLICITLY states that the SORN is only for 12 months, and you ignore this at your peril.

[gwc1000]

Because if you accept (and you've no choice) that Continuous Registration is a reality, then the arrival of SORN has to follow the same format otherwise it provides a massive loophole.

 

What loophole, buzby? If a SORN was valid until such time that you disposed of the vehicle or re-taxed it, I can not see any loophole that has any advantage to the RK.

[buzby]

It ensures the RK remains up to date on an annualised basis - as without this, it is very easy for their database to become (even more)inaccurate.

 

In Eire, they have operated a similar scheme (since 1990 in my experience, possibly earlier) that if you did not 'opt out' of the annual road tax, you had to go to a local Garda station and make a statutory declaration that you'd not been using it on the highway. So the process is hardly unusual and peculiar to GB.

[crem]

buzby I appreciate that you are not supporting SORN and you are only confirming that the DVLA documentation states SORN is only for 12months, but that is precisely all you can do. I can see no specific reason that would exclude them simply agreeing a car is on SORN by the RK until they tell them otherwise.

 

Undeed, contratry to your agreement that it is in line with the VED continuous registration rules, it then steps outside this "comparison" by not allowing the transfer of a SORN declaration to a new RK even though you can transfer the VED to the new RK.

[gwc1000]

It ensures the RK remains up to date on an annualised basis - as without this, it is very easy for their database to become (even more)inaccurate.

 

But the RK remains on their database automatically until they are told otherwise.

[nehpets]

It's a 'stealth tax' pure and simple. There is no point trying to tax or fine people who cannot afford to pay (or who cannot be easily identified) such as yobs / drunks / vandals when the motorist is a much easier target. Motorists are easy to identify and generally have the ability to pay. That's why fuel is so expensive - motorists have no choice but to pay it. Only a small fraction of this direct and indirect taxation is ever put back into the roads.

 

I agree that SORN should not expire unless change of ownership occurs or VED is paid on the vehicle. The DVLA could focus on making sure that people know and use the V5 correctly (in terms of informing them when someone gets rid of a vehicle) but they realise that this wouldnt be a 'cash cow' like SORN is. Ultimately it is all about the tax revenue. It's the same with taxation on air travel. They claim it's green but again it's the tax that's most important to them.

 

N.

[buzby]

But the RK remains on their database automatically until they are told otherwise.

 

And in their view - is where it all falls down. You cannot have continuous registration and not have continuous (renewable) SORN. There's no requirement for the RK to tell the DVLA who they are every year - but this isn't about the RK, it is the requirement to tax or SORN and this obligation is laid at the feet of the RK. The time to complain about this was when it was introduced no years after its stealthy arrival!

[Guest wino]

I am probably wrong but I thought you did not have to tax a car if it was pre 1973?

[buzby]

Of course you do! It's only tha tax band that is £0.00. Everything else applies!

[Guest wino]

Of course you do! It's only tha tax band that is £0.00. Everything else applies!

 

 

Told you I was probably wrong:razz:

[buzby]

 

Something free and no commitment...? C'mon!

[patdavies]

It ensures the RK remains up to date on an annualised basis - as without this, it is very easy for their database to become (even more)inaccurate.

 

 

It doesn't even do that.

 

Anybody can SORN a vehicle on-line as long as they have sight of the V5 (ie to obtain the VRM and Docref number).

[buzby]

I didn't say it was foolproof. I'm surprised you don't make the connection between the DVLA's annual mailout and the return of 'Undelivered' and 'Unknown' communications which are used when pursuing someone they later find for not keeping their RK status updated.

 

As we know from previous exchanges within this forum, it appears only I keep a record of my DocRef number for this purpose - others need to look at the actual V5C everytime.

[johnnyboy44]

hi guys

 

thanks for advice. i have only SORN the once and never had any reminders and as the car was in storage when i moved i didn't have to move the car so i forgot about the change of address. i then satrted working on the car got it on the road MOT etc and realised i hadn't changed address etc. the car has not seen the light of day from 2002 until MOT the other week.

 

regards

[johnnyboy44]

hi all,

just phoned the dvla and the very nice lady told me that as the vehicle was pre 1972 there was no issue with it being off the road and being SORN'd so i would hear no more of it many thanks for all your support and advice

Regards

[Raykay]

I don't really understand that (but it was the the DVLA!) there is no issue with any vehicle being off the road and SORN'd, that is what SORN is all about.

The relevent date for SORN is 31st January 1998, not the age of the vehicle. If the last excise licence expired before then, SORN is not required, if it expired after, SORN is.

[gwc1000]

I don't really understand that (but it was the the DVLA!) there is no issue with any vehicle being off the road and SORN'd, that is what SORN is all about.

The relevent date for SORN is 31st January 1998, not the age of the vehicle. If the last excise licence expired before then, SORN is not required, if it expired after, SORN is.

 

Perhaps the lady at DVLA incorrectly thinks the vehicle has been off road since 1972?

[Raykay]

Perhaps the lady at DVLA incorrectly thinks the vehicle has been off road since 1972?

 

Possibly, but if it had, it wouldn't have needed to be SORN'd in 2002. The only connection I can find about 1972 and DVLA is that is the last year for black and white number plates.