Wrong Tax charge in court

[bookmanwales]

Hi all,

have enjoyed reading all the posts so decided to see if anyone can help on this.

I was charged and convicted under section 29/30 of the vehicle licensing act 1994 with keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road. I am in receipt of mobility allowance and receive free tax and hence my vehicle is classed as exempt. I was waiting for the scrapman to collect this vehicle and in the meantime used another vehicle (already taxed) in the meantime.

Section 29/30 of the act specifically excludes exempt vehicles from commiting this offence. A later insertion section 43A corrects this omission if I have been charged with section 29/30 and appeal can the dvla change the summons to a section 43a offense in court ?

Thanks in advance

[Britainsworstdriver]

As a mobility driver (presumably in receipt of DLA at the higher rate for the mobility component) you are excempt from paying tax, but not exempt from having a valid tax disc.

 

You still have to have your vehicle taxed whilst it is on the public highway, even if it is then cancelled days later when you scrap the car.

[patdavies]

However, failure to display is not a DVLA matter - it is for the Police to deal.

 

DVLA are only interested in whether VED has been paid or not and this particular vehicle was exempt. The 43A offence is not having a nil cost VED in force.

 

In answer to your question, the DVLA cannot change the offence on appeal. They can, however, issue new proceedings for a separate offence.

 

For those who haven't seen it, this is S.43A (inserted by the Finance Act 1997)

 

43A Failure to have nil licence for exempt vehicle

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he uses, or keeps, on a public road an exempt vehicle,

(b) that vehicle is one in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force, and

© a nil licence is not for the time being in force in respect of the vehicle.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(3) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the provisions of regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, compound any proceedings for an offence under this section.”

[green_and_mean]

Had you got a 'nil' tax for the vehicle or an exemption certificate?

[bookmanwales]

I have an exemption certificate and it is specifically NOT an offense under section 29/30 as follows

"Any vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) kept or used on a pubic road without a valid licence is committing an offense".

This is why section 43a was added to make the noose tighter. The penalties under section 43a are also lower than under section 29 and no reclaim of non-payment is specified as no payment was required in first place.

Under English law double jeopardy still exists and was only repealed for very serious and specific cases. Therefore the DVLA should not be allowed to undertake a separate prosecution because they got it wrong first time ? correct or not ?

[green_and_mean]

Have you ever taxed the vehicle as a nil tax exempt vehicle?

[bookmanwales]

The vehicle was registered and taxed as disabled and disc had disabled written on it by post office but previous disc had nil on it. Not sure if there is a distinction or not. DVLA Website says disabled vehicle is classed as exempt anyway, as does 1994 act in section on definitions.

 

The vehicle remains exempt as long as it is in my name and I don't have another vehicle registered as exempt which I didn't, not until later anyway.

These stars get off their offenses pretty regularly on "Technicalities" and you don't hear of them being re-charged later on. Therefore there must be some kind of system to stop the DVLA making fresh charges when they fail on initial charge ?

[green_and_mean]

The vehicle was registered and taxed as disabled and disc had disabled written on it by post office but previous disc had nil on it. Not sure if there is a distinction or not. DVLA Website says disabled vehicle is classed as exempt anyway, as does 1994 act in section on definitions.

 

The vehicle remains exempt as long as it is in my name and I don't have another vehicle registered as exempt which I didn't, not until later anyway.

These stars get off their offenses pretty regularly on "Technicalities" and you don't hear of them being re-charged later on. Therefore there must be some kind of system to stop the DVLA making fresh charges when they fail on initial charge ?

 

An invalid carriage is exempt, as is a mobility car but just because you are disabled it does not make your car 'exempt' as far as I understand it. The exemption certificate relates to the driver not the vehicle so until its been nil taxed its not exempt. You can only nil tax one car so using your line of thinking you could have 3 cars not tax any of them and then use the same defence on each car if you get caught. Having said that if the car has a nil tax on it as you just stated why are you being charged?

[bookmanwales]

"THE" vehicle remains exempt as long as I own it and "DON'T" have another vehicle registered as exempt. How does this imply I would have several cars untaxed ?. The exemption certificate applies to whichever vehicle I get taxed using that certificate. I have the certificate and have read it front to back several times over and know what it covers.

 

If it was taxed in disabled class it had to be registered as an exempt vehicle as you cannot get disabled or nil tax for plg vehicle. I was not suggesting nor have I ever used this as an excuse to drive an untaxed vehicle.

When I taxed the next car I bought the post office clerk sent away my v5 to have tax class changed, at this point my previous car became a normal car for tax purposes . None of this is what I am disputing I am disputing the right of the DVLA to charge me with an offence which, by their own laws I was not committing.

If you are not looking to help or offer serious advice but just to make me out to be some tax skiver then I suggest you chase some real villains and give them some stick instead.

[green_and_mean]

"THE" vehicle remains exempt as long as I own it and "DON'T" have another vehicle registered as exempt. How does this imply I would have several cars untaxed ?. The exemption certificate applies to whichever vehicle I get taxed using that certificate. I have the certificate and have read it front to back several times over and know what it covers.

 

If it was taxed in disabled class it had to be registered as an exempt vehicle as you cannot get disabled or nil tax for plg vehicle. I was not suggesting nor have I ever used this as an excuse to drive an untaxed vehicle.

When I taxed the next car I bought the post office clerk sent away my v5 to have tax class changed, at this point my previous car became a normal car for tax purposes . None of this is what I am disputing I am disputing the right of the DVLA to charge me with an offence which, by their own laws I was not committing.

If you are not looking to help or offer serious advice but just to make me out to be some tax skiver then I suggest you chase some real villains and give them some stick instead.

 

I am not accusing you of anything simply trying to explain something and trying to understand your situation. When you get the exemtion certificate it does not relate to any vehicle it allows you to tax a single vehicle as nil tax. From what you are saying you bought a 2nd car and applied for nil tax for it which would make the first vehicle untaxed. The only vehicles that have automatic exemption are invalid carriages and mobility cars, holding an exemption certificate does not make all cars owned by you exempt.

[Prawns25]

"When I taxed the next car I bought the post office clerk sent away my v5 to have tax class changed, at this point my previous car became a normal car for tax purposes"

The charge is correct. Your old car no longer had the nil status, the new one did. So the old one was untaxed on a public road. Yes?

[Zamzara]

Bookman, you obviously should have driven it to the scrapyard yourself and walked back, at least that's what some people will say.

 

Shouldn't there be a public interest test for any prosecution?

[green_and_mean]

Bookman, you obviously should have driven it to the scrapyard yourself and walked back, at least that's what some people will say.

 

Shouldn't there be a public interest test for any prosecution?

 

Is it in the public interest to allow people to keep untaxed scrap vehicles on the road? Just because someone is disabled it doesn't put them above the law. There was nothing to stop the OP waiting until the vehicle had been scrapped before trying to tax the second vehicle as exempt. The OP has already said the new car was taxed so in my opinion there was only one reason to 'nil' tax it and that would be to get a refund on the tax it already had and make a few quid.

[Zamzara]

The OP clearly didn't understand the requirements well enough to concoct any plan like that and is only guilty of a misunderstanding.

 

The sensible thing would be to just ask for that portion of the refund back if that's the case, which is all any member of the public can expect if they fall fall of an official error. Prosecuting someone for a genuine misunderstanding is unjust.

[green_and_mean]

The OP clearly didn't understand the requirements well enough to concoct any plan like that and is only guilty of a misunderstanding.

 

The sensible thing would be to just ask for that portion of the refund back if that's the case, which is all any member of the public can expect if they fall fall of an official error. Prosecuting someone for a genuine misunderstanding is unjust.

 

Its not rocket science you have a vehicle that has 'nil tax' another that is fully taxed, why do anything? The guidelines clearly state you can only have one exempt vehicle at a time, surely even the OP can tell the difference between one and two?

[bookmanwales]

I kmow I can only have one vehicle exempt at any time. At the time of the alleged offense I had only the 1 vehicle exempt. another vehicle I had was taxed as a normal car and not registered for exemption.

[green_and_mean]

I kmow I can only have one vehicle exempt at any time. At the time of the alleged offense I had only the 1 vehicle exempt. another vehicle I had was taxed as a normal car and not registered for exemption.

 

What was the trip to the post office for then?

[bookmanwales]

Mean and green you obviously aren't reading my posts right or you are working for DVLA

I had one vehicle as exempt and one taxed as normal.There was no refund of road tax claimed. You are clearly trying to make out that I am trying to somehow avoid paying road tax. I was under the impression these forums were to help and advise people not let idiots like you make out that everyone is a tax dodger.

The issue is not whether or not my car was scrapped or taxed ..but whether or not you can be charged with wrong offense

By the way I have held an exemption certificate since 1993 and only ever used it 4 times thats tax for 4 yrs out of 16 all the other years I paid my full road tax even though I didn't have to !!!!! Nor as a disabled person have I ever claimed incapacity benefit having spent all my working life working so before you accuse someone of being a tax fiddler be sure you know all about the person .!!!!!!!

[Prawns25]

So the car you had on the road was still registered as exempt but it did not have a current tax disc on display?

[green_and_mean]

When I taxed the next car I bought the post office clerk sent away my v5 to have tax class changed, at this point my previous car became a normal car for tax purposes .

 

How have I not understood? You had a car that was nil tax, you then say changed the new car to nil tax. Therefore the old car was un taxed and you got caught. How have I or the DVLA got this wrong I am lost?

[bookmanwales]

Zamzara. Is it okay for a road user to have a "misunderstanding" with regard to their road tax. The answer is no there are no misunderstandings you either have it or you don't that is "the law" as the dvla will tell anyone who falls foul of it, on holiday, in hospital, or otherwise unable to tax your car through circumstances that can happen to anyone. Those who pursue the law rigorously should know the law and have it applied to them equally, not ignore the bits that don't suit their particular point of view.

My question is a point of law, not whether it is unfair or misunderstood. The human rights act (and common English law) states that you have to be given the details of the charge you are alleged to have committed in order to (if needed) prepare a proper defence for yourself. If you are charged with the wrong offence you are denied the right to defend yourself by virture of the fact you have been given the wrong details of your charge. i.e would the courts allow you to be charged with murder if you were only caught shoplifting or vice versa.

[bookmanwales]

I never said I changed the new car to nil tax. Read the post again. I said I had 1 car as an exempt vehicle and 1 car taxed as normal I.E NOT EXEMPT !!! TAX PAID AS NORMAL with real money £205 for the year.

[green_and_mean]

Zamzara. Is it okay for a road user to have a "misunderstanding" with regard to their road tax. The answer is no there are no misunderstandings you either have it or you don't that is "the law" as the dvla will tell anyone who falls foul of it, on holiday, in hospital, or otherwise unable to tax your car through circumstances that can happen to anyone. Those who pursue the law rigorously should know the law and have it applied to them equally, not ignore the bits that don't suit their particular point of view.

My question is a point of law, not whether it is unfair or misunderstood. The human rights act (and common English law) states that you have to be given the details of the charge you are alleged to have committed in order to (if needed) prepare a proper defence for yourself. If you are charged with the wrong offence you are denied the right to defend yourself by virture of the fact you have been given the wrong details of your charge. i.e would the courts allow you to be charged with murder if you were only caught shoplifting or vice versa.

 

....and unless I'm mistaken you are charged with having no tax for your car because your exemption was being used according to your own words on your new car.

[green_and_mean]

I never said I changed the new car to nil tax. Read the post again. I said I had 1 car as an exempt vehicle and 1 car taxed as normal I.E NOT EXEMPT !!! TAX PAID AS NORMAL with real money £205 for the year.

 

'When I taxed the next car I bought the post office clerk sent away my v5 to have tax class changed, at this point my previous car became a normal car for tax purposes . None of this is what I am disputing I am disputing the right of the DVLA to charge me with an offence which, by their own laws I was not committing.'

[bookmanwales]

Prawns 25. Exactly I had an exempt vehicle not displaying a valid tax disc. At least someone appears to be reading the post properly. I am aware that I can be charged with not displaying!! I am also aware as my previous post says that chapter 43A as amended in the finance act 1997 also makes it an offense to have an exempt vehicle untaxed. However the fine structure and reclaim of back tax are different altogether. by charging me under chapter 29/30 they have gotten me a higher fine ? and received back tax which would otherwise not have been due ?