Wrong Tax charge in court

[green_and_mean]

Prawns 25. Exactly I had an exempt vehicle not displaying a valid tax disc. At least someone appears to be reading the post properly.

 

Maybe if you were consistent then you would be understood! So the first vehicle was taxed as nil tax and you had a tax disc but you were not displaying the disc, car no. 2 was taxed as a normal car.

[bookmanwales]

that underlined sentence was supposed to men WOULD have become a normal tax class. As I keep saying the other car I had was taxed as normal. The second car only had tax class changed when previous vehicle was scrapped hence the visit to Post office !!!!!

Well fortunately I have come across the idiots before I subscribe here. The government get away with all this because idiots like you do their dirty work for them. I hope that one day Mr Perfect you fall foul of a law you don't like ... don't mind me while I laugh

[green_and_mean]

that underlined sentence was supposed to men WOULD have become a normal tax class.

 

Thats ok no need to appologise for calling me stupid for not reading your posts correctly when it was YOU that had made the mistake.

Lets just hope you get your story straight for Court or it will be the prosecution who gets the last laugh. If the vehicle was nil taxed as you claim the DVLA would not bother prosecuting you as you have tax, if you just didn't display thats a Police offence and you'd probably have got a fixed penalty. You are obviously not telling the truth about something or you would not be worried about technicalities like the wrong offence, if you had a nil tax disc you are not guilty of either so why are you bothered.

[bookmanwales]

Of course the dvla never get anything wrong do they hahahaha. Had youread my posts fully you would also have seen the part" I KNOW I COULD BE DONE UNDER SECTION 43A" so I have done something wrong !!!! I even admitted I did something wrong. I SAY AGAIN THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH THE WRONG OFFENSE. However you did not read my post right in the first place or you would have seen the part where I said I had 2 vehicles 1 vehicle exempt 1 vehicle already taxed normally. In the very first post at the top. The one that started the thread.

The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned. As far as I can see, from other posts of yours, you delight in winding up and nitpicking (without reading properly) other peoples posts

[green_and_mean]

Of course the dvla never get anything wrong do they hahahaha. Had youread my posts fully you would also have seen the part" I KNOW I COULD BE DONE UNDER SECTION 43A" so I have done something wrong !!!! I even admitted I did something wrong. I SAY AGAIN THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH THE WRONG OFFENSE. However you did not read my post right in the first place or you would have seen the part where I said I had 2 vehicles 1 vehicle exempt 1 vehicle already taxed normally. In the very first post at the top. The one that started the thread.

The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned. As far as I can see, from other posts of yours, you delight in winding up and nitpicking (without reading properly) other peoples posts

 

How could you be done under section 43a? The vehicle cannot be exempt unless it had nil tax, failure to display a nil tax is nothing to do with the DVLA. I tried to give you advice but as it is not what you want to hear you cannot be bothered to listen so good luck in Court you will need it.

[WelshMam2009]

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

 

I'm glad you asked that...I'm been wondering also!!

 

So, if the first vehicle was eligible for free tax, why on earth was it on the road without a disc, if that was indeed the case??

[green_and_mean]

I'm glad you asked that...I'm been wondering also!!

 

So, if the first vehicle was eligible for free tax, why on earth was it on the road without a disc, if that was indeed the case??

 

A car is not registered as exempt you take an exemtion form when you get your tax and the tax is then free and the form is stamped to prevent you using it on multiple cars. Once the tax runs out it is not exempt it is just a normal car, as I pointed out before only invalid carriages and mobility contract cars are exempt without a form. A car is never registered as disabled the actual taxation class remains the same its just that the tax is free so the taxation class is shown as disabled.

[WelshMam2009]

A car is not registered as exempt you take an exemtion form when you get your tax and the tax is then free and the form is stamped to prevent you using it on multiple cars. Once the tax runs out it is not exempt it is just a normal car, as I pointed out before only invalid carriages and mobility contract cars are exempt without a form. A car is never registered as disabled the taxation class remains the same its just that the tax is free.

 

Sorry Green and Mean, I didn't word my question well!!

 

Yes, I understand that the OP was eligible for one free tax disc...I just don't understand why it wasn't being displayed on the first vehicle particularly as the second vehicle was "taxed as normal" ??

 

It's of no use to the OP but I'm just wondering if a valid disc was held, even if not displayed, or if a SORN had been obtained. I'm not familiar with the mobility rules but thought that you automatically received a fine anyway if you didn't hold one or the other??

[Prawns25]

Many words but not much information. I presume ‘Failing to display a current tax disc’

[Raykay]

I find this very confusing. As as I understand it, the OP has a certificate that entitles them to a 'disabled' vehicle excise licence, not that the vehicle is an Exempt Vehicle under V.E.R.A. just that a free licence is issued.

Once that licence expires, it becomes an unlicenced vehicle and subject to the normal penalties for sec. 29/30 - which apparently the OP was convicted of.

Was the court case the result of it being on a public road after the free licence expired?

[green_and_mean]

I find this very confusing. As as I understand it, the OP has a certificate that entitles them to a 'disabled' vehicle excise licence, not that the vehicle is an Exempt Vehicle under V.E.R.A. just that a free licence is issued.

Once that licence expires, it becomes an unlicenced vehicle and subject to the normal penalties for sec. 29/30 - which apparently the OP was convicted of.

Was the court case the result of it being on a public road after the free licence expired?

 

I think you have summed up the situation, the point I beleive he was making was that as he has the 'exemption certificate' he was guilty of having no 'nil tax' under sect 43. Since the facts of what happened seem to conflict and there is no mention of how the prosecution came about we will never know.