DVLA SORN Trap

[johndaye]

Hello to all.

 

Straight away I apologies for the length of this post.

 

I suspect like many of you reading this, I found this forum after receiving an unwelcome letter from the DVLA.

 

Mine is due to me not renewing a SORN on a vehicle I have had in the back garden for the last 7 years (restoration project). I accept I am guilty as charged. The issue I have is the subtle way the DVLA has moved the goalposts since I first declared this vehicle SORN in 2004.

 

In 2004 I received the standard letter (V956) from the DVLA, thanking me for sending them the SORN form. The next paragraph was as follows -

 

“The vehicle record now shows that this notice began to apply on 01/09/03. This lasts for 12 months. We will then send you a reminder as long as you are still the registered keeper of the vehicle and there have been no other changes. Do not use your vehicle or keep it on a public road while the SORN is in force. If you do, you could be find up to £5000.”

 

The latest letter I received in 2008 for the SORN of the same vehicle has the same form number (V956) but is subtly and very cleverly (to the benefit of the DVLA) different. Again they thank me for sending the SORN form, and then this paragraph followed -

 

“The vehicle record now shows that SORN applies from 01/09/08. The SORN will expire on the 31/08/09. You should receive a reminder about 2 weeks before the SORN expires. However it remains your responsibility to ensure that you renew the SORN or licence the vehicle. If you sell, permanently export, or scrap the vehicle you must tell us. The notes on the vehicle registration (V5C) explain what to do.”

 

Over the past 5 years I have sent SORN forms to the DVLA for this and other vehicles and reading the first few letters and understanding the contents have tended to read the first line of subsequent ones and filed. It now seems that I, and I suspect many others have done this at their peril, and as I am finding at a cost.

 

The issue I have is over the change of basically one word –

 

2004 - We will then send you a reminder as long as you are still the registered keeper of the vehicle and there have been no other changes.

 

2008 - You should receive a reminder about 2 weeks before the SORN expires.

 

All of a sudden something that I used to get every year without fail has now got a large dose of unreliability, and the potential to hugely increase the income of the DVLA.

 

I have two questions. Firstly is it legal to change a standard format letter (V956) in such a major way. The old and new letters at glance are identical, including the name of Russell Trowbridge-Matthews at the bottom.

 

Secondly is it worth challenging Mr Trowbridge-Matthews in any way or am I better off coughing the £40 and the arrears of £31.67 and remembering to do it next year.

 

 

Thanks for reading and I hope it makes sense.

 

 

johndaye

[buzby]

They argue that it makes things 'clearer'.

 

They can only interprate what is deemed to be the 'Law' pertaining to vehicle relicencing, and there have been issues where folk have complained that they did NOT recieve the form to relicence, and putting the onus on the DVLA as it was somhow their 'failing'. Unfortunately, the reality is different - they may write to you, they may not, you may also not recieve their communication, but NONE of this is relevant to any complaint that the relicencing did not take place.

 

In your particular intance, you would be required to declare SORN anually until you were ready to relicence. In my case, I have a recurring reminder in Outlook that directly me to the DVLA taxdisc page and I simply extend the SORN forv 12 months from there. However, looking at the crrespondence (renewal) notices from the DVLA, they have actually sent me every one I've bene due - none have been mssed, and I file them in sequence as it is usefull to note what the VED costs are increasing by.

 

The change to the forms are allowable - after all they ARE the DVLA's form. The Finance Act changed how SORN works on private property, so the V10 form has been modified to reflect this, but I don't see a complaint being successful, as the onus remains with the RK to re licdnce or SORN anually, whether the DVLA send a reminder notice or not.

[Conniff]

The changes came into effect when the contract for shredders was completed and they launched their 'mail not received' department.

[hungrybear]

IF you dont want to pay the tell them you sent the SORN forms in on time.

 

Have a look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/230624-dvla-fine-mess.html

 

at the legal requirements in my letter. OK yours is sorn, mine was export but the same laws apply.

[buzby]

There's NO REQUIREMENT for them to send you the forms, it is a courtesy only - and as such not a relevant argument whether they arrive late or not at all.

[hungrybear]

There's NO REQUIREMENT for them to send you the forms, it is a courtesy only - and as such not a relevant argument whether they arrive late or not at all.

 

If that's aimed at me then we're talking opposite arguments.

 

What matters is that you put the filled in forms in the post box. Beyond that you do not have to do or receive anything.

[johndaye]

Hello,

 

Thanks to everyone who has replied.

 

I feel I will have to pay the fine, (I could lie but that makes me as low as them) but I see no reason why I should pay the back tax for vehicle that has not left my back garden for the last seven years.

 

The principle I feel I have to fight is that the DVLA are presuming my guilt and I have to prove my innocense. I thought in this country under the British constitution you were innocent 'til proven guilty.

 

However, would dated photographic evidence of the vehicle covered in green mould, full of rust and with at least one flat tyre be good enough to prove that the vehicle has never been on the road!! Failing that would a local DVLA officer visit.

 

Thank you

 

johndaye

[hungrybear]

Hello,

 

Thanks to everyone who has replied.

 

I feel I will have to pay the fine, (I could lie but that makes me as low as them) but I see no reason why I should pay the back tax for vehicle that has not left my back garden for the last seven years.

 

The principle I feel I have to fight is that the DVLA are presuming my guilt and I have to prove my innocense. I thought in this country under the British constitution you were innocent 'til proven guilty.

 

However, would dated photographic evidence of the vehicle covered in green mould, full of rust and with at least one flat tyre be good enough to prove that the vehicle has never been on the road!! Failing that would a local DVLA officer visit.

 

Thank you

 

johndaye

 

John,

 

If you pay the fine you admit legal liability for the back tax - no latitude

[johndaye]

John,

 

If you pay the fine you admit legal liability for the back tax - no latitude

 

 

Hello hungrybear,

 

Thanks for your quick reply.

 

Are you saying that I should dispute the fine and the back tax or just put the whole thing down to experience as fighting the DVLA is a lost cause.

 

I have to say the latter does not appeal.

 

johndaye

[buzby]

Well, we DON'T HAVE a constitution, so this may be miusleading you. It is only a 'saying' - there are many cases you are deemed 'guilty' and have to prove your 'innocence'.

 

You also miss the poit about being 'off road'. It is now a requirement that the place the vehicle is located is within the confines of your own property. The previous guide of it being off-road (that is, a road maintained at public expense) is misleading and since the Finance Act, erroneous.

[hungrybear]

Hello hungrybear,

 

Thanks for your quick reply.

 

Are you saying that I should dispute the fine and the back tax or just put the whole thing down to experience as fighting the DVLA is a lost cause.

 

I have to say the latter does not appeal.

 

johndaye

 

read my letter in the link in post 4. Everything you need to dispute this is in there.

 

All I'm saying is that you cannot only pay one.They almost 'conned' me into the paying the fine as I BELIEVED it was my fault for not following up on no acknowldegement letter. BUT I got real mad when I realised that would mean I would have to pay the back tax on a car that was not even in the country.

 

BTW exactly the same laws apply to sorn as to my v5c/4 export.

 

your choice is simple either dispute the lot or roll over and pay the lot - It's that simple

[patdavies]

You also miss the poit about being 'off road'. It is now a requirement that the place the vehicle is located is within the confines of your own property. The previous guide of it being off-road (that is, a road maintained at public expense) is misleading and since the Finance Act, erroneous.

 

 

Sorry. no.

 

What changed is the ability to clamp/remove untaxed and unSORN'd vehicles from private property other than the immediate curtilage of a dwelling or at a motor trader's premises.

 

If a vehicle is on SORN it must be off the public highway as defined in VERA1994 (a road maintained a public expense).

[buzby]

Hey Pat - welcome back. Where have you been?

 

There was an issue a few weels back when a vehicle was SORNED and on non-public land (private car park) and NCP clamped it on behalf on the DVLA for NOT being off-road. I'm aware of the issue regarding untaxed (and not SORNed) but this appears to be the logical extension to it....

[hungrybear]

With a carpark it will, i think, depend on the covenant under which use is granted. many/most will state that 'a vehicle parked must be road legal'. If it is not road legal they have the right to evict to a public place but instead they act as DVLA lap dogs.