BREAKING NEWS – DVLA Loses In Court

[Conniff]

If the car is taxed it can be kept on the public road. Insurance is only relevent if driven as is MOT. The DVLA cannot do anyone for no insurance, insurance is not a DVLA matter.

 

Indeed - It's a police matter.

 

If the car is on a public road it must have an insurance policy covering it.

 

Show me the law that says that a car needs to be insured to be parked on a public road, I've never found one. Its obviously a criminal offence to drive without insurance, but where does the law say that a car has to be insured to be parked on a public road?

 

The continuous insurance regulations are 'expected' to come into force in 2011. They are not in force at the present time and no date has yes been fixed to bring it in.

So as of this moment in time, there is no need to be insured if the car is just parked on the road.

 

 

The police already seize about 500 uninsured vehicles every day. To help combat uninsured driving even further the new law, when introduced, will result in:

• penalties
  
• court prosecutions
  
• clamping of uninsured vehicles that have not declared SORN
  

DVLA records will be compared with those on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).

From early 2011, if the database comparison shows that a vehicle has no insurance and no SORN, a letter will be sent to the registered keeper.

 

If the keeper takes no action, the keeper faces:

• a fixed penalty notice of £100
  
• court prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000
  
• having the vehicle clamped, seized and destroyed
  

So what, if any, will the mitigating reasons be. You can't just have a blanket 'no ins, fine' regime as there will be legitimate reasons in some cases where the car is on the road and uninsured with lawful excuse.

 

As it looks as if the DVLA will be administering the regulation, so it would appear that the 'think tank' has come up with another money making idea for the DVLA.

[Conniff]

Thanks for that mm. The bit that I am most interested in is the definition of the word 'use'. I don't want to make an ass of myself by quoting that a car is in use mearly by being on the road if that isn't the case.

 

If you can cut and paste any bits from any court cases that show this 'is' the case, then please do.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Conniff

[Raykay]

As I understand it, when the new regulations are introduced it will be similar to the vehicle licensing system, there must be insurance cover for the vehicle or if it is not used on a road, a SORN declaration in respect of it. One problem I can see is that in V.E.R.A. 1994 a vehicle licence is only required if the vehicle is kept or used on a public road, the requirement in R.T.A. 1988 for insurance is different in that it is required if the vehicle is used on a road or public place - different definitions but the same SORN declaration is expected to cover both circumstances.

 

I am also curious to see if just keeping a vehicle on the road is also legally considered to be 'using' it

[buzby]

Absolutely, they don't even have to prove intent. This comes up often in training exercises. The legitimate get out is if the drunk non-driver has a motorhome/RV, as his defence is he could sleep it off in comfort then drive home sober. A claim that won't stand with a car alone.

[JonCris]

So same scenario, few tinnies watching England lose the world cup at home, but the keys are besides you on the coffee table. You are obviously in charge of the car as no one else in the house is licensed to drive. Are you saying that they can be done in those circumstances?

 

 

technicaly yes in practice no. The police tend to use this charge to defeat those drivers who claim to have drunk after the event

[JonCris]

As I understand it, when the new regulations are introduced it will be similar to the vehicle licensing system, there must be insurance cover for the vehicle or if it is not used on a road, a SORN declaration in respect of it. One problem I can see is that in V.E.R.A. 1994 a vehicle licence is only required if the vehicle is kept or used on a public road, the requirement in R.T.A. 1988 for insurance is different in that it is required if the vehicle is used on a road or public place - different definitions but the same SORN declaration is expected to cover both circumstances.

 

I am also curious to see if just keeping a vehicle on the road is also legally considered to be 'using' it

 

A 'public place' may not always be 'public' it can now be private IF the public have access or the property is maintained by public funds then a vehicle must be licenced & insured

[Conniff]

i noticed that, the car will have to be insured wherever it is kept ie; public or private.

[Raykay]

A 'public place' may not always be 'public' it can now be private IF the public have access or the property is maintained by public funds then a vehicle must be licenced & insured

 

For the purposes of V.E.R.A. 1994, a licence is only required if a vehicle is kept or used on a public road - which is defined as a road maintained at public expense (it needs to a road, not a public place).

 

For the purposes of R.T.A. 1998, insurance is required if a vehicle is used on a road or other public place. A much wider definition and there can be many circumstances where insurance is required but a licence is not.

[mightymouse_69]

Hi all - sorry for a late reply:

 

RE: Using.

 

The case I mentioned earlier is pretty useless - mainly because I can only access an abstract of the report.

 

However, after some looking around I found a much more recent case, Pumbien v Vines [1996] Crim. L.R. 124

 

Here a vehicle was left on the road but was immobile (Brakes were seized on, no gearbox oil etc). It was held that as long as the vehicle was on the road, the owner had "use of it" and was therefore committing an offence.

 

 

In my judgment provided (1) that a vehicle is a ‘motor vehicle’ within the definition to be found in section 185(1) and (2) that the vehicle is on a road, the owner of that vehicle has the use of it on a road whether at the material time it can move on its wheels or not. I find it impossible either in law or in common sense to justify the proposition that a motor vehicle which is in good condition but which has been immobilised to prevent its wheels from rotating does not attract the Road Traffic Act insurance requirements whereas the requirements do apply to a vehicle in poor condition and without certain important parts if the wheels of the vehicle can rotate. Such a distinction is both artificial and unfair; all the more so if the insurance obligation can be avoided simply by immobilising the vehicle to the extent that the wheels cannot rotate. The one is neither more nor less of a hazard than the other when standing stationary on a road.

 

So, as long as a vehicle is on a public road (which includes road the public may have access too) it requires a policy of insurance.

[lonerider]

Hi everyone.

 

Just a quick update!

 

Just to let you know, I have been told my story will be coming out tomorrow in another publication (Wednesday 30/06/10) in the paper. As soon as this is confirmed I will send a link. My PHSO form has gone off. Next stage is I have a few meetings.

 

If you want to complain about the DVLA, could I ask you to post your DVLA complaint here please:

[Conniff]

Your a goodun lonerider.

[postggj]

May I Ask

 

What Paper ??

[tifo]

However, after some looking around I found a much more recent case, Pumbien v Vines [1996] Crim. L.R. 124.

 

So, as long as a vehicle is on a public road (which includes road the public may have access too) it requires a policy of insurance.

 

Yep, this is one of the case i looked at but couldn't remember. There was also something about the car also requiring a valid MOT as the insurance won't cover you unless you have tax and mot.

[lonerider]

Hi everyone:

 

As promissed, My story has not only gone in one publication, it has to my surprise gone into 2 newspapers.

 

I have attached the online edition for you to have a read.

West Sussex News

This Is Sussex

 

Please can i ask you all to keep posting your complaints about the DVLA:

Send Your DVLA Complaints Here

 

I have a lot of work to do. please can I ask you to keep posting your complaints. My mission as you know is to change the way the DVLA run.

[buzby]

Shame really.... this could be Annie rehashing the same piece with no progression. The DVLA gets its usual 'will do what it takes to get it right', but nothing more than that. As I recall, the Watchdog piece (espcially the interview with the DVLA 'chief') was a travesty of journalism.

 

It is this, and this alone why I feel your actions are misguided. I fully support your indignation and the way you were treated by them, as when it happened to my (for my 500cc scooter) they backed down, but I sure as heck wouldn't pin my hopes on Watchdog or the local press doing a darn thing of use whatsoever. It's nothing more than 'busy work' with no possibility of real change. Stop asking people to write to Watchdog. They had their chance and wasted it. Try MPs, it still is one letter, but a greater clout for the long term.

 

The ONLY way forward it to take it through your MP/MEP, everything else is simply candy floss..... Hit them where it HURTS! It certainly happened to the 'Passport & Identity Service', no doubt it'll go back to being the 'Passport Office' in due course. But it took MPs to MAKE the change.

Edited July 1, 2010 by buzby

[noomill060]

Lets hope this grows legs and the nationals pick this story up.

 

100% behind you, but agree with buzby. A letter to your MP is the way to go.

[JonCris]

Have forwarded the links to a couple of law firms motoring departments

[Big Bill]

I had a very long conversation with the Inspector of police over the problem of drinking when using my RV. Police Law says that if in the opinion of the constable the "driver" will attempt to drive the vehicle before the likelyhood of his alcohol level reducing to that allowing him to drive then that driver may be breathalised. If he refuses or is over the prescribed limit then he is guilty of an offence. This applies even if the vehicle is not on a public road.

This actually happened to two lads working for me they were sleeping it off in the locked car park of a company we were working at. The police were allerted by the nightwitchman and when the driver refused to be breathalised he was arrested and it cost him £600 and a 12 month ban. The magistrates accepted that the driver could have driven around the private car park and that would have been an offence even though it is private land because the public can have access.

So if you have a glass or two of wine with your evening meal whilst parked up in the RV, even on a campsite, for the night it is best not to argue with the constable or you too may be walking for a long time.

[JonCris]

RV Campsite drink I think your Inspector friend was gilding the lilly some what An RV that is pitched is hardly going to be driven off at a moments notice AND the owner has probably paid a site fee as further evidence it wasn't going to be driven

 

Any attempt to do this would IMHO be considered an abuse of the law

 

Also if that were true everyone on said campsite could be booked as most summer campers are usually blathered by 9pm

[JonCris]

Incidentally which RV have you got??

[buzby]

I took this up with the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) after having discussions with a police inspector. The inspector said each case would need to be looked at in isolation, however the PF was the one who confirmed that he believed prosecution would be unlikely for the reasons I outlined previously.

 

There is nothing to prevent a charge being made on the driver, but a very different matter in securing a conviction. It would be easily argued that even with the keys in the ignition, if the RV was 'parked up', even in a pub car park, it would require the wheels to be moving and a viable driver to charge. Where there in no intent, there is no crime, and the PF (you'd have the CPS) would have a difficult task in even getting the case started, never mind the many pressure croups for motorcaravanners who would point out that this was simply victimisation.

 

As for some RV owners being blootered by 2100, this come much earlier up here! (And still no prosecutions of parked RV drivers, not just the locals with 'vans, but tourists in lay by's too - even those with 'No Overnight Parking' on posts beside them!

[JonCris]

Well its all the fault of that whisky & haggis. You need a skin full before eating it

[buzby]

Nooo - you got that bit slightly wrong. You fill the Haggis skin WITH the whisky. (I makes it much more palatable). Oh, and if you were asking me about the RV, it's an Autotrail coachbuilt (Mohican).

[JonCris]

Nooo - you got that bit slightly wrong. You fill the Haggis skin WITH the whisky. (I makes it much more palatable). Oh, and if you were asking me about the RV, it's an Autotrail coachbuilt (Mohican).

 

 

Actually I like Haggis we sometimes have it even when its not Burns night I also insist on a glass or two or three of single malt

 

Is that an American or European RV?

[letshelp]

I had a very long conversation with the Inspector of police over the problem of drinking when using my RV. Police Law

 

What is 'Police law', did he explain?

 

says that if in the opinion of the constable the "driver" will attempt to drive the vehicle before the likelyhood of his alcohol level reducing to that allowing him to drive then that driver may be breathalised.

 

How on earth would they prove all of that?

 

This actually happened to two lads working for me they were sleeping it off in the locked car park of a company we were working at.

 

How do the public have access to a locked car park?

 

The police were allerted by the nightwitchman and when the driver refused to be breathalised he was arrested and it cost him £600 and a 12 month ban. The magistrates accepted that the driver could have driven around the private car park and that would have been an offence even though it is private land because the public can have access.

 

How, it was stated that the car park 'was locked at the time'?

 

So if you have a glass or two of wine with your evening meal whilst parked up in the RV, even on a campsite, for the night it is best not to argue with the constable or you too may be walking for a long time.

regards