Dvla

[derrenlewis]

Hi, I am after a bit of advice....my mother has fallen foul of the DVLA. In summary my mother had some building work done, and placed a skip on the driveway. She moved her vehicle (it had to be towed) onto a piece of council land temporarily at the rear of the house where vehicles are parked which is adjacent to a park (it has council garages at one end and a flat space where people park, then there is a slope where there is a park). Whilst it was there, it was visited by an ADURWATCH (council warden) who said it would have to move within 2 weeks. This was followed up by a letter giving 7 days to move it. The work was done, the skip was gone, so it was pushed and towed back onto the driveway. It was parked there for less than 2 weeks.

 

Then the trouble started....DVLA sent a letter saying the SORN had expired....without going into a long winded turn of events it appears they take NO responsibilty for sending reminders, incredible as it seems, my elderly pensioner mother has to chase THEM up? So the fine was paid (un)fair enough as this is how the law stands, SORN re-declared etc. Then we recieve another letter stating "the vehicle was seen on the public highway" on the date of the ADURWATCH visit and ANOTHER £105 to pay! To cut to the chase my argument is:

 

1) Its council property.It is used as a car park, with an adjacent access road. The access road to the rear of the property is a private road, it is maintained by the private householders (including my mother). It is not shown on any road maps, has no name,is not an A or B road etc. The DVLA claimed at first the parking area was a verge so part of the public highway. When sent a letter from the council confirming it wasn't, and never has been part of the public highway, they are still insisting on the fine. They have changed their arguement to "If a person uses, or keeps a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence". If this is the case, why did we have to pay the SORN non renewl charge AND now a charge for being unlicensed at the same time? Surely it is one or the other? It seems they are detemind to TAX my mother regardless of the vehicle bein kept on a private drive, and being declared SORN. The council asked us to move it, we did, its their property so why do the DVLA have the power to continue to harrass my mother. Everytime we have pointed out the flaw in their agument, they just seem to change the offence?We have sent several letters to them yet every time they change the wording of the offence????

 

So it wasn't on the public highway, wasn't on a verge, was on a council car park, and the fine for non-renewl of SORN was duly paid, and it was moved as the council requested and within the time limit they allowed. Any help with this would be appreciated.....they now are doing the court summons etc.

Edited August 11, 2010 by derrenlewis

[buzby]

Welcome to CAG. The issue is not what you expect. Where you mum's car is located is irrelevant, as even if it remained in her driveway, she would STILL Be fined for not declaring SORN or re-taxing. The warning letter is contained within the V11 Renewal document, so if this is not acted upon, a fine will result automatically. The situation you describe above is typical, but not connected - the car could have been on the street or on private ground on in her back yard, the location is immaterial, she MUST Tax or SORN. If you do not do either, then the assumption is that the car needs taxing and they fine you accordingly.

[Surfer01]

Buzby the OP has admitted the SORN bit and paid that fine. The DVLA are now trying to fine them for having an unlicenced vehilce on a public highway as they are classing the council car park as a public highway. Anyway that is how I am understanding the post.

[buzby]

They go hand in hand. Having paid the SORN fine you STILL have to pay for the VED to date, THEN you have to SORN it for real, or the fines will continue.

[Surfer01]

That is fair enough, but would a council car park be classed under the Highways Act etc? It seems the car park is not actually a public car park but rather one for residents living locally.

[Raykay]

There are two sections in the Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994 that are relevant to the OPs case. One is the Late Licensing Penalty, which it seems the OP's mother has paid, and being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, which Buzby refers to and which is a different matter.

[buzby]

In my view, where the car is parked is irrelevant, as the primary issue of the Continuous Registration process is that a vehicles must be taxed or SORNed. There is a fine for no SORN declaration, butr this is in addition to the back tac claimed. You are not allowed to backdate a SORN, only a VED for months missing since the previous VED expired or the earlier SORN. A council car park isn't a highway, but it isn't private land either - so she could have been done for the more serious issue of having an untaxed car in a place other than her driveway or private land.

[Raykay]

That is fair enough, but would a council car park be classed under the Highways Act etc? It seems the car park is not actually a public car park but rather one for residents living locally.

 

Nothing to do with the highways Act, the definition is in the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994. Vehicles must be licensed if they are used or kept on a Public Road. The definition of a public road is 'a road maintained at public expense'. If where the vehicle was is not considered to be a public road, the vehicle would still need to be licensed, or SORN, if it is neither licensed nor SORN that is a different offence under VERA 1994.

[derrenlewis]

Hi, thanks for the replies. Basically, the vehicle is on the DVLA record as taxed until 28/02/10. Then the SORN declaration was sent off, but the DVLA claim they didn't recieve it, and an LPP was charged. When this was paid on 27/05/10 another declaration of SORN was filed online, and took effect from this date onwards.( I am still waiting for the confirmation letter and have requested a second one sent out.) So basically, we paid an LPP, which I am assuming was to cover the period of 29/02/10 until when it was issued which was the 14/05/10. The next offence occurred on the 11/05/10 which is obviously during the time she paid the LPP. So why now is there another charge of £105, this I don't understand. What exactly was the LPP paying for? Why do we have to pay 2 fines? I understand now that it isn't a case of being on the road as they basically will fine you anywhere, so if it had remained on the drive the LPP would still have arrived. The issue was clouded as the DVLA have been insisting the vehicle was "seen on the Public Highway" which was surely not the case.

 

Saying that though the last letter recieved from the DVLA quotes:

 

In October 2008 the legislation which applies to this case was amended. The wording "on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle)" was replaced with "a vehicle" so s29(1) now reads "If a person uses, or keeps a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of a offence" all record of public road has been removed. But on the leaflet INF51 in the paragragh Vehicle Excise Duty/Stautory Off Road Notification (SORN) it says: "It is an offence for a keeper to make a Statutory Declaration (SORN) and take the unlicensed vehicle on a public road whilst the SORN is in force."

 

So this clearly states the word "road" which seems a contradiction of the s29(1) whatever that is.....

 

So in summary, I can see an offence has happened according to Law, but why a Late Payment Penalty and an additional charge? Sorry its so long winded but you should try reading the letters I have got from the DVLA, as clear as mud. Thanks again for the replies.

[Raykay]

Two Different things, a claim for the Late Licensing Penalty, s.7A VERA 1994, and the offence of being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, s.29 VERA 1994 - you may find that the £105 is an out of court settlement offer plus the unpaid tax between when the licence expired and when they say SORN commenced.

 

There are many posts on this and other forums about DVLA 'losing' SORN declarations and then claiming the Late Licensing Penalty and the out of court settlement for no licence!!

[derrenlewis]

So its two offences hence the two fines, but both relate to the SORN not being applied nothing to do with where it was parked, she would have recieved the fines anyway..... BigBrother has a need to know where all vehicles are at all times, couldn't a SORN just last say 5 years or when the vehicle returns to the road....whats the difference anyway between 1 year and indefinately, it could still be taken on the road anytime. Amazing that an unusable/broken vehicle vehicle that is parked off the highway and spends most of its time on a private drive could commit such an offence.....also amazed at the DVLA shirking their responsibility about the missing SORN declarations, after all they are paid to do a job, but as you say, there are thousands out there being fined and treated with this sloppy customer service....what a rip off the DVLA are.

 

Thanks for the reply, it seems that no matter what the DVLA want mums pension money....still at 63 it was very irresponsible of her not to chase up the DVLA.....the main thing that has got to her is that she is being treated as a criminal but from her point of view has done nothing wrong, she had paid her car tax all her life.

[buzby]

The reason why it is 12 months and not infinite (as indeed it would be in the old days when a VED expired), is not only to make money, but to run in parallell with VED renewal requirements. At 13 months and over their database of vehicles actually 'off road' will already be wildly inaccurate, so having the 12 month renewal helps draw this back. The whole thing stinks, of course - but we've got to work with it whilst it still is a legal requirement.

 

WITH REGARD TO THE ADVERT THAT APPEARS WITHIN THIS POST, I NEITHER REQUESTED NOR APPROVE OF ITS PLACEMENT WITHIN THIS FORUM POST.

Edited August 12, 2010 by buzby
Ojection to enforced advert within forum post