Unused motorbike - Taxed but Uninsured

[Ericuk]

Hi guys,

 

First post here. I found the forum while on google. I don't have any paperwork infront of me so I will just give you the basic outline of my story minus all the road traffic act BS etc.

 

My motorbike was up for sale, so I put a full MOT and 12 months TAX on to help sell it. It didn't sell and it just sat in my shed. A few months went by and I got a demand from the DVLA as my bike was no longer insured. I had to insure it or sorn it. I could return the tax disc for a refund. Failure to do so would end up with penalty or court.

 

Being disorganized, I had lost the new tax disc and admittedly didn't get my butt into action. A couple of weeks later, I got an automatic fine. I complained because the first letter had not given me a deadline to act by. I think this is poor practice as any government service should work to clearly defined deadlines and procedures.

 

Naturally my complaint got ignored and I paid the fine to avoid further penalty. I requested a V33 lost tax disc form via the DVLA but they didn't send one. I therefore sent back the tax refund/SORN decleration form as requested, only minus the tax disc. I did this to at least declare sorn and avoid any more grief.

 

The form was returned to me saying that I cannot claim for a refund on my tax disc without the tax disc (fair enough) and enclosed a missing tax disc form. This form makes you sign an agreement whereby the DVLA may keep £12 of the refund. A 2 month refund on a £60 tax disc is less than that! I really wasn't fussed about the refund (I'd already been stung) and didn't return the form.

 

About a month passed by and I got a court summons for a repeat offense. I complained and wrote to my local MP. The response I got was late (according to their own response guidelines) and they notified me for the first time, that my SORN was rejected for not returning the tax disc. This had NEVER been mentioned to me before. The letter I received only ever mentioned monetary interests for returning the disc.

 

They gave me a 9.45am court date in SWANSEA - I live in Luton. They instructed me to return my non guilty plea to them. I contacted the court a couple of days before and they said I should have contacted the court directly and could have the hearing at my local court. Why did they not make me aware of this?

 

The DVLA have basically made the process as difficult as possible. They refused to give me any vehicle information over the phone because of the court date. A written request could be made with a cost attached, but they would not guarantee the information's arrival until AFTER the court date. They haven't been clear about rejecting my SORN declaration an gave me incorrect information about the SORN declaration process.

 

I should be shocked that this is a GOVERNMENT organisation, but I'm not. I also don't believe that I will win or receive a fair trial, but I am going to stand up in court and have my say. I have been compiling as much evidence as possible to illustrate their incompetence and resistance to helping me resolve the issues.

 

There is a hearing next week in Swansea to discuss having the summons in Luton. What an expensive and ridiculous process! TYPICAL!!!!

 

I shall keep you all posted!

[renegadeimp]

Dvla isnt a government organisation. It is a private company contracted and authorised by the government.

[Ericuk]

Yeah thanks for the correction. I'll use that tit bit of information as my defense.

 

I know you are correct but I think poorly defining their status is the least of my worries!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Continuous insurance is required for a taxed vehicle of any sort in use on the road or not.

 

The DVLA is an Executive Agency of a Government Department with authorities given under Acts od=f Parliament.

[MaisyMouse]

Continuous insurance is required for a taxed vehicle of any sort in use on the road or not.

 

If that is the case, how do some vehicles that are being restored, or are languishing in the back of a garage waiting for a part to arrive from another planet can get by without insurance ?

 

Additionally my father has a motorbike that I have never seen on the road, and he doesn't have to file/send of forms each year as his ownership predates the SORN system.

[Tony P]

If that is the case, how do some vehicles that are being restored, or are languishing in the back of a garage waiting for a part to arrive from another planet can get by without insurance ?.

 

SORN - or as below.

 

he doesn't have to file/send of forms each year as his ownership predates the SORN system.

 

Yep. But the moment he taxes it, it then falls within the Continuous Tax/SORN and Insurance system thereafter.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Exactly right, the bike is registered, taxed and MOTd so is road useable it MUST be insured, there in NO and if or but to this.

[MaisyMouse]

Exactly right, the bike is registered, taxed and MOTd so is road useable it MUST be insured, there in NO and if or but to this.

 

Ah, so your original comment should have been

 

Continuous insurance, is required for a taxed vehicle of any sort in use on the road or not, and if not then it should be on a valid SORN (and should it predate the SORN system then the DVLA are waiting to pounce the moment you update your details with them).

 

Are the insurance companies in collusion with the DVLA over this system as it all smells rather fishy.

[Raykay]

Ah, so your original comment should have been

 

Continuous insurance, is required for a taxed vehicle of any sort in use on the road or not, and if not then it should be on a valid SORN (and should it predate the SORN system then the DVLA are waiting to pounce the moment you update your details with them).

 

Not quite, a registered vehicle is required to be licensed and insured, however if it is not used or kept on a public road, a SORN declaration can be made instead.

 

The above does not apply to vehicles where the last licence expired before 31st January 1998, it is not affected by updating details.

[Tony P]

The above does not apply to vehicles where the last licence expired before 31st January 1998, it is not affected by updating details.

 

Excuse me others -

Ray, I am unclear on your post.

I have a 1962 car in various boxes and lock ups around west London. I bought this in 1990 and put 'it' in my name/address. I since moved from that UK address but let this be as there was no chance of the car hitting a road for the time being.

If I register a change of address to a current one that will find me, will the car come into the Continuous Licensing/SORN cycle? (a real PITB as it will be a few years yet before it is reassembled!)

Your post suggests if I just change my address with them there are no consequences DVLA-wise, for years to come, as long as it remains off public roads/etc. That would be great.

TIA.

[Raykay]

It is the date that the last licence expired that dictates if a vehicle needs to be SORN or not, not a change of keeper's details.

As long as the last licence expired before 31st January 1998, there is no requirement.

 

If the last licence expired after that date and the vehicle is SORN, a change of keeper will cancel the SORN and the new keeper will need to make a new declaration.

[Ericuk]

Ah, so your original comment should have been

 

Are the insurance companies in collusion with the DVLA over this system as it all smells rather fishy.

 

It's a protection of industry and a pathetic way of tackling uninsured drivers on the road. At the root of all this, my crime has been giving the government money for road tax on a vehicle I wasn't using. If the bike got stolen from my shed, no one would have cared. That was my own risk. I wasn't endangering the lives of others or using an uninsured vehicle on the road.

 

Anyone who thinks that I've truly done any wrong doing here needs to wake up to the world. This is Act has nothing to do with the protection of the publics interests, but rather generating revenue.

 

Besides, my gripe isn't with the Act and changes of Law etc. I am taking issue with the fact that the DVLA has provided me with a poor service, lack of information and despite my attempts to find resolution by paying a fine and returning forms, they are now branding me a re-offender.

[Raykay]

What was the payment you made for (it wasn't a 'fine')?

What is the offence you have a summons for?

[Ericuk]

Hi everyone.

 

I received a letter from the DVLA today, who have withdrawn the case against me. They say it is "in view of the further information received" and I am no longer required to attend court.

 

It is more of a relief than a victory, and although I had formed a strong case, the prospect of being fined £1000 was quite terrifying.

 

A lesson has been learned to stay on top of my affairs with any authority and I did pay the initial fine, so it has hurt my pocket a little. I think the stress has been the biggest punishment.

 

I won't say to fight the DVLA if you have broken the law (even though I don't agree with all of them), but if there is wrong doing on their part to fight your corner.

 

Regards,

 

Eric