help with dvla please, removed car in my bay

[r5gtt]

hello

please please help me , i have been restoring a 1988 renault 5 gt turbo for the last 8 months in my parking bay outside my house, as it stands the engine is out being reconditioned the car in no way looks a mess as its my pride and joy

i have taken today off work to get some spares and when i come back i find my car gone!!!!! i rushed and phoned the police and they told me that the dvla had removed my car as it had no tax. so i have once again checked my deeds to find that my parking bay is not on the public highway this is clearly stated and i have a letter from the council informing me of this. i phone the ncp pound that had taken my car and got a little s**t telling me it was in fact a public highway and i must pay 200 pounds in 24 hours

 

as it stands i have a O/S map showing that my car is off the highway, a note from the council and my deeds.

 

who is right me or them and what if my car is now damaged?

 

please please help me

[sanddancer]

Was he car covered with a S.O.R.n

[r5gtt]

hello yes it was sorn and insured the only thing missing was the tax

[r5gtt]

in my deeds there is a map from norfolk county council showing public highways shaded in pink. all the parking bays are unshaded and there is a note stating that only the pink areas are the public highway. also the roads have been resurfaced many time and they never repair or clean the parking bays. am i right in saying that as long as my car is off the public highways and i have sorn then i dont need tax?

[Zamzara]

am i right in saying that as long as my car is off the public highways and i have sorn then i dont need tax?

 

Yes.

[Trojan1401]

It may be worth checking with the police whether the parking bay is a Public Highway as defined in the Road Traffic Act i.e the public have access and/or right of way. If so then that may be the reason for the uplift of your vehicle as it would be deemed a public highway.

[patdavies]

It may be worth checking with the police whether the parking bay is a Public Highway as defined in the Road Traffic Act i.e the public have access and/or right of way. If so then that may be the reason for the uplift of your vehicle as it would be deemed a public highway.

 

Road Traffic Act is irrelevant

 

For the purposes of VED, a public road is defined in the Act as a "road maintained at public expense"

[patdavies]

duplicate post

[buzby]

You do need to act quickly before NCP (who have a history of crushing cars in this situation) lose the plot. I've noticed that many of these problems stem from parking areas that are directly accessible from the public road, as the DVLA will treat the adjacent areas as fair game. If I was in your situation I would immediately see a solicitor to protect your interest, the cost for this being recoverable from the DVLA (due to their error). Since NCP won't listen to you, a solicitor contacting them is a different matter. Also go back to the police with your evidence, and ask to speak with a senior officer - it can often help to have them on your site as they can assist NCP in realising their error.

[r5gtt]

hello everyone thanks for your help

 

great news!!!!!!!

 

ncp admit that they made a mistake and are returning my car tomorrow so i am please. when i spoke to them they were abrupt saying it was a innocent mistake and refused to apologise. i have phone my local paper hoping to stirr it up, but as yet have not heard anything. i am looking at causing the most aggro to them i can, maybe even complain to the dvla

 

any ideas???????

 

really thanks for all your help everyone

 

lets just hope the car comes back in the condition it left

[buzby]

You'll need to establish whether NCP took your car themselves (as agents acting for the DVLA) or if the DVLA themselves issued instructions for the removal. Once you establish this, you have your target.

 

Next, because your vehicle was immobile, it may be difficult to argue that your 'enjoyment' of your vehicle was diminished during the period of removal. Certainly I'd look for some level of compensation to cover your efforts in getting it back - say £100 - and ask politely for this to be remitted to you within 28 days. If this does not pan out, follow this up with an LBA for the enforced removal and deprivation of your property without just cause.

[calm1]

Is it back yet?

[r5gtt]

hello yes it was ncp removing it and others for the dvla and the dvla did not order the removal. the car is back, a little dusty but hey

 

again no apology just returned my car and i signed to say i had received it back (which i was not going to do)

 

the guy was a joke, first he claimed the police were present so i questioned him about this and it then turns out they were not then when i asked him if they make a habit of stealing cars he told me it was not in fact stealing as he had made no profit from it.............im going to use that one when i next go to tesco and walk out with a plasma tv

[jampot]

Theft requires an intention to PERMANENTLY deprive someone of their goods. Impounding it pending a 'release fee', unfortunately, isn't theft in England & Wales, although it may be in Scotland...

 

Although they have committed a trespass, and someone, somewhere has a duty of care to ensure that they only impound the right vehicles, you'll probably find that there was no malicious intent, therefore nothing to claim with respect to 'damages'.

 

They should, however, be required to compensate you for the time and trouble in getting your rightful property returned - but as has already been mentioned, exactly who to target for this is unclear until it is shown on who's absolute authority the vehicle was lifted.

[patdavies]

It's not theft as there is no intention to permanently deprive.

 

For some time this was a defence used by scroats stealing car to 'joy-ride'. Thus the offence of taking without consent (TWOC) was brought in.

 

As they had no lawful reason to remove the car, the question is are the guilty of Twoccing?

[rss1979]

Hmmm........returned with no engine you say?? I would be curious to know where that went......lol, only joking!! But I would persue this, seems the DVLA/Police are VERY heavy handed when it comes to RFL.

[nevos]

Call em and ask when they are bringing the engine back lol

[dundeelaw]

Taking Without Owner's Consent and Criminal Damage are your best options. Although no damage has been done to your car, all that is required is for someone to move it or touch it. It is the same with someone that issues you with a Civil Parking Penalty Ticket. They can be charged with Criminal Damage for placing the ticket on your car (that is only if you sa them doing it).

 

You should threaten legal action. I do it all the time to insurance companies, banks etc and I have always succeeded in the end.

 

Good Luck!

[System Error]

I have had 2 vehicles crushed under the same circumstances and eventually the DVLA have given the cases over to the NCP (the overzealous contrctors) who send it to there Capita Insurance Services, I am still waiting for the compensation but note that you can not claim for intangible losses such as grief or destress, only actual losses, in my cases, the cost of solitictors, use of public transport as I do not have a car to put back on the road and the cost of replacement vehicle. Vehicle twoc August 23rd 2006, its been a year. I was slack, contact solicitors early to get action.

[Zamzara]

For TWOC to be committed the vehicle has to be used as a conveyance, i.e. carrying a person inside it.

[patdavies]

For TWOC to be committed the vehicle has to be used as a conveyance, i.e. carrying a person inside it.

 

I don't think so, the offence is not driving without the owner's consent. it is taking without the owner's consent.

 

Car thieves who tow or lift a car are still TWOCing.

[Zamzara]

TWOC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It doesn't give an online reference unfortunately.

[patdavies]

Reference is the Theft Act 1968. S.12(1) is the germane section

 

12. Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority

(1) Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, a person shall be guilty of an offence if,

without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance

for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such

authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.

To my mind, this creates three condition, each of which gives rise to an offence.

 

1) taking any conveyance for his own or another's use;

2) drives it;

3) allows himself to be carried on or in.

 

Use is not defined as driving. I would submit that NCP's 'use' is that they are using the vehicle removal as a punishment.

 

I am not a lawyer; I don't know - but it is an interesting point.

 

However, there are other provisions of the Act that apply since NCP intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property (by taking and crushing it) then plain, old, ordinary theft applies.

 

Section 6(1) states

 

6. ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’

(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other

permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of

permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to

dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to

so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances

making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.