Not even my car!

[Jeffro82]

Hi Everyone,

 

I was in my girlfriend's parked car and a community support officer noticed that the car tax was out of date. She took my name and address. I then received a letter to say that they were charging ME £51 for this even though the car isn't mine!

 

Do I have to pay this (don't see why I should!). I want to write back to them but I'm sure what to say.

 

Any advice on this would be much appreciated.

[PKea]

Were you in the drivers seat?

or did you have the keys?

[Jeffro82]

I was in the passenger seat. The keys were in the car but not visible

[PKea]

They could look at it as You were in charge of the vehicle.

Has your girlfriend recived notification as well? as the registered keeper will get one too.

 

I personally would challenge this, stating that you were a passenger in the vehicle

[Jeffro82]

my girlfriend hasn't received a notification

[PKea]

Just to clarify, who have you recieved a letter from?

Police or DVLA?

 

Can you post the letter on here (renove personal details first ie name, reg, address etc)

[Jeffro82]

DVLALO(ENP) SWIFT HOUSE 18 HOFFMANNS WAY

CHELMSFORD

CM1 1GU

Telephone: 01245 491771

Our reference:

 

Unlicensed Vehicle:

Dear

We have received an offence report alleging that at 13:25hrs on you were responsible for using/keeping the above vehicle on a public road whilst unlicensed in GROSVENOR ROAD WESTCLIFF . Even if the vehicle has been licensed since this date, the offence still stands.

For this offence, an out of court settlement of £51.00 is required to avoid court action2. Please make your cheque or postal order payable to 'DVLA' and return with this notice in the enclosed envelope to the above address by . Instalments are not acceptable. If we do not receive payment for this alleged offence, the Agency will take court action against you.

This offer does not affect any separate penalty the police or courts may have imposed for any other offence. If your vehicle is still unlicensed and being used or kept on a public road you must relicense it immediately. If the vehicle is kept off the public road, you should make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) declaration.

If you need to contact us, please quote the registration mark of the vehicle. Yours sincerely

Mrs P Woolley

on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport

1 Contrary to Section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

2 Section 6 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 gives the Agency the power to offer an alleged offender a chance

to settle the matter without any intervention from a court. This penalty does not include any element of duty. The offence

carries a maximum penalty of £1000.00 or five times the annual rate of duty whichever is greater. The court will impose an

additional penalty equivalent to any outstanding arrears of duty. We may also request a minimum of £45.00 towards costs.

[alibobsy]

I don't see how they can fine you when it isn't even your car, but your girlfriend shouldn't be driving round without tax. By doing that she invalidates her insurance, I have a good friend who was crashed into by someone like this, not good. I would appeal stating it isn't your car you are not the reg keeper and were just a passenger on the day. I suppose it is then up to you whether you drop her in it by mentioning her name or not. If she is the reg keeper they may just reissue the ticket to her. I hope she is not still driving round illegally like that! Alternatively make her pay lol. I wouldn't have given the officer my name and address. I would have politely stated I was just a passenger surely he could have just issued a ticket on the vehicle?

 

Good luck

ali x

[Jeffro82]

yeah thanks for that alibobsy although I was asking for advice, not a lecture. just because your mate had a bad experience, no need to tar everyone with the same brush. fyi my girlfriend was without tax for 2 days, hardly crime of the century

[patdavies]

I don't see how they can fine you when it isn't even your car, but your girlfriend shouldn't be driving round without tax. By doing that she invalidates her insurance

 

Urban myth

 

Thee are occasions where a car does not have to be either taxed or MoT'd on the public highway - it remains insured.

 

Even if you did something that did void your insurance policy, the RTA places an obligation on the insurance company to meet third party claims.

[alibobsy]

Sorry Pat its not an urban myth, insurance companies will use any excuse to get out of paying. Most (if not all) car insurance policies include the condition that to be insured the car must have valid tax. I am not saying the insurance companies are right, and you may be able to negotiate with them over a payout especially like you say third party claims. But there is a distinct possibility that they would void any claim or try to. Yes if she was on her way to the Post office to get her tax, or on her way to get an mot you are allowed on the public highway and the insurance should stand and the ticket would be incorrect.

I was not trying to lecture and obviously didn't know the full circumstances. If she was waiting for payday to get the tax etc then I know some months it can be tight I do understand. Its just the fact that when I drive round with my 2 young kids in the car (baby 3 on the way) I do worry about uninsured/non taxed/non moted drivers on the roads. I don't think the OP should have to pay the fine and I think the warden was cheeky asking for his details when he was quite clearly not the driver. At this stage if I were him and would write in and explain I was just a passenger and its not my vehicle. Leave it at that, it will then be up to the ticketing office whether they try to look at reissue to the RK etc.They may just write it off.

ali x

[patdavies]

Sorry Pat its not an urban myth, insurance companies will use any excuse to get out of paying.

 

It is urban myth.

 

Yes, insurance companies will try anything to get out of paying out - but this one doesn't fly for them.

 

If you have a car that has been SORN'd and the MoT certificate is expired. You are entitled to drive it to/from MoT test appointment and, if necessary, to/from repair appointment. The vehicle needs neither VED or MoT, it does need to be insured.

 

Most (if not all) car insurance policies include the condition that to be insured the car must have valid tax.

In all my driving career with several insurance companies, I have never seen such a condition. Certainly there is usually a clause that the vehicle must be in roadworthy condition - but that is not the same thing as taxed and MoT'd

 

Yes if she was on her way to the Post office to get her tax, ........ you are allowed on the public highway and the insurance should stand and the ticket would be incorrect.

No. the vehicle must be taxed and MoT'd to drive to the Post Office. You are not allowed to drive without displaying VED unless you are driving an exempt vehicle. A ticket for failing to display is valid even if the vehicle is taxed - it is a separate offence

[jampot]

Personally, I would simply ask the gf for the £51, pay up, and leave it at that.

 

It is the person who is in charge of the vehicle, NOT necessarily the registered keeper, who can be fined if the vehicle is seen on the roads without tax. As the 'driver' you are responsible for the condition of the car. I even know of someone who was taking a test drive from a reputable dealer, and was stopped. They were fined and given points for driving a defective vehicle, despite the salesman sitting in the car next to him explaining that the car belonged to the dealership!

 

The reason I suggest paying up now, is that £51 is a relatively low sum, given the fine payable if it gets to court. There's no guarantee that if it is appealed, and they go after the gf for the same offence (failure to display) or (perhaps worse) failure to tax (which is different) that she will get off with a lesser punishment, and may even end up with a greater one.

 

If it weren't a close friend, relative or gf's car, I would appeal it on the basis that you weren't in charge of the vehicle at the time, although this is a moot point. It is my understanding that even having the keys in your possession makes you 'in charge', and drunks who have opened their car doors and fallen asleep in the passenger seat have been charged with "drink driving" since the law covers driving, attempting to drive, or simply 'being in charge'.

 

Whilst it is patently silly to suggest that a person left in the passenger seat is automatically 'in charge' of the vehicle, particularly where there is no evidence offered that the keys were in their possession, you'll still have to plead your case in court, and even if you win, they'll go straight after your gf for the same (or alternative) offence, and one or other will still end up paying anyway.

 

Just get her to pay it...

[patdavies]

jampot,

 

If this were failure to display or some other driving other C&U offence, I would tend to agree with you.

 

However, continous VED/SORN is entirely and solely the responsibility of the RK. It is not the responsibilty of the driver or person in charge of the vehicle.

 

To be clear:

 

Failure to have valid VED - RK responsibility - enforced by DVLA

Failure to display valid VED - driver responsiblity - enforced by Police

[PKea]

Failure to have valid VED - RK responsibility - enforced by DVLA

Failure to display valid VED - driver responsiblity - enforced by Police

 

So why had the OP recievd a notice from the DVLA when his Girlfriend is the RK?

And why didnt the PCSO issue a FPN for failure to display?

 

Obviously you cant answer these, just the scenario

[welshcakes]

Hi Jeffro

 

I would write back to Mrs Woolley quoting her opening statement of

"We have received an offence report alleging that at 13:25hrs on you were responsible for using/keeping the above vehicle on a public road whilst unlicensed in GROSVENOR ROAD WESTCLIFF . "

and advise that you rigorously deny any liability and require a copy of the offence report by return. Include the term "this matter is in dispute".

I stongly recommend ever communication is in writing and that this initial letter is sent registered.

[jampot]

jampot,

 

If this were failure to display or some other driving other C&U offence, I would tend to agree with you.

 

However, continous VED/SORN is entirely and solely the responsibility of the RK. It is not the responsibilty of the driver or person in charge of the vehicle.

 

To be clear:

 

Failure to have valid VED - RK responsibility - enforced by DVLA

Failure to display valid VED - driver responsiblity - enforced by Police

 

I totally agree that continuous VED/SORN is the responsibility of the RK. I was under the impression (wrongly?) that the OP had had his collar felt for 'Failure to Display'.

 

Which is why I said, if he appeals the failure to display, his gf could get hit with either failure to display, or failure to have VED - the latter probably being a worse penalty.

 

If he's being chased for failure to have valid VED, then I quite agree - no liability exists, and none can be proven against the OP. However, they are likely to chase the RK instead...

[jampot]

On further inspection, the DVLA letter is rather ambiguous:

 

"you were responsible for using/keeping the above vehicle on a public road whilst unlicensed in GROSVENOR ROAD WESTCLIFF . Even if the vehicle has been licensed since this date, the offence still stands."

The first sentence implies that the offence is perhaps failure to license, the second implies failure to display.

On the whole, I *think* the DVLA is claiming this is failure to display, but it is totally unclear!

[patdavies]

On further inspection, the DVLA letter is rather ambiguous:

 

"you were responsible for using/keeping the above vehicle on a public road whilst unlicensed in GROSVENOR ROAD WESTCLIFF . Even if the vehicle has been licensed since this date, the offence still stands."

 

The first sentence implies that the offence is perhaps failure to license, the second implies failure to display.

 

On the whole, I *think* the DVLA is claiming this is failure to display, but it is totally unclear!

 

No, that's not what they mean.

 

They are saying that on XX date the vehicle was being used unlicensed on the road named.

 

The second sentence is stating that even if you have taxed it since, this does not affect the offence on that particular date.

 

Failure to display is (and can) not be enforced by DVLA.

[Jenna1]

The DVLA will not fine for failure to display

 

This is a section 29 case, which means the vehicle had no vaild tax.

 

The registered keeper is responsible for the vehicles tax.

 

Normally in a named case such as yours the DVLA will issue a fine for the whole unlicensed period to the keeper and the driver for the date of offence.

 

The DVLA sometimes decides to pursue one case, normally if the two people reside at the same place relatives etc They choose the named driver as they are the easiest to take to court

[ScarletPimpernel]

This is not a fine, but an 'out of court settlement'. DVLA hope you will pay up to save them the time and trouble of processing court action.