Car on Private land, clamped and lifted....dispute on SORN |
Car on Private land, clamped and lifted....dispute on SORN |
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 17:10
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
Vehicle was untaxed and parked directly outside a property I own on an unadopted road [confirmed by checking council database]. For clarity it was on the road, not on my drive [I don't have one lol].
I had sent off SORN ages ago. Vehicle was clamped and then lifted [I don't live there and was out of the country at the time. I paid up and vehicle was returned to me. I rang to dispute with the DVLA and they said it wasn't declared sorn and so their subcontractors could lift it [which I understand to be factually correct]. However my position is that I sent them the sorn via the paper and post system and they lost it, so I want a full refund. I believe people have proved that there is no legal requirement for us to contact DVLA if no sorn certificate received [which is what they told me I should have done....]. Would welcome your thoughts on all of this... Thanks in advance Obviously I shall be ensuring I definitely have a SORN in place going forward [it's free and easy so crazy not to do it] |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 17:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:53
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Can they lift on an unadopted road? Yes they can. Does a vehilce even need to be sorned on an unadopted road? As its not maintained at the pubic expense what right do the DVLA have? Well you can't have a SORN car on a road maintained at public expense, so if you don't make a SORN when a car is not on a road maintained at public expense, when would you ever make such a notification? The DVLA have all the rights given to them by Parliament in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and all the subordinate regulations, there's probably more than that as well. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:00
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Being unadopted doesn’t appear to be a barrier to the lift - as per the RTA. I presume it’s publicly accessible?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:17
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The Finance Act 2008 amended the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to allow immobilisation etc of vehicles anywhere except, in broad terms, the curtilage of a dwelling. Section 29 of VERA creates the offence of using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle
QUOTE (1) If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence. Note QUOTE (2B) Subsection (1) does not apply to a vehicle if— (a) the vehicle is being neither used nor kept on a public road, and (b) the particulars and declaration required to be furnished and made by regulations under section 22(1D) have been furnished and made in accordance with the regulations and the terms of the declaration have at no time been breached. So long as it had not been used or kept on a public road it would appear no offence under s 29(1) occurred. Section 62 defines a public road QUOTE ”public road”—
(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is repairable at the public expense This post has been edited by southpaw82: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:17 -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:35
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
So, (genuine) question:
Can an unadopted road be repairable at the public expense? -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:37
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Section 62 defines a public road QUOTE ”public road”— (a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is repairable at the public expense ...so an unadopted road is not repairable at the public expense? So, (genuine) question: Can an unadopted road be repairable at the public expense? Indeed, which seems to contradict the opening statement: ...to allow immobilisation etc of vehicles anywhere except, in broad terms, the curtilage of a dwelling.
This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:37 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:47
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Indeed, which seems to contradict the opening statement: ...to allow immobilisation etc of vehicles anywhere except, in broad terms, the curtilage of a dwelling. Not at all. The offence under s 29(1) can’t be committed if the road on which the vehicle is kept is not a public road. That is quite a separate question to where a vehicle can be immobilised etc, which is what my opening statement dealt with. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Aha, got it.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:43
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
So, (genuine) question: Can an unadopted road be repairable at the public expense? The very definition of an unadopted road is that it is not repairable at the public expense. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:52
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
So, (genuine) question: Can an unadopted road be repairable at the public expense? The very definition of an unadopted road is that it is not repairable at the public expense. That makes life easy. Thanks! -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 10:41
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
You would need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a SORN had been made and was in force. How are you going to do that? Also consider there's some additional rules you must follow to sue the Crown, you might want to look them up first. I intend to prove that the DVLA do not action all SORN forms that they receive...FOI request should get me those stats. I would also point to the fact that I gain nothing by not declaring SORN...so it comes down to a 'balance of probabilites' Any chance of a starting point [other than google] for these extra 'suing the crown' rules?? There's also the 'hassle factor'...wherein the DVLA may choose to pay out as it's cheaper than defending the action [I do however appreciate that we are talking about civil servants here who are quite happy to waste public money as it's not theirs!!! lol] This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 10:44 |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 10:52
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I intend to prove that the DVLA do not action all SORN forms that they receive... It's clear they don't action the ones they don't receive. But not sure what you mean about them 'ignoring' the ones they do? If you had proof of posting and a copy of the form then you'd have better standing. Were you expecting a VED refund? -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:15
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
It's clear they don't action the ones they don't receive. But not sure what you mean about them 'ignoring' the ones they do? If you had proof of posting and a copy of the form then you'd have better standing. Were you expecting a VED refund? Sorry, didn't mean ignore I mean that they lose/misplace forms all the time and an FOI has/will show this. I agree.....but I don't. No refund was expected. In addition I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Here's part of the regs....[about where they can enter private land to clamp/remove]...from Finance Act 2008 This Schedule does not apply to— (a)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it, or (b)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more of those dwellings.” My vehicle was directly outside my house on the unadopted road [which I have to pay towards maintaining and has been confirmed as unadopted by the council]. My question is....does 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equate to 'in the vicinity of'??? This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:16 |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:52
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
How can they respond to an FOI request on the number of SORN declarations they have lost, since they have lost them?
-------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 12:40
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
I like your logic there.....you should adopt a suitably logical username...how about 'logician'.....oh, er it seems to not available!! lol
I can ask how many complaints they have had from people relating to 'lost post' [possibly not received]. I also believe they have a tracking system where they can see that stuff has been received but never made it to be actioned?? Of course my point would be that complaints are usually the 'tip of the iceberg' as many people would only be aware of the 'loss' if they had cause to investigate further [eg getting a fine]....so we can extrapolate the actual amount of 'lost the paperwork at the DVLA' to be quite a bit higher...?? In addition I think that 'putting something in the post' counts as 'served/sent'....so royal mail losses count in my favour?? Reading up on it a bit [Interpretation act, etc] it seems that it's up to them to prove I didn't send them the sorn, not the other way around. Having said that, that stands when they are suing me, I'm not sure how it sits when I'm suing them.....?? PS....any guidance from anyone on the extra stuff to do insuing the government would be most appreciated [google is struggling] |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 14:08
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
In addition I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Here's part of the regs....[about where they can enter private land to clamp/remove]...from Finance Act 2008 This Schedule does not apply to— (a)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it, or (b)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more of those dwellings.” My vehicle was directly outside my house on the unadopted road [which I have to pay towards maintaining and has been confirmed as unadopted by the council]. My question is....does 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equate to 'in the vicinity of'??? That’s only relevant to where a vehicle can be seized from not whether it had to be declared SORN. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 14:13
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Was it insured? -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 14:55
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Was it insured? Via a fleet policy, but it wouldn't have been on MID. What relevance does insurance have on them lifting it for no tax? In addition I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Here's part of the regs....[about where they can enter private land to clamp/remove]...from Finance Act 2008 This Schedule does not apply to— (a)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it, or (b)any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more of those dwellings.” My vehicle was directly outside my house on the unadopted road [which I have to pay towards maintaining and has been confirmed as unadopted by the council]. My question is....does 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equate to 'in the vicinity of'??? That’s only relevant to where a vehicle can be seized from not whether it had to be declared SORN. As I understand it .....[happy to be corrected]....If the vehicle is not SORNED they can enter private property accessible to the public to clamp...EXCEPT for the property described in the para above. So if my understanding is correct I'm trying to ascertain if 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equates to 'in the vicinity of'....if it does then they shouldn't have lifted it? This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 14:59 |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 15:16
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
In addition I'm now not 100% sure it even needed to be SORNED..... Unless a vehicle has never been taxed since before the SORN rules came into force in the late 90s, all vehicles registered in the UK must be either taxed or SORN'ed, until they are permanently exported or scrapped. Any chance of a starting point [other than google] for these extra 'suing the crown' rules?? I've never sued the Crown so I'm no expert, but I'd start with Part 66 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Having said that, I really wouldn't recommend you undertake this course of action, on what you've said so far, I think you'd lose. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 15:48
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
As I understand it .....[happy to be corrected]....If the vehicle is not SORNED they can enter private property accessible to the public to clamp...EXCEPT for the property described in the para above. So if my understanding is correct I'm trying to ascertain if 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equates to 'in the vicinity of'....if it does then they shouldn't have lifted it? I don’t think a part of a road would be considered to be within the curtilage of a dwelling. It’s a very fact sensitive question though. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 16:03
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
As I understand it .....[happy to be corrected]....If the vehicle is not SORNED they can enter private property accessible to the public to clamp...EXCEPT for the property described in the para above. So if my understanding is correct I'm trying to ascertain if 'directly outside my house on 'my part of the road'' equates to 'in the vicinity of'....if it does then they shouldn't have lifted it? I don’t think a part of a road would be considered to be within the curtilage of a dwelling. It’s a very fact sensitive question though. I'm not actually suggesting that it's within the curtilage....I asking if it can be considered to be 'within the vicinity of' [as per the regs] ?? It obviously touches the property along a length...is that 'within the vicinity of'?? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:28 |