PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

SORN'd Vehicle Fine in Car Park, My car was impounded and then destroyed and now I have received a fine
PEMU
post Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 23:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,262



Dear Members,
My SORN'd vehicle was in a council car park and removed and destroyed without warning. My case seems quite similar to this one which I have just come across now (after a lot of previous unsuccessful searches to find what to do). Mine was also kept in a car park owned and maintained by the council:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t114592.html

I need to send my appeal off tomorrow and I'd really appreciate some advice on what exactly to write in my appeal, especially in light of the above case. If anyone could recommend the exact wording that would really help as I haven't done something like this before.

Thanks a lot.
I'm going to paste a more detailed description below of my case which I previously wrote up for another forum:



I've been given a £340 fine from DVLA (pictures attached) which I would like to dispute and need your kind help with. 


A: The background:
1. I had an old runaround which I wasn't using at the time and was considering putting back on the road when my wife passes her test. 
2. We have a residential car park behind our house which, to my knowledge, is council property. To my knowledge, yes, it is technically maintained by them (although they never actually carry out any maintenance and repair the craters AKA potholes).
3. Now and then we get abandoned cars and the council puts notices on them and then removes. Last time they came round, I asked the officer and he told me I will be fine to leave my car there as long as I SORN it, which I did. 
4. Based on online reading I have now done, I think he was either just talking from the perspective of vehicles the council removes and not the DVLA's perspective, or he just got it wrong. 
5. In hindsight, I understand I should have been smarter and not taken his word and double checked and not left the car there as it seems it might still be deemed as on the public road. 
6. Unless someone has any strong evidence otherwise, I'm happy to concede I made a misjudgement and am looking for advice on what to with the fine now. It was an innocent mistake in the sense that I never meant to do anything wrong or dodge any rightful charges. 


B: Things that don't seem right or could potentially be avenues to explore:


1. They didn't give me any warning, clamp or notice and just removed the car suddenly. 

2. I received the letter telling me of it being impounded after 8th Feb which is when it was already destroyed (although it is dated on 5th Feb). I can't think of how I can prove which day I received the letter though, even if that's of relevance.

3. They have spelled the name of the car park wrong by writing a double N at the end of the name instead of one N, so "***nn" instead of "***n" 
4. The original impound letter says they search for vehicles that don't have tax or SORN and they said my vehicle met neither, but it was SORN'd which they acknowledge in the second fine letter. I might be reading the letter wrong though. 

C: Things I would like advice on:

1. Is it worth telling the DVLA my sob story in the hope of some sort of concession or full/partial let off and if so, what's the best approach for that (call/letter, etc.)?

2. Is it just an urban myth or can fines actually be contested on technicalities like them spelling the name of the car park wrong or implying I didn't have it SORN'd in the first letter?
3. Do they have to give a warning or anything or can they just impound the car immediately and is that a worthwhile line of complaint? If they put a warning/clamp for a few hours, my neighbours and I might have missed it (they would have told me if they saw something). 
4. What is likely to happen now and what's the best avenue for me to explore?

D: Potential Actions I have thought of:
1. Write a long letter to dispute the fine based on all of the above (so plea for compassion as well complaint)
2. Only appeal for compassion for now
3. Dispute on the grounds of the car park name being wrong, if that's even a thing
4. Dispute on grounds they gave no warning/notice 
5. Any other combination of above, or something else you can recommend

I'd really everyone's thoughts and input. 
Thanks

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 23:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
localdriver
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 07:39
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,314
Joined: 3 Sep 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 22,300



In their letter in the link, they accept that there was a SORN for the vehicle, and as a car park is not a public road within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994, the SORN was correct and there was no reason for the vehicle to be removed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 10:00
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



DVLA's response on WDTK to this FOI is handy!
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/can_...lared_as_sorn_b

You need to determine the exact status of the car park, do you have a Google Street View link?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 10:01


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:00
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



The DVLA are not hot on compassion and there is no reason why they should be, they are better on rules and according to the rules they are entirely in the wrong. They mistakenly thought the vehicle was not on SORN and removed it, they now acknowledge it was on SORN but are attempting to justify its removal by claiming it was being kept on a public road, when the place it was being kept was not a public road.

Your appeal should state that SORN was in force for the vehicle which was not situated on a public road, and therefore no offence had been committed and there was no authority to remove or dispose of the vehicle. You are therefore not liable for any fine or charges and are entitled to compensation for the value of the vehicle.

It would be helpful for us if you provided a Google Street View link, as previously requested.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PEMU
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:05
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,262



Sorry, I didn't see the request for link as I didn't get a notification for replies.
Thanks to everyone for replies so far.
Here's the entrance to the car park in question:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6491748,-0....6384!8i8192
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Starworshipper12
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:17
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Member No.: 87,439



It seems the requirement for SORN is being on private land, and the area in question is a council car park. The DVLA say requirements aren’t met, which is not to say it wasn’t SORN, but was in fact not on private property? Not to mention tax etc.

This post has been edited by Starworshipper12: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localdriver
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,314
Joined: 3 Sep 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 22,300



QUOTE (Starworshipper12 @ Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 18:17) *
It seems the requirement for SORN is being on private land, and the area in question is a council car park.


The requirement for SORN is that the vehicle is not used or kept on a public road - a road repairable at public expense - a car park is not a road (Clarke v Kato, House of Lords, 1998).

This post has been edited by localdriver: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Starworshipper12
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:32
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Member No.: 87,439



Yes I was reading through a previous topic where you stated the same, but there wasn’t an end result to that case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 18:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (PEMU @ Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 17:05) *
Sorry, I didn't see the request for link as I didn't get a notification for replies. Thanks to everyone for replies so far. Here's the entrance to the car park in question: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6491748,-0....6384!8i8192


So that is a car park with access from the High Street on that side and Glyn Road on the other. Driving through it from one to the other is possible but restricted by a barrier to vehicles below a certain height. The main area of the car park, off to one side separated from the through route by a pavement and line of bushes could not, I think, be considered a road. Provided the car was parked there, I think there is no argument that it was on a public road.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PEMU
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:04
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,262



QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:21) *
So that is a car park with access from the High Street on that side and Glyn Road on the other. Driving through it from one to the other is possible but restricted by a barrier to vehicles below a certain height. The main area of the car park, off to one side separated from the through route by a pavement and line of bushes could not, I think, be considered a road. Provided the car was parked there, I think there is no argument that it was on a public road.



There's no through road. Along with the hight restriction, there's a 6 inch high kerb between the two part of the car park with bollards. Motorcycles squeeze through the gaps kept for pedestrians but I doubt it was intended for them.

Thanks for your help so far. Depending on how they
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:13
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



By your argument anybody wanting to declare their vehicle off road (and so be free of paying VED or insurance) needs simply to to park up in a council car park. I haven't looked into this too deeply but instinct tells me that cannot be correct (and I don't see loads of Sorn'd vehicles in my local council car park). The cited case of Clarke v Kato provided a definition of a road for Motor Insurance purposes. Would it hold true for VED purposes?

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Starworshipper12
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:22
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Member No.: 87,439



And SORN has no time limit, so our council car parks could potentially be full of cars declared SORN but then left abandoned.

This post has been edited by Starworshipper12: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:45
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



SORN simply is required when the keeper "does not for the time being intend to use or keep the vehicle on a public road and will not do so without first taking out a vehicle licence".

Councils already have powers to remove abandoned vehicles or impose maximum stay lengths on their car parks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 20:18
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 19:13) *
By your argument anybody wanting to declare their vehicle off road (and so be free of paying VED or insurance) needs simply to to park up in a council car park. I haven't looked into this too deeply but instinct tells me that cannot be correct (and I don't see loads of Sorn'd vehicles in my local council car park). The cited case of Clarke v Kato provided a definition of a road for Motor Insurance purposes. Would it hold true for VED purposes?


I am not sure that instinct is a very reliable guide to road traffic legislation, every instinct would tell me that if a newly qualified driver has his licence revoked if he gets 6 points from two minor speeding matters in his probationary period, he would certainly get it revoked if he committed a more serious offence and was disqualified from driving, however reading the legislation reveals that this is not the case!

Where Parliament wishes to include other areas in which people may drive their vehicles, it tends to use the phrase "road or other public place" which would certainly include a car park. RTA 1988 has a circular definition of 'road' which reads 'in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes' so we fall back on the dictionary definition which tends to include the concept of a line of communication. This would not include a car park, but I was a little concerned that the car park in question could be used to get between two other roads, which is why I made the point about the separation of the main area of the car park from a possible through route.






--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 21:04
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



No, I quite agree, instinct is not necessarily a good guide to the interpretation of legislation. I was simply thinking out loud.

So you can park a SORN'd car in a council car park and only face action by the Council, not the DVLA, then? (As I indicated, I don't know the answer, I'm curious). Is that really what Parliament intended?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PEMU
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 21:26
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,262



As I mentioned in my initial (long explanation), the council employee whose job it was to remove abandoned cars told me that my car would be fine as long as it's SORN'd. Perhaps he was right after all.

Regarding why mine has suddenly been impounded now, I have a theory but it's complete conjecture. I've noticed Redcorn (a private company) taking a lot of cars recently and now realise they are working with/for Enfield council. Is it possible they have details from DVLA and council and basically trying their luck wherever they can?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
localdriver
post Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 05:17
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,314
Joined: 3 Sep 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 22,300



In the link in the OP's first post, a submission to the DVLA suggested by Logician resulted in a reply from the DVLA stating that they were taking no further action.

I would expect a similar approach by this OP would result in a similar reply.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 05:27
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Which would be very 'generous' considering they scrapped his car apparently unlawfully..........


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PEMU
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 22:22
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 3 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,262



Good evening everyone and thank you for your help so far.
I received the attached letter today (although the letter is dated 12th April 2019).
I am confused by their reply - it's either too technical for me or it's disjointed.
On one hand they seem to say the council removed the car but the fine is payable to them, but they can't share information with the council, etc.
They have given me just a few days to get some written evidence from the council when it takes an age just to get through to the council.
They say something about "Public Road" being removed from some legislation in 2008 but I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Advice and suggestions will be most helpful.

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 19 Apr 2019 - 07:29
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



This is the statute referenced
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/section/29
It still says public road in that, it says there are edits to come but one from 2008 I would have thought would be in there.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:45
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here