So if I OWN a couple of scrap cars in MY field on the other side of the road to my house which I forget to re-SORN, then the authorities can trespass on MY land, and steal MY property and fine me for the privilege. To me this is no different to vandals or theft. Whatever happened to freedom and democracy!!!

If it were me, I'd be straight down to the local police station and make a formal complaint of theft of my car and demand they go and arrest the thief! It's time this sort of outrageous behaviour was stopped.

In view of the circumstances, I would also be making a formal complaint to your local police station. Someone apparently is committing an offence, and the police should be able to use their many resources to find the culprit, as they can the innocent! If it were me, I would also be asking them to arrest the 'crat' at DVLA who issued the penalty, for 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace'! Any legal comment?

Advisable to keep a copy of the V5, and ensure it remains taxed if on public maintained property. They may come back for a copy of the death or probate certificate before transfer.

Just a thought. Have you tried checking the reg. no and VIN yourself through VRM- VRM Vehicle Lookup, VRM Enquiry sourced from DVLA If your not registered yourself, your friendly motor factor probably has access. Matching a VIN to your reg. no , or a reg.no to your VIN might highlight an obvious error, or give you something to make DVLA look silly!

Expect a fixed penalty notice for £40, and if your unlucky a bill for back duty to the last time it was taxed. Read all the other posts on the subject for options.

Rather like typing 'sorn' into the DVLA computer, which produces 'fine £40'!!!!

Your thread and links above are valuable references, but do not offer total protection. I take it by DOC you mean 'driving other cars'. This is the point I was trying to make. Anyone other than the policy holder needs to carry a certificate with named driver and proof of identity to satisfy police enquiry. To say that a driver needs to be insured, not the vehicle is technically correct, but in practice most certificates primary reference is the registration number on which a PNC or MID search is carried out, and if a corresponding name is not found then things get complicated. The proposed new legislation will make this a mine field.

In the second sentence above, 'Im an orange' should read 'banana', but it won't edit! Perhaps this is indicative of errors which appear in computer and data base systems!!!

If you’ve read the many threads on here you will have come to the conclusion that all is not right with vehicle law and its enforcement, and even the most vigilant can be caught out. There appears to be a number of Im an orange who regularly post on this site and their legal expertise offers valuable assistance, but what most people need is justice, not academic legal debate on case law. As a large proportion of MP’s and the civil servants who draft the law have legal backgrounds, it might be expected that the quality of the law might be better in the first place, but this would require a practical outlook! Once upon a time in 198?BC (before computers) owning and using a vehicle was a relatively simple affair. You bought the car, filled in the V5 and sent it off to DVLA to register it in your name, bought some road tax and insurance, and got an MOT if necessary, and off you went. If you were stopped by the police, which had to be for a moving traffic offence, you were obliged to produce your documents proving legality. If you did not have them on you, you were issued with a form (HORT1) to take them to your local police station in 7 days, and off you went on your journey. Failure to display the tax disc, even if you had one was, and still is, a separate offence. Computers, and a system of ‘continuous registration’, have added considerable complication to the system and the introduction of computer data bases to check legalities has introduced a whole range of pitfalls, anomalies, and contradictions, many of dubious legality. Even if you accept the law without question, it must be seen that so many injustices and bureaucracies will alienate public support with possible anarchistic results. The registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, but he/she may not be the owner or have control of it. The keeper is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle has a tax disc when driven or parked on public road or property, or a SORN notice if not - continuously. The vehicle and driver must have appropriate insurance if the vehicle is driven on the road. The vehicle must have an MOT certificate from its 3rd year of registration to be on the road. So what goes wrong? From the many posts in these threads, it is apparent that errors are so numerous that many think that they are cynically deliberate to remove vehicles from the road (legalized policy, Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, or to extract revenue. Apart from human error which is present in any system, the systems themselves invite problems. DVLA uses its data base to track drivers licenses, vehicle registered keepers, and vehicle excise duty or SORN. VOSA maintains a data base of MOT tests, and the insurance industry has MID, the motor insurance database. The police have the police national computer (PNC) which they use to confirm if a vehicle/driver is legal. Unfortunately, it appears that they do not all sing from the same hymn sheet! Time delays and inaccuracies in updating data are one of the most common causes of problems, as confirmed by HM inspector of constabulary – ‘ The integrity of information stored on the Police National Computer (PNC) is absolutely vital to its effectiveness in supporting the Police Service of England and Wales to tackle crime and criminal behaviour. At a time when information and intelligence have become invaluable in targeting prolific offenders it is to the shame of the Service that such a valuable tool as PNC has been sorely neglected, to the detriment of data integrity.’ Until data is instantly and simultaneously updated on data bases, and we have the power to access and check its accuracy, then there will always be injustices. After all, the system is used to check our validity, so why can’t we check the systems validity. If a computerized system is to be god, then why maintain expensive duplicate and sometimes contradictory paper systems, particularly if they have no apparent practical purpose. SORN – as I have previously stated in ‘Repeal the SORN laws’, this is a totally redundant piece of legislation, other than as a revenue generator. By simple logic it can be deduced that if a vehicle does not have a valid tax disc, it must be off the road, unless it is on trade plates, or being driven to a pre-arranged MOT test. SORN notices demand a declaration of innocence contrary to the basis of law of innocent until proven guilty. VED(tax disc) – If enforcement is to be by computer data base and bureaucrats, not the police, then the legal requirement to display the disc becomes redundant. The disc itself is redundant as well if all enforcers have access to the data base. MOT – Theoretically, the same redundancy would apply to MOT test certificates if the data base is king. However, I know many MOT stations have difficulties getting on line and are often obliged to issue manual certificates. It is also helpful when selling a vehicle to have old certificates to support history and mileage. INSURANCE – This is a far more complicated issue, as the certificate has to cover not only the vehicle, but an eligible driver, who need not be the keeper or owner. This is also made more difficult by villains who buy insurance by installments, and once in possession of a certificate, stop payments. The police have difficulty in establishing clerical error from deliberate deception, but have the power to seize the vehicle and arrest the driver. The only way to be certain is to carry a certificate and make certain it is on the data base, but the present system only confirms the car is insured by a ‘policy holder’, who may not have the same name as the driver! There now looms an even more insidious piece of proposed legislation, requiring every vehicle without a SORN certificate to be insured – see Uninsured motorists risk a £1,000 fine and losing their car... even if they don't drive it | Mail Online The excuse for this is to prove every vehicle is insured! The reality is a new set of traps to create more revenue and dispose of more vehicles. It must be stopped before it becomes law. If you want to stop crime catch and deter the criminal. Don’t entrap the innocent and make them into criminals. K I S S - Keep It Simple Stupid Please sign up to Petition to: Create an independent appeals process for challenging unjust SORN penalties. | Number10.gov.uk and see S.O.R.N Appeal . Right behind you 'sornappeal'

Read the many other posts with the same story. Send them both a letter demanding proof of not receiving the SORN notice or see you in court. Any further demands will invite formal complaint to the police for the criminal offence of harassment.

If tax is due 1/2/09, reminder should have arrived by now. Don't wait for it, it may get 'lost in post!!' SORN it now with the V5C information.

Here we go again’ No 3 Son this time. Stopped on his way to Gatwick for speeding - serves him right! However, a PNC check by the ocifer says his car is insured to a female that nobody has ever heard of. He rings me from the side of the motorway to see if I can find the insurance certificate so PC can check with insurer. With a filing system like a confetti factory, I can’t find it so I check the Motor Insurance Database (ASKMID) on line and it says the cars insured, but that’s all. Mr PC issues a ‘HORT 1’ form, requiring son to present insurance certificate at our local police station within 7 days. As he’s abroad for at least 10 days I tell him to post form to me from airport so I can deal with it. I print off the ASKMID confirmation at date/time he was stopped hoping this will suffice. Coincidently, 3 days later, the renewal notice for his insurance arrives proving the existence of his policy. I take this to the police station expecting to resolve the issue – silly me!!! WPC desk ocifer says only named person can present documents. I say not possible, he’s out of country for 10 days. She says I will have to ring issuing PC’s station for extension. Ring issuing station, desk PC says anyone can present docs, will check and come back. Calls back (surprise) and says every police force has there own rules on presentation, gives me central ticket office number to get time extension.:mad:Ticket office says don’t worry, 7days don’t start till they log the HORT1, which usually takes 5 days to get to them. Son returns and takes all to police station who insist on certificate, not renewal notice or ASKMID print. Phone insurance company from station and ask for duplicate certificate to be faxed. Wally at insurers sends certificate, but dated day of enquiry, 10 days after alleged offence which is not acceptable. After phoning and Emailing the insurers again, we wait to see whether the certificate or summons arrive first????? “I do not believe it!!”

Nobody is forcing you to borrow from a bank. Save it before you spend it!

The current tax started on 1 Sept 2008. If there is an untaxed gap between the end of the previous tax disc and 1-9-08 then this may be what the fine is for.