When vehicles are transferred to the trade, the old keeper is required to notify the DVLA by sending them the relevant part of their V5C and giving the rest of the V5C to the trader. The trader does not do anything and only sends the V5C to the DVLA with the new keeper's details when the vehicle is sold.

If it was the green V5C/2 part of the V5C that you sent, that could be the problem (that is given to the new keeper in a private transaction). You should have sent the yellow V5C/3 'Transferred to the trade' part.

The requirement to display a tax disc was similar to the requirement for SORN, they could only be committed if the vehicle is used or kept on a public road, not necessarily a highway.

For SORN to be valid, it doesn't matter if it is public or private land, only that it is not a public road - which has to be a road and repairable at public expense.

Not that it is private land, the requirement is that it is not a public road.

If it is a Tesco car park and not a public road, a SORN would be valid - public access is irrelevant.

As above, the requirement for SORN is that the vehicle is not kept or used on a public road - a road repairable at public expense. So for the offence, the location has to be both 'a road' and 'repairable at public expense' (Eng. Wales & N.I.)

You only had until midnight the day after the crossing to pay the fee, if you were later than that, the payment is held as a credit for future crossings and not accepted for that earlier crossing.

The screenshot of the certificate shows that it provides cover for any vehicle: owned by, or hired to, or loaned to, or leased to, Any employee, but excludes vehicles provided by the policyholder. So it would provide cover for you using your own car while delivering pizzas, but would not provide cover for vehicles provided by the policyholder. Which is different a business policy that sgtbush is confusing it with.

1 any vehicle owned by, hired,loaned or leased TO any employee TO is the operative word. The poster stated to Hastings he didn't need business insurance as he was covered. But he/she isn't. The vehicle did not belong to the business, if it did they would of been insured. That I what the business owners policy states. The delivery driver had their own car. Hastings in theory could report tho matter to the police nd the police could take action As in post 5, as the vehicle is owned by the employee, so the ERS business use cover is valid, which excludes vehicles provided by the policyholder. While using the vehicle privately, cover is provided by Hastings. While using the vehicle for delivering pizzas, cover is provided by ERS.

From the OP's first post, Hastings were aware of their occupation as a pizza delivery driver when taking out the private use insurance, but do not provide business use cover. From post 5, ERS provide the business use cover when employed delivering pizzas. The claim is nothing to do with Hastings, it needs to be dealt with ERS.

As I read it, while delivering for the company, the OP is covered by the company's insurance. The third party is incorrectly claiming from the OP's own insurance company, which does not cover while delivering for the company - which has caused the OP's problem.

It would depend on the status of the car park. If it is considered to be a 'public place', then the various sections of the Road Traffic Act would apply, if it was a private car park and not considered to be a 'public place', they would not.

The offence is contrary to s.29(1), Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1988: 'If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence'. The exemption for motor traders for vehicles kept on business premises is s.29(2) © of the same act. The power to clamp and remove unlicensed vehicles is Sch.2A of the same act - and would apply if it was in a supermarket car park or on a road.

The exemption for motor traders only applies to vehicles kept at business premises, which may be why the DVLA removed it from the supermarket car park.

The Late Licensing Penalty is treated as a civil matter. Using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is a criminal offence, if the out of court settlement offer is not paid, it is a matter for a court case in magistrates' court.

If the parking bays belong to the flats, get confirmation of that from the agency.

The road itself may be a public road, it is the status of the parking bay that is needs to be established.

If the parking bay belongs to the block of flats, and so is not part of a road repairable at public expense, a SORN is valid.

Was it parked on the road, or a parking bay off the road?

You need to establish the status of the land where the car was parked] - public road or not - is it a road repairable expense - the local council usually have maps of roads they are responsible for. A SORN vehicle being driven for a an obligatory MOT test is an exempt vehicle as far as licensing is concerned, so it would be of no interest to Halfords.

The usual problem is that an 'over enthusiastic' DVLA contractor clamps a vehicle which is not actually on a public road, and informs the DVLA of the alleged offence, they then start action for the offence relying on that information. Once they are shown that the vehicle was not on a public road, they discontinue.

They are usually Road Traffic Act 1988 matters, where the definition in some sections is 'a road, or other public place', which can include car parks. The OP''s offence - s. 29, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - can only be committed on a 'public road'.

For the offence, it needs to be a road repairable at public expense- not a car park.

For DVLA purposes, a public road is (in England & Wales) 'a road repairable at public expense'. You need to establish the status of the land where your car was parked - part of a 'public road' or not. In the case of Clarke v Kato and Cutter vEagle Star (1988), the house of Lords decision was that a 'car park' is not a 'road'. There have been cases of mistakes by the DVLA contractors clamping vehicles that were not on a public road.