Change in Legislation

[patdavies]

This ******* government is totally enthralled by doing things by stealth.

 

See the following:

 

BACKGROUND NOTE

16. Section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994

(VERA) makes it an offence to use or keep an unlicensed

vehicle on a public road. A public road is defined in Section 62

of VERA. Schedule 2A of VERA provides for the clamping

and subsequent removal of unlicensed vehicles on the public

highway.

17. Reports from wheel-clamping teams indicate that those

wishing to evade vehicle excise duty (VED) often keep their

unlicensed vehicles off the public road where they cannot be

targeted as part of the enforcement activity conducted by

DVLA or local authorities and police forces acting on the

Agency’s behalf.

18. Clause 139 and Schedule 45 amend Section 29, Section 30

and Schedule 2A of VERA so as to permit enforcement of

VED on vehicles parked off the public road except in places

that are intrinsically part of a private dwelling or where a

Statutory Off Road Notification has been made.

 

This change - allowing clamping and/or towing of an untaxed or unSORNed vehicle from private land has been slipped through as Clause 139 of the FINANCE BILL 2008 - known fondly to you and I as the Budget.

[Rob S]

The way I understand it Pat is that a vehicle is off the public road and has been SORN'ed then they won't be able to touch it, or if the vehicle is on land which is part of a dwelling and hasn't been SORN'ed then they won't clamp it either.

[JonCris]

This is an extension of the powers they already have in the case of social housing. They have always been allowed to remove untaxed vehicles from such properties even if they are parked in the driveway unless it's SORN'd

[JonCris]

It's simply another way of keeping track of everyone. It's more information to be shared between data bases

[patdavies]

This is an extension of the powers they already have in the case of social housing. They have always been allowed to remove untaxed vehicles from such properties even if they are parked in the driveway unless it's SORN'd

 

Not quite.

 

There is ongoing debate. It is accepted that an integral garage fulfils the criterion of "intrinsically part of a private dwelling". A driveway does not, The discussion is about whether a detached garage fulfils the criterion

[JonCris]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by detached.

 

Obviously if it's used constantly for the purpose or parking your car then IMHO it could be argued as being intrinsic to the main dwelling.

 

I'm thinking for example of where all the garages are grouped together behind the properties they serve They must be considered IMHO as being part of the private dwelling

[patdavies]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by detached.

 

Obviously if it's used constantly for the purpose or parking your car then IMHO it could be argued as being intrinsic to the main dwelling.

 

I'm thinking for example of where all the garages are grouped together behind the properties they serve They must be considered IMHO as being part of the private dwelling

 

I wholly agree with you. Ultimately, I guess, it will be the opinion of a High Court judge that matters...

[tifo]

It is accepted that an integral garage fulfils the criterion of "intrinsically part of a private dwelling". A driveway does not, The discussion is about whether a detached garage fulfils the criterion

 

So it means, potentially, my car could get clamped for no road tax if it is off the road and on my own driveway, which is not a public road as defined in VERA?

[JonCris]

If it's not SORN'd yes