SORN fine on land where private clamping is in place

[noodles71]

I am in disbelief this can happen as I feel I have not done anything wrong and the whole point of this draconian legislation is to stop people using their car on the public roads.

 

I have a valid SORN and the acknowledgement from the DVLA. The car is parked in a car park on a private estate. The access road to the car park is signed as a private road. The car park itself has signs up stating that it is managed by a private company and I must organise parking permits with them or risk a clamp. The only maintenence being done on the estate is the same guy that cleans the stairwells etc... he is the one that cleans up the mess on the road when foxes get into the bins. The car has never been on the access road and as far as I thought if a private clamping operation is in place on the marked bays (which is signed as such) and the access road is signed as a private road I am doing the right thing as it could not be a public road.

 

I am very tempted to let them take me to court on this. Could a judge really think I was doing the wrong thing here.

 

cheers,

Greg

[hungrybear]

depends on the covanant of the car park. It may say that a car must be fully road legal to park there.

[noodles71]

I don't think there is such a stipulation. As a renting tenant I have never been informed that is the case. Either way, I would have thought that it would be an civil issue between my estate managers and myself and that they would be taking it up with me first.

 

Incidently, I checked the signs on the roads today. The access road is signed "Private Parking Residents Only" and there are 11 signs before you get to my end on the road that state parking on the road will earn you a £70 clamp & release managed by the estate management. Surely if the road was a public highway then a private company would not be putting up "By Order" signs and clamping vehicles. And then when you get to where I have actually parked there are 2 signs. The old one that says private parking residents & authorised vehicles only. Then there is a newer one obviously to comply with the latest clamping laws that states I am making a contractual arrangement by parking here and agree to charges if I am unauthorised.

 

I'd have though I'd have a pretty good chance of convincing a judge I thought I was doing the right thing and parking on private property.

[noodles71]

After looking at previous threads I called the council to enquire about the road being adopted. They confirm it is not adopted and is down on their register as a private road. As I do not want the car anymore and have just been lazy ringing up a scrap dealer I'm just going to wait for the DVLA people to hopefully take it and crush it. I'm going to have so much fun with this if they think they can continue to extort money from me over this.

[hungrybear]

whole point of this draconian legislation is to stop people using their car on the public roads.

 

 

No No No Greg. The whole point is to develop an effective stealth tax system to supplement dvla's income and reduce the funding needed from central Government.

 

and

 

'I am making a contractual arrangement by parking here and agree to charges if I am unauthorised. '

 

- this is what you need to check re my first post.

 

 

You do realise that if you let them tow/crush they'll try and do you for more wedge?

 

I would suggest you get a 'sod off' letter off asap

[noodles71]

Thanks for the advice hungrybear. I would have thought that if the council has confirmed the road is a private road and is definately unadopted then they can't take my car. This same road name written on the letter is the one confirmed by the council that in no way being maintained with public funds.

 

If they do remove my car then they have no lawful reason to base themselves on. I would have thought that they would be the ones then paying out, possibly even being guilty of theft and wilful damage. I know they will try everything on but in the end the law comes down to requiring the road to be maintained with public funds. I know it will generate lots of paperwork and correspondance but they are ultimately at fault here and any reasonable costs incurred by me can be claimed back. Call me a sadist but I get pleasure from taking the red tape brigade to task.

[buzby]

I'm sure the 'private road' approach is irrelevant with the Finance Act amendment. To prevent claming the SORN vehicle needs to be on your OWN property (driveway) a communal parking area - whether adopted or not, is now fair game as of 2008. You might want to check this out to satisfy yourself that you are not storing up trouble for later.

Edited November 24, 2009 by buzby

[Raykay]

The Finance Act 2008 does not alter V.E.R.A in respect of the definition of a Public Road, it is still a road 'maintained at public expense'. SORN can be declared for vehicles used or kept on roads that are not maintained at public expense.

 

The Finance Act - Schedule 45, amends V.E.R.A. and gives powers to enter private land, (except the curtilage of a dwelling etc.) and immobilise and remove vehicles where there is no current licence or SORN declaration in force.

 

 

From some posts I have read it seems that DVLA, or its contractors, are exceeding their powers in some situations in respect of vehicles that are not on a public road, correctly SORN'd and still being clamped.

[hungrybear]

 

From some posts I have read it seems that DVLA, or its contractors, are exceeding their powers in some situations in respect of vehicles that are not on a public road, correctly SORN'd and still being clamped.

 

 

As I've posted previously, it's almost as if dvla enforcement have been given a financial quota. Their letters and actions appear to me to resemble more and more the actions and cheap tricks you expect from a 3rd rate debt collector. One of the most illegal sentences in any letter is

 

'if you do not have an acknowledgement letter you still have to pay the fine'

[noodles71]

As far as all the reading I have studied Raykay is right. I've googled many of the keywords like finance act, SORN, VERA, public road and cannot find anywhere that it says they can remove the vehicle. When a SORN is in place then they can't clamp or remove the vehicle on property deemed not to be maintained at public expense. There is nothing on the DVLA website that shows my particular position to be against the law. Nor a mention that I need permission from the owner of the property. An unlicensed car at a car park like Tesco's can be removed but not if a SORN is in place and there is no evidence that the vehicle is being used. It gets even harder I believe if the parking bays are attached to dwellings. The estate management can apply to have a private company remove it but they must exhaust all reasonable steps in contacting the registered keeper before they move it. As a search on the registration number would give them the correct address for sending me a notice they would have needed to have done this. At the bare minimum a notice on the car would have to be placed for a week before it could be taken away. This was the closest situation that matches I could find from the minutes of a meeting being held at a tenants association of a council owned block of flats.

 

Put simply it seems that if a SORN is in place on land not deemed to be maintained with public funds then just the land owner and not the DVLA, Police or Council can get the vehicle removed after taking all reasonable steps to identify and request the registered keeper to remove it. The only mitigating circumstances I could find was if it would impede the emergency services in their duties but they could only move it out of the way and not remove it.

[noodles71]

And I think hungrybear is the most correct out of all this thread, they are out to extort money and not justly enforce the law. I wonder if a defamation case against the DVLA's agents would carry any weight. After all, using an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is a serious charge to make against a person, especially if I was deranged enough to want to apply for a job in law enforcement.

[hungrybear]

 

Put simply it seems that if a SORN is in place on land not deemed to be maintained with public funds then just the land owner and not the DVLA, Police or Council can get the vehicle removed after taking all reasonable steps to identify and request the registered keeper to remove it. The only mitigating circumstances I could find was if it would impede the emergency services in their duties but they could only move it out of the way and not remove it.

 

I agree and their (landowners) only option would be to move to secure storage for a time and then crush or sell to recover costs. Write and challenge dvla with a photograph and not on publicly maintained land statement and ask them how explicitly you are in breach of any statute and exactly which sections of which statutes you are in breach of.

[buzby]

It would appear that the right to enter private land is being used as a double-edged sword, and re-reading the acts I can see why a 'narrow' interpretation of it would give them the aparrent right to lay claim to a vehicle not lawfully taxed - a SORN only being relevant if within the curtilage of a private dwelling.

 

Whether this can be successfully challenged will depend on whether DVLA plan to stick to their guns and take it to court. Only with a few failures behind them will they perhaps modify their stance, but at the moment - I do not see a clear path to an unobstructed rejection of their assertion.

[noodles71]

The supposed aim of the legislation was to stop unlicensed "pool" cars being used by undesirables and then being parked in shopping centres and other private property to avoid them being clamped. You are right about the SORN notice not being enough to stop them but from my reading (and I am no lawyer) it is only in cases where they have proof the vehicle is still being used on the public highway and not parked in a place that is exclusively used by owners/tenants of adjacent private dwellings. So a valid SORN and parking at Tescos is a line ball call while being next to a private dwelling is okay. I still have a good case though by way of my rusted brake discs and mould under the vehicle as proof it has not been out on a public road or driven anywhere. It currently ticks off most of the boxes on the DVLA website as being signs it is abandoned. Only that it has a SORN so they can take their money grubbing operation somewhere else.

[hungrybear]

and yet, on the direct.gov web site:

 

What is SORN?

Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) means that, by law, when a keeper of a vehicle does not tax a vehicle because it is not being used or kept on a public road, DVLA must be told. A SORN is valid for 12 months unless you tax , sell, permanently export or scrap the vehicle before the 12 months have expired. The legislation that covers SORN is the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

 

 

...So someone is misleading someone. To my mind that in itself is a complete defence to any boat attachments (rollocks) dvla may chose to come out with

[hungrybear]

And we can always go to the book of rules:

 

Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, Regulation 26, schedule 4:

 

"the required declaration" means a declaration made to the Secretary of State by a person surrendering a vehicle licence or the keeper of a relevant vehicle to the effect that (except for use under a trade licence) he does not for the time being intend to use or keep the vehicle on a public road and will not use or keep the vehicle on a public road without first taking out a vehicle licence (or if appropriate a nil licence) for the vehicle;

 

as found at:

 

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002

 

If is not for me to say that there seems to be some vera/finance act smoke and mirrors confusion attempts by the dvla here.

 

It is quite clear on there own website that the above is all that applies

[buzby]

Afraid what they say on their own website has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. It may be well meaning, it may be an interpretation, but it is NOT the law.

 

For this, ONLY the Act itself has any relevance, and reliance on 'what they say on their werbsite' cannot be used as a defence, only mitigation.

[Raykay]

I found this from DVLA, maybe not the law, but it explains the reasoning behind the changes. Sections 7.2,7.3 and 8 seem relevant to SORN and that the only requirement for SORN is that the vehicle is off the public road.

 

 

 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO

THE VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (IMMOBILISATION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2008

2008 No. 2266

1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) on behalf of the Department for Transport and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. It contains information for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

2. Description

2.1 This instrument provides that, unless within the curtilage or vicinity of a dwelling, a stationery vehicle may be immobilised, removed or impounded where there is reason to believe that an offence in respect of using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle under S.29 (1) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) is being committed in relation to it. There is also power to enter so as to immobilise or remove a vehicle.

2.2 It also provides for increases in the prescribed charges for the release, removal and storage of vehicles and for the surety payment.

3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory instruments

3.1 The prescribed charges and surety payments were last increased in 2001. The proposed increases are not related to the general rate of inflation, but are set to recover costs in the case of prescribed charges and are in lieu of vehicle excise duty (VED) in the case of surety payments. Further explanation is provided in paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6.

4 Legislative Background

4.1 The instrument amends the Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997. There are no current plans to consolidate the regulations.

4.2 The amendments relating to immobilisation, removal or impounding of vehicles are consequent to amendments to S.29 of and Schedule 2A to VERA made by S.145 of and Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2008.

5. Territorial Extent and Application

5.1 This instrument applies throughout the United Kingdom.

6. European Convention on Human Rights

6.1 As the instrument is subject to negative resolution procedure and does not amend primary legislation, no statement is required.

7. Policy Background

7.1 The Chancellor in his Budget statement announced new powers to clamp or impound unlicensed vehicles irrespective of whether they are parked on a public road or elsewhere.

7.2 If the current keeper of an unlicensed vehicle is not properly recorded on the DVLA register the only recourse is to clamp or impound the vehicle. The policy intention is to prevent evaders of vehicle excise duty from using off-road areas such as unadopted roads, commons, public car parks or roads maintained by Housing Associations to place themselves beyond the reach of the enforcement authorities.

7.3 As these areas are off the public road it will still be possible to make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) instead of licensing. This measure will therefore force those who are not properly registered with DVLA to submit their details either through licensing or making a SORN.

7.4 It will not be possible to take action against vehicles parked in areas associated with a dwelling, such as garages or driveways so there will be no invasion of a homeowner’s privacy.

7.5 The amendments to increase charges are based on the current costs to Government of operating the wheel clamping contract. It cost the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency approximately £18.1m to operate the wheel clamping contract in 2007/08 (costs being limited to the contract value). In that year the Agency recovered approximately £7m for HM Treasury. DVLA has improved the cost effectiveness of its wheel clamping operation so that the unit cost has fallen, but even given this there is still a loss per vehicle. The increased charges are needed to partially close this funding gap. The increased charges will still not recover the full costs of the wheel clamping contract. Were they to do so, the high costs might deter offenders from reclaiming their vehicles.

7.6 The surety charges are paid in lieu of VED and are recoverable on production of a vehicle licence. Therefore the rates for surety payments are linked to current rates of VED with appropriate adjustments and rounding to ensure they are proportionate, reasonable and easy to apply.

8 Impact

8.1 An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. Only those who fail to meet their legal obligation to license their vehicles or make a statutory Off Road Notification will be affected. For the same reasons it was not considered necessary to conduct a public consultation.

9 Contact

Mr Dave Warren at Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency, telephone number 01792 384594 or e-mail at dave.warren@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

[hungrybear]

I believe that there has been some confusion here caused by the difference between unlicensed and SORN. For example in ray's post 7.3 applies to SORN and 7.4 applies to unlicensed.

 

Far be it for me to suggest that dvla are seeking to cause the confusion for themselves.

 

Buzby, post 16 is direct from the legislation website

[Raykay]

Not really

 

On a public road - Licenced - OK

Not on a public road - SORN - OK

Anywhere (except curtilage of a dwelling etc.) - Not licenced or SORN'd - Clamped!

[hungrybear]

Not really

 

On a public road - Licenced - OK

Not on a public road - SORN - OK

Anywhere (except curtilage of a dwelling etc.) - Not licenced or SORN'd - Clamped!

 

 

AT last someone breaks it down in to english that even a fick bear can understand.

[noodles71]

Phew,

 

As my old banger is SORN'ed, parked on privately regulated private property directly under my bedroom window the DVLA can kiss my a*se. I guess this is why they never clamped it in the first place.

 

One can only deduce that sending me a notice means it is all about PROFIT and EXTORTION. I wonder if the funding shortfall mentioned in the policy statement has anything to do with the jobsworths who acted on behalf of the DVLA in this case were paid for nothing. I guess they are just preying on the 99% of people that unlike me just pay up.

 

Thanks to all for their input, I hope it helps to clear things up for others who get accused in future.

[hungrybear]

I strongly believe noodles that they are (perhaps purposefully) confusing SORN and unlicensed.

 

The icing on the cake would be a letter from the owner of the land stating that the cars ok there.