SORN fine - Help needed please !

[Raykay]

There is no offence of 'No SORN'.

 

If the vehicles last licence expired after January 1998, it is required to have a current licence (with some exceptions) at all times.

One of the exceptions is that if it is not kept or used on a public road and there is a current SORN declaration in respect of it.

 

Even a vehicle as above is not kept or used on a public road, if there is no current SORN declaration in respect of the vehicle, it must have a current licence and if not the offence is not having a licence, contrary to s.29 V.E.R.A. 1994 - not 'No SORN'

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Thank you but am I right in believing that the licence is to keep and/ or use a vehicle on a public road? If so a person who does not wish to keep or use a vehicle on a public road has not obligation to have a licence. Is that so?

[buzby]

A licence is required under the Continuous Registration provisions, so if there is no requirement for a Licence, the Registered Keeper is required to declare SORN, which is required to be renewed every 12 months. If this is not done, then the DVLA will extract penalties based on non-compliance.

 

So whilst there is no obligation to have a licence, there is to declare SORN.

[Raykay]

There is no obligation to declare SORN, the obligation is to have a licence.

 

If the vehicle is not used or kept on a public road, instead of licensing it, you may make a SORN declaration instead. If you fail to declare SORN, or the SORN expires, it becomes an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to s.29 V.E.R.A. 1994.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Fine but that relates to vehicles kept or used on public roads, not those kept or even used on private property. Where is the letter of the law that extends to private property?

[buzby]

The latest Finance Act amendment. 'Private Property' was modified to explicitly permit residential driveways (not communal ones), so owners with no private (or shared with a neighbour) land or driveway within the curtilage of their own property. Anywhere else (excluding garage premises) is fair game.

[Raykay]

The Finance act amendment only gave powers for clamping un-licensed vehicles on private property, it made no changes to the requirement for licensing of vehicles on private property, that requirement is The Road Vehicles (Statutory Off-Road Notification) Regulations 1997, which amended V.E.R.A.1994.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Is is claimed that a SORN is a licence? If so what is it a licence for?

[buzby]

It is an alternative to a licence, and part of the 'continuous registration' requirements. So you either have a licence OR SORN, as required under the Acts.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

This is an interpretation of the law is it not? Whose is it?

[Raykay]

Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

That's not an interpretation but the sort of generalisati9on it suits the DVLA to claim gives them rights and powers to harass law abiding citizens. Which part of VERA do you suggest provides DVLA with the power(s) they claim to have?

[Raykay]

They only have powers under V.E.R.A. 1994, but what they try very hard to do is use a DCA etc. to obtain an out of court settlement rather than have the matters dealt with at court.

[buzby]

As does every other commercial organisation where no formal contract exists or a service contract where it is much easier to go for a CRA 'default' and sel;l the debt on to a third party collector for a small consideration.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

My question remains, what does DVLA claim gives it the power to demand a penalty for not submitting immediately on or before the expiry of a VEL for a vehicle that is not in use or on a public road?

[buzby]

What did they say when you asked them? (Always a ueful starting point).

[Raykay]

My question remains, what does DVLA claim gives it the power to demand a penalty for not submitting immediately on or before the expiry of a VEL for a vehicle that is not in use or on a public road?

 

If you mean a Late Licensing Penalty, s.7A The Vehicle Excise And Registration Act 1994, which was introduced in Schedule 5, Finance Act 2002.

 

It doesn't matter if it is kept or used on a public road or not, if you do not license a vehicle, you are liable for an LLP.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Raykay

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Fine, I have that, but; who claims that a SORN is a licence? If it is not, then who can accuse a keeper of 'late licensing' if they are late in returning one? The offence is late payment of VED is it not? What if no payment is due? I am sure we will get there in the end but when?

 

Have you any view on this?

 

s 50 of VERA 1994 which provides;

Time-limit for recovery of underpayments and overpayments

1 No proceedings shall be brought—

a. by the Secretary of State for the recovery of any underpayment of duty on a vehicle licence, or

b. by any person for the recovery of any overpayment of duty on a vehicle licence taken out by him, after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the period in respect of which the licence was taken out’

Would you say DVLA has one year to claim a late licensing penalty for VED due not paid or six years to claim payment for what precisely?

[Raykay]

A Late Licensing Penalty is nothing to do with of VED, it is for late, or not renewing, a licence.

There are some classes of vehicle e.g. pre 1973 Historic Vehicles where no VED is due, but they still need a licence.

 

If a SORN is not renewed on expiry, the vehicle then becomes an un licensed vehicle and if a licence is not obtained you become liable for a Late Licensing Penalty - even if you later declare SORN again.

 

s.50 Is to do with over or under payment of VED. Nothing to do with LLP.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Raykay

[angryweasel]

1842 pre dates the establishment of the Royal Mail postal service, the quoting of this case is a blatant attempt at misdirection. They are talking 'dangling swinging oval things between the male legs'. And in any event it has sod all to do with delivery. This is about service of a document under an act of law and what constitues service NOT what constitutes delivery by the royal india shipping company, captian blyth or long john silver!

 

You are prepared to swear on oath in court that a SORN was posted as previously stated and that this constitues service of the document within the meaning of the licenceing regulations as a consequece of section 7 of the interpretations act 1978.

 

The case they quote is not relevant and in any case would be superceded by the Interpretations act. If they think they have a case then they should issue court proceedings which will be vigorously defended because the Interpretations act, together with witness statements, constitutes an absoukte defence. Kindly note that this matter is fully disputed and that as such you are legally prevented from involing a third party such as a debt collector until any liability has been established.

 

Also, the acknowledgement letter system is an internal DVLA system which has no basis in law. This system attempts to impose a reverse burden of proof, which is not lawful and is not legally admissible in a court accept in cases where a reverse burden is allowable , such as section 5a of the sale of goods act.

 

- Basically you should tell them that they are talking rubbish, that you know they are and that they probably do too. So, they should either take it to court or sod off

 

section 7 of the Interpretations act 1978:

 

7 References to service by post

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

- if they want to superceed this with case law, which they cannot because a judge cannot rule against absolute statute, then the case would have to be from 1979 or later.

 

 

I have a version of this letter - for supposedly "failing to notify transfer of vehicle" It varies at the end of the "Pettit v Mitchell" paragraphin that it says at the end...

 

"In other words, delivery is not effected until the item is in the hands of the recipient as opposed to merely sending it to him and relying on normal service of documents"

 

I received this today after pleading not guilty in court last Thursday and having the case adjourned -despite my objections. I am due back in magistrates court on the 25th March - so could be interesting.

 

Can anyone find details of "Pettit v Mitchell (1842) MAN & G 819 at 841" (I have no idea what the letters / numbers mean!)

 

Apparently it has been quoted from "words and phrases legally defined" 3rd edition Vol2 D-J published by Butterworths and at circa £400 I can't afford a copy!! It would appear from the little I have managed to find to be a Sale of Goods type case - referred to as formative in the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which ironically has a section (s62) of definitions. I quote

 

""Delivery" means voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another"

 

I would say that I voluntarily "transferred possession" when I delivered the correctly filled V5, correctly addressed into the post box. The Royal Mail is, surely the appointed agent just as much as a Capita employee and the DVLA to the Secretary of State ?

[kevincharles]

Hi Guys,

 

You guyz are really good with your writings. l know l'm not on the same subject matter as you, and l apologise for that, but, l'd be really so grateful if one of you could word for me a short letter.

My post is on the DVLA forum * clamped on pvt land*

l just was in court last week and the Magistrate threw out the DVLA's case.

l need now to write a letter back to them asking for them to return my clamping charges [ £235] l was forced to pay to have the clamp removed or they would of took my car away.

If one of you guys could word a a short letter to them for me pls, and either post it here or to my pvt email, l would be so so grateful.

 

Thanks Charles

[pelham9]

Raykay

 

I am unable reading the legislation you cite and elsewhere to find any mention of a Late Licencing Penalty. (LLP)

 

Where does it come from? Is it a DVLA term?

 

The term used seems to be 'supplement'

 

I do not think this is just semantics and it gives us a different way of looking at things.

 

A fine is paid when found guilty of a criminal offence.

 

A penalty is paid for decriminalised offence such as a parking offence.

 

A supplement is something added to an original sum payable to arrive at a new sum payable.

 

If a liceence is taken out correctly the cost is say £100. If for whatever reason is not taken out correctly e.g. payment is late a supplement is payable say £80 and the licence costs £180. The £80 is not a fine or penalty both of which terms suggest an offence but an extra amount laid down in legislation that must be paid to obtain a licence in certain circumstances.

 

For declaring a vehicle SORN the fee is £0. If SORN is not declared correctly a supplement can be added to make the fee £0 + supplement.

 

There is no question of an offence or guilt so there is no need for a appeal. SORN declaration if done correctlly costs £0 otherwise it costs £80.

 

An example.

 

You go into a shop and find that an article costs £100. You can buy it at that price today. You do not have the cash so you ask whether you can come in next week to buy the article. Yes but next week the article will cost £150 - a supplement of £50. You have a choice. If you want the article (or it is a requirement in law that you have it) you will either pay £100 today or £150 next week.

 

The DVLA accepts postal declaration of SORN. The priblem is that the Royal Mail can lose post and more likely the DVLA may lose post or not deal with it properly. This is admitted by them because they ask people to contact them 'after 28 days' if they have not received a confirmation of SORN. They cannot enforce this in law and in any case 'after' means the time is not specified.

 

Many people have declared SORN correctly by post and simply posting the correct documents is enough to prove that the DVLA have received them. (Interpretation Act). The DVLA should not be able to recover any debt in a civil court but they seek to and have done so.

 

The DVLA are in a dilemma. The postal service is easy for them and convenient to 'customers'. They wish to continue the system. However the Interpretation Act is a charter for miscreants to say that they have posted the necessary documents when they have not. To head this possible disaster off they have taken a stance that the Interpretation Act does not apply ( not good law) and that their non receipt after 28 days request puts the onus on the customer to contact them ( which it does not).

 

If the customer has done his licence business online or at a designated office, (GPO or DVLA) he will have proof of the transaction and there is no problem however inefficiently the subsequent records are kept. On the other hand the postal route either leads to customers who are honest to be treated unfairly or that the DVLA and the taxpayer lose lawful revenue from thse who are prepared to lie.

 

In the present state of the law the postal service is not satisfactory for the DVLA or its customers. It should be discontinued at least for SORN and perhaps for other licence services where non- receipt by DVLA is a problem. If the DVLA wish to keep the posal service they must be prepared to lose lawful revenue form the dishonest. They nust not seek revenue from the honest as they are now doing.

[Raykay]

The Late Licensing Penalty was introduced in the Finance Act 2002 and added (among other things) sections 7A and 7B to V.E.R.A 1994:

 

“7A Supplement payable on late renewal of vehicle licence

 

(1) Regulations may make provision for a supplement of a prescribed amount to be payable in prescribed cases where—

(a) a vehicle licence taken out for a vehicle expires, and

(b) no vehicle licence is issued for the vehicle—

(i) before the end of such period beginning with the expiry of the expired licence as may be prescribed, and

(ii) for a period beginning with that expiry.

(2) A supplement under this section—

(a) shall be payable by such person, or jointly and severally by such persons, as may be prescribed;

(b) shall become payable at such time as may be prescribed;

© may be of an amount that varies according to the length of the period between—

(i) the expiry of the licence by reason of whose non-renewal the supplement becomes payable, and

(ii) the time at which the supplement is paid or that licence is renewed.

(3) A supplement under this section that has become payable—

(a) is in addition to any vehicle excise duty charged in respect of the vehicle concerned;

(b) does not cease to be payable by reason of a vehicle licence being taken out for the vehicle after the supplement has become payable;

© may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

(4) In this section—

(a) references to the expiry of a vehicle licence include a reference to—

(i) its surrender, and

(ii) its being treated as no longer in force for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 31A by subsection (4) of that section;

(b) “prescribed” means prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, regulations;

© “regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.

(5) No regulations to which subsection (6) applies shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) This subsection applies to regulations under this section that—

(a) provide for a supplement to be payable in a case where one would not otherwise be payable,

(b) increase the amount of a supplement,

© provide for a supplement to become payable earlier than it would otherwise be payable, or

(d) provide for a supplement to be payable by a person by whom the supplement would not otherwise be payable.

7B Late-renewal supplements: further provisions

 

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for notifying the person in whose name a vehicle is registered under this Act about—

(a) any supplement under section 7A that may or has become payable on non-renewal of a vehicle licence for the vehicle;

(b) when failure to renew a vehicle licence may result in the person being guilty of an offence under section 31A.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for assessing an amount of supplement due under section 7A from any person and for notifying that amount to that person or any person acting in a representative capacity in relation to that person;

(b) for an amount assessed and notified under such regulations to be deemed to be an amount of vehicle excise duty due from the person assessed and recoverable accordingly;

© for review of decisions under such regulations and for appeals with respect to such decisions or decisions on such reviews.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in particular, make provision that, subject to any modifications that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, corresponds or is similar to—

(a) any provision made by sections 12A and 12B of the Finance Act 1994 (assessments related to excise duty matters), or

(b) any provision made by sections 14 to 16 of that Act (customs and excise reviews and appeals).

(4) Sums received by way of supplements under section 7A shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”.

6 (1) In section 22 (registration regulations), in subsection (1D) (power to require details about unlicensed vehicles), after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) who does not renew a vehicle licence for a vehicle registered under this Act in his name,”.

(2) After that subsection insert—

“(1DA) For the purposes of subsection (1D)(aa) a person shall be regarded as not renewing a vehicle licence for a vehicle registered in his name if—

(a) a vehicle for which a vehicle licence is in force is registered in his name, and

(b) he does not, at such time as may be prescribed by the regulations or within such period as may be so prescribed, take out a vehicle licence to have effect from the expiry of the vehicle licence mentioned in paragraph (a).”.

7 In section 29(7) (rate of duty by reference to which penalty is calculated), for “section 2(2) to (4)” substitute “section 2(3) to (6)”.

[pelham9]

Raytac.

 

I do not find the term penalty in the whole of 7 7A 7B. Thankyou for posting it - I had read both Acts on the OPSI site.

 

I find the term supplement in the titles of 7A and 7B and their texts many times.

 

V.E.R.A. (1994) does not mention the term 'supplement'.

 

As I see it VERA stands as far as offences and penalties are concerned -there is no change. The DVLA can still take summary action in a criminal court (with a right of appeal) and the M of T will still recieve fines or penalties via the consolidated funds.

 

However this is more expensive than the civil route and less likely to succeed because the burden of proof is very onerous in in criminal courts. In addition the intimidatory activities of our poorly regulated DCAs are very successful.

 

In 2002 the Finance act was introduced. Sections 7,7A 7B are law and are additional to VERA. By making payments for VERA offences only a supplement to already required licence fees the criminal route is avoided. By making the supplement a debt to the crown the civil courts can be used ( I believe I am right) for recovery. These payments are no longer VERA penalties but supplements that the M of T can levy via DVLA.

 

These sections of the Finance Act though not in any way affecting the criminal offence and penalties laid down in VERA have successfully and lawfully transferred the money grabbing to the civil courts.

 

Many people here complain that they have been 'guilty' without a trial and without appeal. They have not - but they have been asked to pay a supplement which is a debt to the crown. They still could be taken a criminal court but the supplement system is so successful that they will not be treated thus.

 

The fact that The DVLA appear to act as judges whose decision is final i.e. without independent appeal ( except in a civil court) is parliament's and our government's fault and we might be able to remedy that very shortly.

 

I do not think it is correct to say that the LLP was introduced in the the Finance Act 2002. It was already in the VERA (1994). The Finance Act (2002) intoduced late licencing supplements (LLSs if you like) and has nothing to say about LLPs which were not affected.

[Raykay]

The Late Licensing Supplement introduced by Finance Act 2002 is for not renewing a vehicle licence when the current one expires and is treated as a civil debt.

 

Not having a licence when required etc. and failure to notify change of keeper are still criminal matters, but DVLA try very hard for an 'out of court settlement' via their debt collectors first.

 

DVLA deal with the 'Late Licensing Supplement' and the 'Out of Court Settlement' but confusingly may refer to them both as a 'Penalty'. The first would eventually be dealt with in County Court, the second in Magistrates Court.

 

The Finance Act 2002 (and other Acts before and since) are amendments to, and form part of, V.ER.A. 1994, they do not create separate legislation and the offences etc. are contrary to V.E.R.A 1994 although created later.

 

Prior to 2002 there was not a supplement or penalty just for the late licensing of a vehicle but DVLA could claim for any unpaid duty that was due if the vehicle did not have a current licence.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Raykay