DVLA offering me an out of court settlement.. for £491?!!!

Wig

Can you look at the letter does it refer to Section 29 of Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994?

From what I can gather, it does not matter how long it was on the road, all that matters is that at one time it was on the road.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=vehicle+excise&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2071654&ActiveTextDocId=2071700&filesize=18227

You will in court, be subject to a fine of level 4 (£2,500) or five times the annual rate of VED which ever is the greater. Plus one twelfth (one month) of the annual rate of VED, presumably to cover the tax due for the month that the car was seen on the road.

Now then, it doesn't say "a fine up to a maximum of the level 4" it says
"is liable on summary conviction to an excise penalty of [strike]level 3[/strike] level 4 on the standard scale"

So I'm wondering if you go to court and get convicted is there any discretion allowed by the judge or does he have to issue a fine of £2500?

Lastly, I've always wondered why the DVLA are allowed to prosecute under these sections, surely that's a matter for the CPS? Or are the DVLA saying they will pass your file onto the CPS unless you pay up?

Any comments from anyone?

tomyblu

Please with the recrimination! The car was completely legally SORN for over a year, I made the mistake of leaving it on the road after the MOT, I shouldn't be fined for the whole period it was legally SORN'd.

Wig it mentions the Act 1994 but doesn't reference a subsection. If it goes to court (and it will if they don't reduce the fine, I can't afford it) it's looks like a straight forward fine, I've no idea why it's so high, it would destory me in my final year of uni, I'd probably have to leave and get a full time job

Should I call my local DVLA and try to explain things to them? The only number on the letter is the payment centre.

tomyblu

The CPS isn't mentioned, I guess we'll see what the judge will do!

RadoJo

I think what people are saying is that it doesn't matter how long it was on the road after it had been SORNed, but the fact that it was on the road at all means you're subject to a penalty. The reason the penalty is high is presumably because it is supposed to be a deterrent - if they have offered you a settlement which (from what it sounds like) is around 20% of what you could be fined, then you may be better off taking their offer and asking to agree some kind of payment plan. I don't think letting it get to court is the best idea, so I would advise contacting them before that happens.

Jon_Tiffany

boyse7en wrote: »

It sounds like you are being fined twice for the same offence - failure to display a tax disc and failure to declare SORN.

I can't see how you can be fined for both.

No, these are two seperate offences. He didn't fail to declare SORN, he kept a vehicle on the public highway while a SORN was in effect.

Typically DVLA make you pay backdated VED for the period the SORN was in effect.

Wig

Tomyblu, if I were you, I would look into going to court, getting a fine of whatever, hopefully the judge will be allowed a discretion and will be sensible and drop it to something like £150 - £200

If it hits the fan I would choose prison instead of paying such a ridiculous fine.

Can anyone confirm, if you refuse to pay such a criminal fine you can opt to go to prison instead? Isn't that why there are so many TV licence evaders who 'choose' to go to prison?

Please come back and keep us updated

Coupon-mad

Some useful advice more recently for the OP but there has been guesswork and criticism as well which hasn't helped.

Tomyblu, can I suggest that you register and post your initial query - but in a clearer way - on pepipoo forums here (it's a free forum to help motorists fightback against fines etc):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

You need advice on what to do from a specialist forum, pepipoo has the expertise.

HTH

missile

Wig wrote: »

Isn't that why there are so many TV licence evaders who 'choose' to go to prison?

The number of license evaders being caught has risen sharply but the numbers being jailed has fallen dramatically since the all time high in 1993

Wig

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need advice on what to do from a specialist forum, pepipoo has the expertise.

But don't forget us when you have a result, we need to learn these things too.

Wig

missile wrote: »

I had not heard of anyone being jailed for TV licence evasion. Do you have a link to support this comment?

Well, no, I don't but it has been commonly quoted on current affairs programs saying things like "most TV licence evaders in prison are the housewives"..... as they are at home all day and get caught out.

Ok, heres the first result in a google search for you
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/courts-jail-845-for-not-paying-tv-licence-fines-1428836.html

The point was not a comment on the pros and cons of jailing TV licence evaders but rather using that as an example to illustrate that it must be possible to say to the court "I'm not paying, give me a prison sentence instead".