DVLA Fine SORN

halibut2209

I don't believe they can fine you twice for the same offence.

For example I was once charged with failure to produce MOT certificate and driving without an MOT certificate. Seeing as I didn't have one, they dropped the failure to produce

Rover_Driver

They are not fines, the first is an out of court settlement offer, the second is an additional liability.

mike1983_2

Rover_Driver wrote: »

They are not fines, the first is an out of court settlement offer, the second is an additional liability.

Hi Rover driver, so do you think I might be right that the additional liability will come to 3 months tax?

Thanks

Rover_Driver

The relevant period for the additional liability is from when the last licence expired, until the date on which the offence was committed - s.31, V.E.R.A. 1994.

So it would be up to three months, although I don't know if they count of the whole month for the one you were caught in, or pro-rata up to the date that month.

mike1983_2

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The relevant period for the additional liability is from when the last licence expired, until the date on which the offence was committed - s.31, V.E.R.A. 1994.

So it would be three months, although I don't know if they count of the whole month for the one you were caught in, or pro-rata up to the date that month.

Many thanks for that

halibut2209

I still disagree. The vehicle was declared SORN, so the only offence can be driving whilst the vehicle was declared off road. Had the vehicle NOT been declared SORN then you might be right, but then that would be 2 different offences. You can't be charged twice for the same offence. The only offence is driving while SORN. He can't be liable for road tax as he declared it offroad.

taffy056

halibut2209 wrote: »

The only offence is driving while SORN. He can't be liable for road tax as he declared it offroad.

I think you'll find you are wrong there, the dvla does count people liable for road tax if the vehicle is sorned then caught using it, the OP will not be done twice for the same thing, the first is the road tax that they consider should be on there, the second is fine for doing the first.

Fergie76

As has been said, there have been a number of these type of cases lately, where people only drive a few yards in a quiet street and yet seem to be caught?

Would the DVLA be obliged to give the information out under an FOI request?

Rover_Driver

halibut2209 wrote: »

I still disagree. The vehicle was declared SORN, so the only offence can be driving whilst the vehicle was declared off road. Had the vehicle NOT been declared SORN then you might be right, but then that would be 2 different offences. You can't be charged twice for the same offence. The only offence is driving while SORN. He can't be liable for road tax as he declared it offroad.

They are two two different matters, one is the offence - using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, contrary to s.29 Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.
The fact that the vehicle is SORN makes no difference to the offence.

If you are guilty of that offence you become liable for the additional liability - s.30 of the same act.

halibut2209

taffy056 wrote: »

I think you'll find you are wrong there, the dvla does count people liable for road tax if the vehicle is sorned then caught using it, the OP will not be done twice for the same thing, the first is the road tax that they consider should be on there, the second is fine for doing the first.

Then I go back to the MOT/failure to produce example I gave before. Two different offences caused by the same thing. Yet I could only be charged for one.

If they want to "charge" for both, then that should be included in their offer of settlement. By making an offer, that should be the end of it.

It's the same as when people who are on trial ask for other offences to be taken into consideration. It's so they can't then be charged for it later. Once it's over, it's over.

Your argument implies that the DVLA can assume that the person has been driving for 3 months and should be liable for the tax throughout that period. How on earth can that be legal? You can only fine or charge on what is known and proven. And in this case it's a single incident