We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
DVLA Fine SORN
Comments
-
Rover Keeper, you seem to speak from experience so I shall yield to that. However I think a lawyer could have a field day with it, were he/she so inclincedOne important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
halibut2209 wrote: »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.
It is a totally different situation to your MOT one.
They are not two offences - one offence and one additional liability.
Read sections 29 & 30
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/contents0 -
Interesting to know, thank you
Section 30 says that "the court shall" impose further charges. But in this case, wouldn't the "out of court settlement" negate those further charges?One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
Just to add, Section 30 says
"Where the person convicted of an offence under section 29 is the person by whom the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed was kept at the time at which it was committed, the court shall (in addition to any penalty which it may impose under that section) order him to pay the amount specified in subsection (2)."
the out of court settlement that was stated means that the OP was NOT convicted under section 29, and thus further liability is not relevant.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
The out of court settlement is only for s.29.
The additional liability, s.30, another matter entirely.0 -
Section 30 seems only applicable when convicted under section 29. The settlement would mean that said conviction wouldn't occur.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
In relation to driving the car to garage for a prebooked MOT, I think you are also allowed to drive the garage for a prebooked garage appointment to fix the car for MOT
If your car wasn't MOT'ed and you had a pre booked appointment with the garage - the MOT itself does not actually have to be bookedWeight loss challenge, lose 15lb in 6 weeks before Christmas.0 -
halibut2209 wrote: »Just to add, Section 30 says
"Where the person convicted of an offence under section 29 is the person by whom the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed was kept at the time at which it was committed, the court shall (in addition to any penalty which it may impose under that section) order him to pay the amount specified in subsection (2)."
the out of court settlement that was stated means that the OP was NOT convicted under section 29, and thus further liability is not relevant.
For the purposes of s.30, accepting the out of court settlement offer for s.29, which means that you are admitting that you are guilty, would be considered the same as a court conviction.0 -
Woah there!
"which means that you are admitting that you are guilty"
The whole point of an out of court settlement is not accepting liability or guilt! What is your basis for saying otherwise?One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
halibut2209 wrote: »Woah there!
"which means that you are admitting that you are guilty"
The whole point of an out of court settlement is not accepting liability or guilt! What is your basis for saying otherwise?
Perhaps I could have worded it better - accepted you are guilty - maybe.
These are criminal matters where you are either 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. If an out of court settlement offer for s.29 is not accepted, it is dealt with at Magistrates Court.
It's like the fixed penalty for speeding, if you accept the fixed penalty you don't go to court - but you still get the points as if you had.
An out of court settlement offer in civil cases can have a completely different meaning and result.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards