DVLA Late License Penalty Offer

spiro

BAA1 wrote: »

If / when the latest "Continuous Insurance" legislation starts to be enforced, for a vehicle that is off the road and not insured, then it has to be SORNed. Even if a civil proceeding, I would imagine that more cases will make it to court (at least in the early stages).

See : Link

A relevant paragraph:

Latest news is this comes into force in June. They will have the powers to clamp or tow your car even if its on private property. http://www.cars.co.uk/articles/continuous-insurance-enforcement.html

birkee

asbokid wrote: »

In today's market of sky-high metal prices, the car probably had a scrap value of £150-£250.

I wonder how the DVLA and the corporate parasites that run the Agency are working this particular scam.

Who is getting the profits from the scrappings?

The taxpayer?

Thought not!

I think you are overlooking the costs incurred by the DVLA dealing with a scrap car.
What is the operating costs using DVLA systems?
£150 per hour? £250 per hour. Probably handled through several departments in the processing.

When I worked, (bout 10 years ago) I seem to recall that just raising a purchase order cost the company something like £10, that's without actually buying anything

My guess it's actually COSTING the taxpayer more, rather than the DVLA making money out of scrap cars.
Just taking the car away will have probably cost £150.

Strider590

birkee wrote: »

My guess it's actually COSTING the taxpayer more, rather than the DVLA making money out of scrap cars.
Just taking the car away will have probably cost £150.

They're using it as a threat, 9 times in 10 they'll get a payout..... Then so what if the 1 in 10 has to be scrapped at cost?

ashleypride

Wig wrote: »

You could refuse to pay the SORN debt of £80 by telling them that he did declare SORN (they cannot prove he did not) all he has to do is send in a SORN declaration he has no requirement under the law to chase it up with DVLA to get the confirmation letter despite what the DVLA may think about this.

In this case, the car was on a public road though, so saying you have SORN'ed could be asking for more trouble and make it more likely DVLA will take to court.

Paradigm

Strider590 wrote: »

ALWAYS send mail to the DVLA via recorded/signed for post!

Why?
Just ask for proof of postage when at the Post Office....it's free

Wig

ashleypride wrote: »

In this case, the car was on a public road though, so saying you have SORN'ed could be asking for more trouble and make it more likely DVLA will take to court.

On the face of it and without looking further at the relevant legislation, I agree with you. In this case it probably is better to just pay the fine and forget about it.

Good point.

Sorry OP for any confusion.

Wig

I had a new thought on this. IMHO it would not matter, that you argued you had declared SORN. If it had been registered SORN, you are right, there may have been additional penalties or different legislation would/could have been used which may or may not have resulted in a different/additional penalty.

The reason I say it would not matter is because the car was not registered SORN in the DVLA records. Just because the OP now argues that they cannot be liable for the late license debt because they had sent a SORN declaration and thus complied with their requirements under the law to avoid the late licence penalty.............. Would not mean that the DVLA could then retrospectively apply a SORN status to the car and then hit OP with *that* legislation and all relevant fines. Infact that would be the last thing the DVLA would be likely to do, what they would do is argue that OP had not declared SORN (like they always do). But then the OP just beats them in court and wins.

The relevant legislation you refer to would only apply to a car/RK which is registered as SORN.

If it were me, after thinking about it I might try it on, but the OP may still be better off just paying up.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

spiro wrote: »

Latest news is this comes into force in June. They will have the powers to clamp or tow your car even if its on private property. http://www.cars.co.uk/articles/continuous-insurance-enforcement.html

that could cause a whole can of worms to be opened couldnt it.

encroaching on private land is tresspass in theory.

damaging that land/gate or hedge to remove that vehicle can have another adverse affect the dvla wish they never started.

just for theory:

a car is on a locked gate private peice of land, the car is in a garage and locked up with its own door lock plus a external slide bolt and pad lock.

how would the dvla get access if the owner for 1. refuses access to his private locked off land?

one would assume they would hire a lock smith. to wich would the cost be passed onto the car owner/keeper?

now going onto someones private land is tresspass without permision to do so. if permission is refused, then wouldnt the owner have a right to call police and have them removed NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE? and if damage was caused to land, gate bolts,and garage door bolts isnt that criminal damage?

if we attempted to remove their clamps we would be in heaps of doo doo, so why should they have the right to to this on private land.

System

I assume the legislation will take all of that into account. (But then again we are talking about "the state" so it may not be) - But I'm sure it would be included shortly after the first few cases of trespass were taken to court

mcjordi

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

that could cause a whole can of worms to be opened couldnt it.

encroaching on private land is tresspass in theory.

damaging that land/gate or hedge to remove that vehicle can have another adverse affect the dvla wish they never started.

just for theory:

a car is on a locked gate private peice of land, the car is in a garage and locked up with its own door lock plus a external slide bolt and pad lock.

how would the dvla get access if the owner for 1. refuses access to his private locked off land?

one would assume they would hire a lock smith. to wich would the cost be passed onto the car owner/keeper?

now going onto someones private land is tresspass without permision to do so. if permission is refused, then wouldnt the owner have a right to call police and have them removed NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE? and if damage was caused to land, gate bolts,and garage door bolts isnt that criminal damage?

if we attempted to remove their clamps we would be in heaps of doo doo, so why should they have the right to to this on private land.

i would use reasonable force to remove said DVLA.