Missed car tax payment, fined by DVLA

Joe_Horner

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Different legislation.


MOT and Insurance are covered by s.47 and s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988, which only mentions 'use', and is accepted that it includes available to use - kept on the road.


Vehicle licensing is covered by The Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994. s.29 creates the offence of using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, so, by the wording of the act, the offence is complete whether the vehicle is being used or just kept on a public road.

.

Yep, well aware that it's different legislation, but the courts are generally loathe to use different definitions of words between different Acts. It leads to confusion.

So, having decided that "use" does not have to be driven in relation to two offences, they will tend to apply the same definition to other related matters, even when they arise in a different Act.

The question of "keeping" arises because it's conceivable that you could "keep" a car on the road which is not "available for use". Earlier case law found that a vehicle that was disable to the extent that it couldn't turn a wheel could not be "used" and VERA was drafted while that was still accepted.

So you couldn't be charged for no insurance or MOT on, say, a car with no engine and up on blocks but you could be charged for it not being taxed because it was still being "kept".

Later case law appears to have reversed that interpretation, but statutes don't usually get re-written (at least, not quickly) simply because case-law makes some of the wording redundant

Tilt

A car needs to be subject to an insurance policy to be "kept" on a public road as well as tax (or VED). Not sure it needs an MOT if it isn't being "used".

Rover_Driver

Joe_Horner wrote: »

So you couldn't be charged for no insurance or MOT on, say, a car with no engine and up on blocks but you could be charged for it not being taxed because it was still being "kept".

Later case law appears to have reversed that interpretation,

Nothing has been reversed, keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is an offence.


V.E.R.A. specifically mentions 'keeping' and came into force in 1994, the Road Traffic Act came into force later in 1988 and there was no mention of 'keeping', or anything similar, in s.47 or s.143, and there has been no later legislation to add 'keeping' to them because it is accepted that under that legislation,'using' includes 'available to use'.


Different legislation - different definitions.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

A car needs to be subject to an insurance policy to be "kept" on a public road as well as tax (or VED). Not sure it needs an MOT if it isn't being "used".

It needs an MOT and insurance if it is used on a road - not necessarily a public road - s.47 & s,143, Road Traffic Act 1988.


It is accepted that the meaning of the word 'used' in that context includes 'available to be used'.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It needs an MOT and insurance if it is used on a road - not necessarily a public road - s.47 & s,143, Road Traffic Act 1988.


It is accepted that the meaning of the word 'used' in that context includes 'available to be used'.

I was clarifying this:

So you couldn't be charged for no insurance or MOT on, say, a car with no engine and up on blocks but you could be charged for it not being taxed because it was still being "kept".

I say you could be charged IF the car was on a public road minus the engine. And yes, unless it is SORN'd, it needs both tax and insurance whether it is kept on the road or not.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

I say you could be charged IF the car was on a public road minus the engine.

I agree, it would depend on the circumstances at the time, if it was considered to still be a motor vehicle - despite some parts missing etc., it would still be subject to the legislation.

londonTiger

The DVLA seem tohave their IT updates set to the most "convenient" timing too.

Two times in a row I left my tax disc renewal to the last minute. just before midnight 31th March.

I guess that's when their prices increase for the following year so the website is inaccessible. I tried but failed to order the tax disc twice and had to quickly do it 1-2am in the morning to avoid a fine.

No fine received for not being taxed for the 1-2 hours but I did end up having to pay the higher rate - all because their website was taken offline for the last few hours.

bigjl

I must admit i don't have much sympathy for somebody that fails to look at their windscreen for two months.

A couple of day or a week i perhaps understandable when life is a bit hectic.

But 2 months!

It does make me wonder when this car last had the tyres checked for tread or tyre pressures checked.

I don't think there is anyway to get out of any of these fines as the offences have been committed.

Probably lucky there was not pther offences such as failing to inform the Dvla of a change of address.

Joe_Horner

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Nothing has been reversed, keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is an offence.


V.E.R.A. specifically mentions 'keeping' and came into force in 1994, the Road Traffic Act came into force later in 1988 and there was no mention of 'keeping', or anything similar, in s.47 or s.143, and there has been no later legislation to add 'keeping' to them because it is accepted that under that legislation,'using' includes 'available to use'.


Different legislation - different definitions.

No.

The RTA (in its current form) came into effect in 1988, which is before VERA (1994) but that's really a red herring.

At the time of the RTA, the leading case regarding the meaning of "using" was Hewer V Cutler [1974] which decided that an immobile vehicle that couldn't turn its wheels was outside the definition of "using".

This distinguished the case of a car that couldn't move with respect to the earlier ruling in Elliot v Grey (1960) which had found that a car that was jacked up and with its battery removed was still being "used". Effectively, they decided that the degree of immobility might make a difference to whether or not a car was being "used".

This was the leading case when VERA came into force in 1994 In fact, a lot of the wording came from the vehicle Excise Act 1971, which even pre-dated the case above, and the distinction between using and keeping was part of the reasoning used in that case.

So, in order to include such a vehicle in the requirements for VED, it was necessary to specify "using" (which wouldn't include the immobilised vehicle and "keeping" (which would).

The RTA 1988 only specified "using" for whatever reason parliament decided. It's entirely possible that this was intentional wording because a car simply sitting on the highway poses no greater risk than any other immobile object - which would not require insurance or an MOT. It's generally only when you start to actually use the vehicle that these things matter.

Despite that, in Pumbien v Vines (1995), which was after both Acts were in force, the courts decided that the distinction in the earlier case was an artificial and somewhat subjective one (how immobile is immobile?) and that "using" could equally apply to an immobilised vehicle.

This is now the lead ruling on the matter and has removed the distinction drawn in the earlier case.

As for having "different definitions for different legislation" - that's straight out of the Looking Glass!

Lewis_Carrol wrote:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Tilt wrote: »

I was clarifying this:

So you couldn't be charged for no insurance or MOT on, say, a car with no engine and up on blocks but you could be charged for it not being taxed because it was still being "kept".

I say you could be charged IF the car was on a public road minus the engine. And yes, unless it is SORN'd, it needs both tax and insurance whether it is kept on the road or not.

Yes, you can now thanks to the 1995 case. But, before that, the earlier case suggested not (because of the degree of immobility). And, before that, the even earlier case suggested you could (because it didn't distinguish by degree). That's how case law works - it allows for changes of interpretation as befits time and circumstance without requiring re-writing of statues.

Rover_Driver

Joe_Horner wrote: »

So, in order to include such a vehicle in the requirements for VED, it was necessary to specify "using" (which wouldn't include the immobilised vehicle and "keeping" (which would).

There have been Road Traffic Act cases revolving around the meaning of the word 'using' within that legislation, but it is not relevant to V.E.R.A matters.

It doesn't matter if it is being used, available to be used, just parked or kept on a public road, and unlicensed, it is a specific V.E.R.A. offence and nothing to do with R.T.A. matters.