fined £548 for not having road tax, !!!!!!? Need advice

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

How much of the OPs(eventually) paid tax goes towards the Bodmin Moor roads?

I've no idea I'm sure you can tell us?

But I do know that nationally the government takes three times as much in motoring taxes as it spends on the roads.

http://www.iam-bristol.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=538&Itemid=1

Beenie

Just a general observation here but you all do know that the police use ANPR equipment that links straight through to DVLA? They can tell in seconds if you're taxed and insured.

The second point is that you should not ignore official letters. Especially from the police, courts, tax office etc. They do not go away, and the problem just gets worse. Courts are particularly hard if they think you've been showing contempt.

The OP should now be prompt in his dealings with the court clerk, tell the truth and see what happens. Don't be tempted to say anything foolish as they have heard it all before. I would like to know how this turns out for him, and wish him well.

daveyjp

Curiouser and curiouser.

"I got stopped for no road tax last November and received the court summons on may 19th and had since forgotten about it. I received a letter from the Court today with a fine, I had missed the court date on the 11th and as a result my fine has exploded to £548 (£400 fine, £58.34 back duty and £90 costs) for no road tax from June til November last year.

I was told by a friend that if I complete a statutory declaration that I did not receive the summons, the court date would be rescheduled (as it is within 21 days of the court date) to another date in which i will plead guilty and pay the fine as it was initially intended.

I want to reset the court date and pay the fine immediately, and have since booked in to my local magistrates for the coming Friday.

I understand there are large consequences with lying while making a statutory declaration. How likely is it and how strongly are they going to question whether or not i received the summons, given that in any case I simply cannot prove something that I did not receive.

Appreciate all the feedback. Cheers"

Advice from that website was to fess up and pay. Perjury can be problematic.

Joe_Horner

daveyjp wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser.

[...]

Perjury can be problematic.

Yep, especially when you effectively admit to it online before committing it. No telling who from that court might be a user here (or on the other site) and tie up the details like dates, fines etc

UsernameAlreadyExists

I shall be driving without road tax tomorrow. On my way to a pre-arranged MOT test. Because I have no road tax, I will of course, be more dangerous, more likely to involved in an accident, and as such a be complete menace to society. If, on the same journey, I need to get fuel because the car is running on fumes ... then I am a total criminal and need to be fined heavily. Where the hell is the sense in that?


Road tax is pathetic, stupid, and all the laws surrounding it are too. It should be on consumption. £285 to have it sat on my drive for 365 days of the year, and using it 5 or 6 times takes the p1ss. The amount of CO2 that my car belches out is directly proportional to the amount that I drive it - if I want to pollute an entire city, I'll have to buy a lot of petrol - not that CO2 has anything to do with anything anyway.


Bah.

Johno100

daveyjp wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser.

Advice from that website was to fess up and pay. Perjury can be problematic.

Nice bit of Googling :T

I'd be surprised if we hear from the OP again.

Johno100

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

I shall be driving withouRoad tax is pathetic, stupid, and all the laws surrounding it are too. It should be on consumption. £285 to have it sat on my drive for 365 days of the year, and using it 5 or 6 times takes the p1ss. The amount of CO2 that my car belches out is directly proportional to the amount that I drive it - if I want to pollute an entire city, I'll have to buy a lot of petrol - not that CO2 has anything to do with anything anyway.

Agreed, add VED on to the price of fuel, save a fortune in administration alone. Not sure why the principle of 'the polluter pays' doesn't extend to VED.

nobbysn*ts

Johno100 wrote: »

Agreed, add VED on to the price of fuel, save a fortune in administration alone. Not sure why the principle of 'the polluter pays' doesn't extend to VED.

All tax is on a sliding scale. If you can afford more than one car, you can afford to pay more. If you can afford to use it 5 times in 365 days, you can afford a lot more than someone who can only afford one car for the entire family. Suck it up, and accept you're well off.

Joe_Horner

Johno100 wrote: »

Agreed, add VED on to the price of fuel, save a fortune in administration alone. Not sure why the principle of 'the polluter pays' doesn't extend to VED.

The main argument against this was always that the tax disk gave at least a yearly (more often 6 monthly) check that the car was MOTd and insured. Obviously, as of later this year that excuse is straight out the window.

One interesting thing with doing it would be that it could seriously undermine the government's support of the car industry by offering reduced VED on "newer, cleaner" cars. The way I drive my old Pug 405 I get the same sort of economy as many people I know with supposedly more economic cars but I pay more tax because the figures say theirs are better.

On the other hand, it might actually encourage people to drive more economically (which also tends to be safer), so it's not going to happen

UsernameAlreadyExists

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

All tax is on a sliding scale. If you can afford more than one car, you can afford to pay more.

Because there's no tax on the purchase of a car?