MOT run out on broken down car involved in court case...?

Car_54

DoaM wrote: »

Surely VED (or SORN) is needed regardless? I agree that an MOT may not be needed if the vehicle is on private land, but VED (or SORN) is always needed?

VED is only required if the car is used on a road "maintainable at public expense". Not needed on a private road.

takman

marythemoose wrote: »

No, not really :P thing is, I can't MOT it because it's broken down, and I can't SORN it because I've got nowhere to put it...

Is there any reason why you couldn't put the car into storage and then apply for SORN and claim back the cost in court. Although i don't think this is a good idea considering you don't even know where the dealer is and have no way to find them. Even if you win the case i doubt you will get the money from then from the sound of it.

Why are you even keeping the car if you don't want to repair it? are you expecting to be able to return it to them sometime in the future?

marythemoose

wgl2014 wrote: »

As I understand it the relevant offence for not having an MOT refers to using the car on a road so not currently an issue for the OP.

When is the tax and insurance due as this will be the time the car will need to be declared SORN?

I would suggest either finding somewhere to store the car privately or getting rid. If the seller has done a runner don't expect everything to be sorted in January at court.

Insurance expired in October and was automatically renewed, tax is being paid monthly DD.

I'm looking into somewhere to have it stored now.

marythemoose

bertiewhite wrote: »

You must know where you bought it from surely?

I was without a car when we bought it (new car was needed to replace previous breakdown/write-off) so I caught the bus and met him in a supermarket car park; at the time it seemed he was doing me a favour by meeting near the bus stop, obviously in hindsight it meant I didn't know where he lived. Same when I collected the car.

marythemoose

takman wrote: »

Is there any reason why you couldn't put the car into storage and then apply for SORN and claim back the cost in court. Although i don't think this is a good idea considering you don't even know where the dealer is and have no way to find them. Even if you win the case i doubt you will get the money from then from the sound of it.

Why are you even keeping the car if you don't want to repair it? are you expecting to be able to return it to them sometime in the future?

I'm looking into somewhere to store it now, with a view to claiming back costs as you say.

I got a signature for one of the 'signed for' letters I sent, and he defended the claim made against him, but has since returned all letters from both myself and the court with 'no longer at this address'.

Why don't you think I'll get any money back??

I kept the car because from the start all we wanted was to return the car for a refund; I figured we could hardly get rid of the car if that was what we were asking for?

Rover_Driver

Car_54 wrote: »

VED is only required if the car is used on a road "maintainable at public expense". Not needed on a private road.

Unless exempt, a vehicle is required to be licensed wherever it is located - s.29(1), Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 'If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence'.


A SORN is one of the exemptions.

Car_54

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Unless exempt, a vehicle is required to be licensed wherever it is located - s.29(1), Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 'If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence'.


A SORN is one of the exemptions.

Quite right, thanks. I should have added "but it needs to be SORNed".

DoaM

So it means (in the end) you now agree with my previous post?

Car_54

marythemoose wrote: »

I'm looking into somewhere to store it now, with a view to claiming back costs as you say.

I got a signature for one of the 'signed for' letters I sent, and he defended the claim made against him, but has since returned all letters from both myself and the court with 'no longer at this address'.

Why don't you think I'll get any money back??

Well, the fact that he seems to have disappeared without leaving a forwarding address isn't a good start.:(

The court can rule in your favour, but they can't make him pay up. You'll still have to track him down. It's unlikely he'll pay without your employing bailiffs, and even then there's no guarantee.

Car_54

DoaM wrote: »

So it means (in the end) you now agree with my previous post?

Yes indeed. Dementia setting in ....