Car declared sorn in our parking area

eamon

Slightly similar (or not at all) somebody on my street fancies themselves as a motor trader/vehicle recovery operator and was dumping vehicles. I've reported a few (as has a neighbour) and the vehicles has gone. Now the cheeky so & so has dumped one minus the number plates. I can't be bothered to look for the visible VIN and use that data as a possible route.

dogshome

So the parking area is owned by the houses opposite - No. 1 -5


Simplest solution seems to be marking out numbered parking bays that fill the area, any stranger parking there is guilty of *trespass


* Legally it's a nightmare to pursue, but probably enough to scare off an " I don't care and up yours" illegal parker

unholyangel

There are two issues here.

1. Whether there has been a criminal offence committed
2. Whether there has been a civil offence committed.

1 relies on the land being public for the intent of VERA and 2 relies on OP having a right to that land.

1 seems to be questionable, 2 seems to be fact though given OP has said the land belongs to them in the house deeds. In which case OP has a claim against them for the civil wrong of trespass.

I mean if OP wanted to be an !!!! about it, they could move the car quietly to the road, erect a collapsible bollard or park their vehicle there then report the vehicle for being on a public road.

Some of the other options include giving the owner reasonable notice that it needs to be moved or that a tow truck will be hired to remove it and it will be sold to recover costs/owner will be pursued for costs. Or taking it through court for damages/removal of the vehicle.

Really though, is the neighbour aware its your land? If not, showing them your deeds may resolve it all amicably. They may have parked there not knowing it belongs to anyone.

TooManyPoints

1 relies on the land being public for the intent of VERA

Actually (1) relies firstly on the land being a "road". If it is not a road a vehicle may be left there with a SORN and not be liable to VED. It does not matter whether the land is "public" - it's whether it is a "road" that firstly matters. Only if it is a road does its status then matter.

It may be liable to be insured but that depends on whether the place involved is a "road or other public place".

Unless those questions are answered it is impossible to say what, if any offences have been committed.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Actually (1) relies firstly on the land being a "road". If it is not a road a vehicle may be left there with a SORN and not be liable to VED. It does not matter whether the land is "public" - it's whether it is a "road" that firstly matters. Only if it is a road does its status then matter.

It may be liable to be insured but that depends on whether the place involved is a "road or other public place".

Unless those questions are answered it is impossible to say what, if any offences have been committed.

Wrong again, the act requires insurance for both.

TooManyPoints

Wrong again, the act requires insurance for both.

Grief this is hard work! It depends whether it is a "road or other public place" (one definition - hence the quotes round both) or not. It doesn't depend on whether it is a road or whether it is a public place (indicating that one might need insurance and the other might not). Is that clear enough?

I'm gonna cook my dinner now so any other nit-picking may have to wait a while for clarification.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Grief this is hard work! It depends whether it is a "road or other public place" (one definition - hence the quotes round both) or not. It doesn't depend on whether it is a road or whether it is a public place (indicating that one might need insurance and the other might not). Is that clear enough?

Just so long as you understand that.

Nearly_Old

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 [penalty for using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle]

(2B) Subsection (1) does not apply to a vehicle if—

(a)the vehicle is being neither used nor kept on a public road [my emphasis], and

(b)the particulars and declaration required to be furnished and made by regulations under section 22(1D) have been furnished and made in accordance with the regulations and the terms of the declaration have at no time been breached.

Subsection (1) referred to sets out the requirements to license a vehicle. Section 22 (1D) sets out the requirements to complete a SORN.

The authority that determines that a car park is not a road is Clarke v Kato, House of Lords, 1998.

Clarke v Kato was in respect of insurance requirements and what constituted a "road" in RTA145(3)(a) and the case did highlight the issue. However this is not directly relevant as it only refers to the insurance issue. For information the definition for insurance was amended:

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/726, have extended to a road ‘or other public place’ the duty:

• to provide your name and address and produce documents to a constable
• to stop and report an accident
• to have car insurance for your vehicle

TooManyPoints

Yes it was to determine an insurance issue and the insurance requirements are different to those for VED (hence the penultimate paragraph of my post #25). But it has been cited in other cases where the definition of a "road" was required. As far as this question goes the main point put forward by the OP seems to be that the rogue car has been SORN'd and left in one of their designated parking spaces. A lot rests on whether those spaces are part of a "road" or not. If they are not (and Clarke v Kato gives some guidance on Their Lordships' reasoning on the question) then anything else about the area (whether its is public/unadopted/repairable at public expense etc.) is immaterial as far as the SORN issue goes because a vehicle must be on a road before it is considered improperly SORN'd.

Nearly_Old

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Yes it was to determine an insurance issue and the insurance requirements are different to those for VED (hence the penultimate paragraph of my post #25). But it has been cited in other cases where the definition of a "road" was required. As far as this question goes the main point put forward by the OP seems to be that the rogue car has been SORN'd and left in one of their designated parking spaces. A lot rests on whether those spaces are part of a "road" or not. If they are not (and Clarke v Kato gives some guidance on Their Lordships' reasoning on the question) then anything else about the area (whether its is public/unadopted/repairable at public expense etc.) is immaterial as far as the SORN issue goes because a vehicle must be on a road before it is considered improperly SORN'd.

For VERA1994 29 (2B) (a) the requirement specifies a "public road" which is defined in VERA1994 62 as

“public road”—(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is repairable at the public expense, and this is different to the definition of "road" in RTA1988.:
“road” , in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,
The requirement for SORN is the more restrictive.