SORN Penalty on Private Road

neeraj89

Hi Guys.

Need your help and expert advise on a situation.

I live in a Newly built Block of flats and the entire estate is built on a PRIVATE ROAD

I got my car SORNED and parked it on a ROAD which is a part of the private estate as I was under impression that SORN cars can be parked on private roads.

Just today I received a PENALTY notice from DVLA of GBP 97.00 as they have received evedince that my car was parked on 30th August on that road (Which it was). I have to pay the fine till 22/09/2019.

Is there any way I can contest this as it was parked on a private road ?

My car is no longer parked on that spot and now I have moved it to a friend's driveway.

twhitehousescat

land to which the public do not have access to

neeraj89

twhitehousescat wrote: »

land to which the public do not have access to

I am sorry but i didn't understand ..

twhitehousescat

https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

You need to make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) when you take a vehicle ‘off the road’ and you want to stop taxing and insuring it.

Your vehicle is off the road if you don’t keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land.





the estate you parked on , has access by the public , milkman newspaper boy , delivery drivers and DVLA vans


it may well be not an ADOPTED road , however members of the public have access

neeraj89

twhitehousescat wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

You need to make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) when you take a vehicle ‘off the road’ and you want to stop taxing and insuring it.

Your vehicle is off the road if you don’t keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land.





the estate you parked on , has access by the public , milkman newspaper boy , delivery drivers and DVLA vans


it may well be not an ADOPTED road , however members of the public have access

thanks for your quick response on the matter.

so i guess i am better off paying the fine and closing the case

DUTR

neeraj89 wrote: »

thanks for your quick response on the matter.

so i guess i am better off paying the fine and closing the case

Definitely, unless you have proper space to keep the car off the road, best keep the VED active.

dogshome

Check the status of the road with the local authority - The definition of a public road is that is is maintained by public funds.
If the road/parking areas are maintained by an Estate management company or the residents - IT IS NOT PUBLIC ROAD AND THE DVLA HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER IT


My D/in Law had this problem when she bought a car privately that was trailered to her address, and parked in a Cul de Sac behind her house that housed garages for her and other residents whilst she sorted out the tax & insurance,
DVLA sent fine notice, but a check revealed the road was still owned by the Estate Developer - Letter sent pointing this out to DVLA and not another word was heard

Aretnap

twhitehousescat wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

You need to make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) when you take a vehicle ‘off the road’ and you want to stop taxing and insuring it.

Your vehicle is off the road if you don’t keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land.

the estate you parked on , has access by the public , milkman newspaper boy , delivery drivers and DVLA vans

it may well be not an ADOPTED road , however members of the public have access

This is incorrect. For the purposes of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, which is the law that governs VED, SORN etc, a public road is defined as "a road which is repairable at the public expense" (link). Public access, or lack of it, is irrelevant. So on the face of it the OP has good grounds to contest the penalty.

The misconception arises because most other motoring matters (insurance, the need for a driving licence, drink driving etc) are covered by the Road Traffic Act, and for the purposes of the RTA a public place is indeed one which is used by the general public. However it's still wrong to say that the fact that the milkman or the postman uses the road would make it a public place - if it did then your own own front garden and driveway would also be public place as the milkman and the postman also use them. To be a public place it has to be used by a broad section of the general public, rather than a fairly small number of people who have business at the address it serves. In Hallett v DPP, for example, a drink-driving conviction was overturned because a private road serving 20 houses was found not to be a public place (or at least, the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that it was a public place).

foxy-stoat

Aretnap wrote: »

To be a public place it has to be used by a broad section of the general public, rather than a fairly small number of people who have business at the address it serves. In Hallett v DPP, for example, a drink-driving conviction was overturned because a private road serving 20 houses was found not to be a public place (or at least, the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that it was a public place).

Crikey, A friend of mine got convicted of Drink Driving when he went to get something from his car that was parked in the driveway and turned to go back in his house while drunk. Lost his licence for 12 months. That guy in the court case was actually driving. He must of had an expensive barrister!

Aretnap

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Crikey, A friend of mine got convicted of Drink Driving when he went to get something from his car that was parked in the driveway and turned to go back in his house while drunk. Lost his licence for 12 months. That guy in the court case was actually driving. He must of had an expensive barrister!

Hmmm . there are several things wrong with that story. First of all to be an offence at all he'd have to have been in a public place, which his own driveway isn't. Secondly if he didn't drive it should have been charged as drunk in charge rather than drunk driving, meaning a 12 month ban is not mandatory on conviction, and there is usually a lesser penalty. And thirdly there's a defence to drunk in charge if you can show that there was no likelihood that you were actually going to drive, which there wouldn't have been if he went straight back to the house after getting something out of the car.

It's possible I suppose that he was just very unlucky and/or very badly represented. But it's also possible that there's more to the story than he tells his friends. There often is - nobody wants to admit to being a drunk driver. See also the improbable number of people who definitely, honestly, only had a pint and a half but were still somehow three times over the limit.

unholyangel

Aretnap wrote: »

Hmmm . there are several things wrong with that story. First of all to be an offence at all he'd have to have been in a public place, which his own driveway isn't. Secondly if he didn't drive it should have been charged as drunk in charge rather than drunk driving, meaning a 12 month ban is not mandatory on conviction, and there is usually a lesser penalty. And thirdly there's a defence to drunk in charge if you can show that there was no likelihood that you were actually going to drive, which there wouldn't have been if he went straight back to the house after getting something out of the car.

It's possible I suppose that he was just very unlucky and/or very badly represented. But it's also possible that there's more to the story than he tells his friends. There often is - nobody wants to admit to being a drunk driver. See also the improbable number of people who definitely, honestly, only had a pint and a half but were still somehow three times over the limit.

I'd second that. Guy I knew from school with was up on a drunk in charge offence. He'd been on a night out, had phoned for a ride and it was bucketing down so got into the car - in the passenger seat - to wait. Fell asleep and didn't wake up until the police rapped on his window several hours later. Court threw it out and criticised both the police & prosecution over their decisions to first lay charges and then to prosecute.

Although I would add that while I agree people feign innocence, it is possible for someone to be well over the limit on a pint and half. But less likely to be true when the person making the claim is a 6ft 18st guy