Isn't your drive Private Property?

[stevensfo]

I'm a bit confused about how someone can get not only get fined in secret, but for keeping their unused car on their driveway.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-89-fin ... 24322.html

I have never heard of anything like this before. Is the UK becoming another North Korea?


Steve

[didds]

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 do not keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land.
You must make a SORN in any of the following situations:
*your vehicle is not taxed
*you[/align][/align]r vehicle is not insured (even for a short time, for example because there’s a delay renewing your policy)
...

No - I dont quite get why either if its parked off the public highway etc.

[Lootman]

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 do not keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land.
You must make a SORN in any of the following situations:
your vehicle is not taxed

Code: Select all

nbsp

your vehicle is not insured (even for a short time, for example because there’s a delay renewing your policy)

No - I dont quite get why either if its parked off the public highway etc.

Yes, it is yet another example of governmental overreach. Back in the 1980s I had a large plot of land behind my house and I kept a couple of untaxed and uninsured vehicles back there. Never thought anything of it. But now apparently that would make me a criminal.

The only possible reason for this "rule" is that the government wants to extract revenue. As such if Steve were put on trial for this and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

[richfool]

Provided it was not on a public road at any time, surely, it's up to the car owner whether he wishes to take the risk of letting the car insurance lapse.

Noted he would need to have made a SORN/SWORN declaration, if it was left untaxed and off the public road, which presumably would have been the case if the vehicle had failed the MOT or the MOT not been renewed.

[Alaric]

But now apparently that would make me a criminal.

I think that's only if you don't keep the DVLA's records tidy by filling in a SORN.

[Lootman]

But now apparently that would make me a criminal.

I think that's only if you don't keep the DVLA's records tidy by filling in a SORN.

Well yeah, my question is about the validity of requiring SORN if the vehicle is never on a public road. I see no just cause for that.

[chas49]

This isn't a new rule so I don't really see why anyone should be surprised by it - the system of continuous registration was introduced on 1 January 2004, so that's pretty much 20 years now!

The rationale is to stop people from not taxing their car because "it's only kept on my land" and actually driving it and hoping to get away with some excuse like "I'm on the way to the Post Office".

The answer to the DAK question posed is "Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean you don't need to tax or SORN your vehicle".

Moderator Message:
(Note that this board is for factual answers and not for general discussion)(chas49)

[DrFfybes]

A vehicle must be taxed or Sorn if it is insured.

AIUI if it is uninsured it must be declared SORN.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

Presumably when the insurance expired the owner failed to declare the vehicle offroad and reclaim the outstanding VED and so was prosecuted for not reclaiming the money he could have done (or probably the VED expired).

Paul

[genou]

The only possible reason for this "rule" is that the government wants to extract revenue. As such if Steve were put on trial for this and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

It's simple - either tax it or SORN it. It makes tracking insured cars a database query rather than a police stop, and it avoids discussion about whether the car has been used uninsured ( actually catching cars being used uninsured is another story, but is equally facilitated by having that database ).

Sadly, you'll never get a chance to acquit; it's an offence that doesn't require a jury.

It could be worse - unless they've changed it recently in France you get a tiny window to say no, or your insurance renews automatically. I know auto-renew is now common in the UK, but I believe it's compulsory there.

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Moving to Cars etc to allow further discussion(chas49)

[Lootman]

The only possible reason for this "rule" is that the government wants to extract revenue. As such if Steve were put on trial for this and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

Sadly, you'll never get a chance to acquit; it's an offence that doesn't require a jury.

Not necessarily true. If you are fined and refuse to pay it then, like with any other kind of ticket or citation, you will eventually end up in a criminal court, where a jury can acquit.

This has happened with things like speeding tickets and parking tickets, so I see no reason why this would be different.

[genou]

Sadly, you'll never get a chance to acquit; it's an offence that doesn't require a jury.

Not necessarily true. If you are fined and refuse to pay it then, like with any other kind of ticket or citation, you will eventually end up in a criminal court, where a jury can acquit.
This has happened with things like speeding tickets and parking tickets, so I see no reason why this would be different.

Nope, Magistrates Court offence. You can argue your case, but not in front of a jury.

[Lootman]

Not necessarily true. If you are fined and refuse to pay it then, like with any other kind of ticket or citation, you will eventually end up in a criminal court, where a jury can acquit.
This has happened with things like speeding tickets and parking tickets, so I see no reason why this would be different.

Nope, Magistrates Court offence. You can argue your case, but not in front of a jury.

Still disagree. A Magistrates court can of course fine you. But if you refuse to pay that fine then eventually you end up in a criminal court, where you can demand a jury trial.

But I agree with you that the right to a jury trial in the UK has been made needlessly difficult for the convenience of lawmakers and law enforcers. A half decent constitution would never allow that. But of course we do not have one.

[genou]

Nope, Magistrates Court offence. You can argue your case, but not in front of a jury.

Still disagree. A Magistrates court can of course fine you. But if you refuse to pay that fine then eventually you end up in a criminal court, where you can demand a jury trial.

But I agree with you that the right to a jury trial in the UK has been made needlessly difficult for the convenience of lawmakers and law enforcers. A half decent constitution would never allow that. But of course we do not have one.

My bold. Nope. It's an appeal, for error in law. No Jury AFAIK.

[Lootman]

Still disagree. A Magistrates court can of course fine you. But if you refuse to pay that fine then eventually you end up in a criminal court, where you can demand a jury trial.

But I agree with you that the right to a jury trial in the UK has been made needlessly difficult for the convenience of lawmakers and law enforcers. A half decent constitution would never allow that. But of course we do not have one.

My bold. Nope. It's an appeal, for error in law. No Jury AFAIK.

No, I did not mean an appeal, which still implies cooperating with the court.

I mean that you quite simply refuse to cooperate with the court. Eventually you will be charged with a crime like contempt of court or perjury, and then you get a jury and can make a play for jury nullification.

You basically escalate until you are charged with a crime. Not for everyone but it has happened. There was a MP who fought a speeding ticket and eventually got a jury trial. He lost but that wasn't the point.

[didds]

Back in the 1980s I had a large plot of land behind my house and I kept a couple of untaxed and uninsured vehicles back there. Never thought anything of it. But now apparently that would make me a criminal.

well, o9nly if you dont declare them SORN, AIUI.

[quote]
The only possible reason for this "rule" is that the government wants to extract revenue. As such if Steve were put on trial for this and I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit.
[/quit]

agree with the first sentence. WRT the second, I do0ubt this level of offense is indictable, so you wouldnt have a jury anyway?

[DrFfybes]

This afternoon I added another bike to my policy.

Or rather I woud have, if my current insurer did multibike policies, so in the end I cancelled the current one and started a new multibike.

The Cancellation notice says very prominently..

Note : Under the Continuous Insurance Enforcement Legislation, if your bike is not insured or SORN you could face a fixed penalty of £100, your bike being clamped, seized and disposed of or a court prosecution and a maximum fine of £1000

My renewal notice for the insurance also contains a similarly dire warning, although not as prominent.

Presumably the letter the old chap in the article got and ignored was the "Hey, your vehicle isn't SORN or Insured, sort it out" one, hence the Court appearance.

Paul