Criminal record for failure to tax car?

[shep1001]

A friend of mine is on his way to a head to head with the DVLA in court over a vehicle tax issue.

He is a small trader who works from home buying damaged/poorly looked after cars, repairing them and selling them on. earlier this year, the DVLA came onto private land and tried to remove a car for failure to tax or SORN the vehicle. His understanding was this was not necessary as (a) it was on private land (b) he is a trader and as long as the car remains registered 'in trade' all is well.

Its been a comedy of errors so far, when he met with the DVLA prosecutor they were pursuing him on the grounds the vehicle was parked on public land (therefore its needs to be taxed or SORN) which he has now proven not to be the case, as they had the wrong location which has the same post code. DVLA has now changed their position and still intend on pursuing him as they now claim the car was not on 'business premises' therefore it can't be registered as 'in trade'. As he works from home, the land is behind his house, this is his place of business and his accounts reflect this.

DVLA bod also claimed if they go to court and he looses then he will get a criminal record.

The DVLA website is a little vague about vehicles 'in trade' as it does not specify anything about what qualifies as business premises so he may be on a hiding to nothing if trading from a residential address is not valid, albeit on private land. However, I can't believe you get a criminal record for being fined for failure to tax a vehicle which is essentailly what the prosecution will be for.

Thoughts please?

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

I've no idea, but to me, your friend sounds like he will win, hands down.


And for the record - how can pursuing a prosecution like this POSSIBLY be in the public interest, or a sensible use of legal resources?

This country sure does amaze me at times.

[98elise]

You need to SORN if a car is on private land. He's getting very confused if he thinks private land is somehow exempt. As a trader he really should know that, its pretty common knowledge!

Motor traders don't need to as long as its kept at their business premises, and the DVLA have been notified that its been transferred to the trader.

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

How do his accounts reflect that his home is a business premises? Land and buildings are officially classified for business purposes. For land be a business premises for selling cars he would need planing permission (change of use):

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/common...

PS Even speeding is a criminal offence, so yes he is likely to have a "criminal record", but its not quite the same as being a murderer!

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 21st September 04:33

[Red Devil]

shep1001 said:

A friend of mine is on his way to a head to head with the DVLA in court over a vehicle tax issue.

He is a small trader who works from home buying damaged/poorly looked after cars, repairing them and selling them on. earlier this year, the DVLA came onto private land and tried to remove a car for failure to tax or SORN the vehicle. His understanding was this was not necessary as (a) it was on private land (b) he is a trader and as long as the car remains registered 'in trade' all is well.

Its been a comedy of errors so far, when he met with the DVLA prosecutor they were pursuing him on the grounds the vehicle was parked on public land (therefore its needs to be taxed or SORN) which he has now proven not to be the case, as they had the wrong location which has the same post code. DVLA has now changed their position and still intend on pursuing him as they now claim the car was not on 'business premises' therefore it can't be registered as 'in trade'. As he works from home, the land is behind his house, this is his place of business and his accounts reflect this.

DVLA bod also claimed if they go to court and he looses then he will get a criminal record.

The DVLA website is a little vague about vehicles 'in trade' as it does not specify anything about what qualifies as business premises so he may be on a hiding to nothing if trading from a residential address is not valid, albeit on private land. However, I can't believe you get a criminal record for being fined for failure to tax a vehicle which is essentailly what the prosecution will be for.

Thoughts please?

Re private land - the definition is 'any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it' - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/9/schedul...

The obvious question that flows from this is whether it was the intention of Parliament that a dwelling house and business premises to be mutually exclusive for the purposes of the legislation. If so, he won't be able to rely on the private land exemption. In any case that exemption only protects from seizure, not the requirement to declare SORN.

So he has to fall back on the trader exemption. The 'not business premises claim' is for the DVLA to prove. Your friend's accounts may well be in order but one point to consider is whether he has informed the LA that he is running a business and thus paying NNDR. An astute prosecutor may well ask this question in court in order to undermine his friend's case.

As this has the potential to close down his business he needs to obtain expert advice. Going into battle with the DVLA without a good suit of armour is a taking a big risk imo.

Edited by Red Devil on Sunday 21st September 05:05

[shep1001]

Red Devil & 98elise have it nailed here. The stumbling block will be there is unlikely to be a registered change in interest for the land and all the costs and paper work trail that sits behind it. Personally I suggested he pays up. At the moment they only want £130, £90 towards costs + 6 months back tax. They already have £260 from when the vehicle was seized. If it goes to court potentially it could cost unto £1150 + costs & the tax.

[photosnob]

shep1001 said:

Red Devil & 98elise have it nailed here. The stumbling block will be there is unlikely to be a registered change in interest for the land and all the costs and paper work trail that sits behind it. Personally I suggested he pays up. At the moment they only want £130, £90 towards costs + 6 months back tax. They already have £260 from when the vehicle was seized. If it goes to court potentially it could cost unto £1150 + costs & the tax.

Please provide case law or statute that indicates that you need to have the premises registered as business premises. This is what I'd ask the DVLA to do.

As you are offering legal advice I expect you to do the same.

Personally I'd either run with it, or get some legal advice. The DVLA are famous for running silly prosecutions and then dropping out just before trial.

[TVR1]

Even though he has cars in trade, how long has he had them? You cant just hold onto a car forever in trade without insurance. 3 months rule IIRC, after that, it must be added to his trade policy.

[shep1001]

TVR1 said:

Even though he has cars in trade, how long has he had them? You cant just hold onto a car forever in trade without insurance. 3 months rule IIRC, after that, it must be added to his trade policy.

Only keeps then a week or two, just long enough to repair/refurbish minimal damage then sells them on. Don't think I have ever seen him with more than two cars at a time.

[shep1001]

photosnob said:

Please provide case law or statute that indicates that you need to have the premises registered as business premises. This is what I'd ask the DVLA to do.

As you are offering legal advice I expect you to do the same.

Personally I'd either run with it, or get some legal advice. The DVLA are famous for running silly prosecutions and then dropping out just before trial.

The rules for SORN, vehicle taxation & exemptions cover it. What they don't define in detail is what is considered to be business premises. A domestic residence potentially not registered for business use might therefore be an issue in more ways than 1.

[55palfers]

Good to know DVLA have all this spare resource to hound 1 man for a fairly minor technicality.

The cars aren't on the Queens highway, so who really cares?

[98elise]

photosnob said:

shep1001 said:

Red Devil & 98elise have it nailed here. The stumbling block will be there is unlikely to be a registered change in interest for the land and all the costs and paper work trail that sits behind it. Personally I suggested he pays up. At the moment they only want £130, £90 towards costs + 6 months back tax. They already have £260 from when the vehicle was seized. If it goes to court potentially it could cost unto £1150 + costs & the tax.

Please provide case law or statute that indicates that you need to have the premises registered as business premises. This is what I'd ask the DVLA to do.

As you are offering legal advice I expect you to do the same.

Personally I'd either run with it, or get some legal advice. The DVLA are famous for running silly prosecutions and then dropping out just before trial.

I've provided you with a link for the classification of property types. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into categories known as 'Use Classes'. Ask your council what the use class for the property is and they will tell you.

If you want individual case law for your defence then pay a lawyer instead of asking on a car forum!

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 21st September 12:32

[MrPicky]

But is there a definite link between the status of a property under one regulatory scheme to that under a different one?

Take for instance the classification of a vehicle on the V5 and the status of car derived van for the purpose of speed limits on a derestricted single carriageway or dual carriageway, the two schemes don't align.

So, even if he can prove that the land is part of private land because of A and B, the DVLA will argue that it isn't because of Y and Z.

However the thing in the OPs favour is if this is classed as contravening criminal law then the DVLA must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, if it was a civil law contravention then it only needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

[Dwight VanDriver]

DVLA's own site states:
You don’t need to make a SORN on a vehicle if you’re a motor trader or vehicle tester and all the following apply:

it’s only temporarily in your possession (until you sell it)

it’s being kept at your business premises

the registered keeper has notified DVLA that the vehicle has been sold or transferred to you

You count as a motor trader if you’re a:

motor dealer
motor auctioneer
vehicle dismantler
vehicle insurer looking after a vehicle while a claim is being settled
finance company licensed to temporarily hold a vehicle following an order for repossession

DVLA are noted for attempting the 'bluff'. As such has any summons been served?

IN any case vehicle excise offences (other than fraudulent use etc) are not recordable offences and as such no criminal record as we know them.

dvd

[jamoor]

I've never heard of a trader SORNing cars.

[photosnob]

98elise said:

photosnob said:

shep1001 said:

Red Devil & 98elise have it nailed here. The stumbling block will be there is unlikely to be a registered change in interest for the land and all the costs and paper work trail that sits behind it. Personally I suggested he pays up. At the moment they only want £130, £90 towards costs + 6 months back tax. They already have £260 from when the vehicle was seized. If it goes to court potentially it could cost unto £1150 + costs & the tax.

Please provide case law or statute that indicates that you need to have the premises registered as business premises. This is what I'd ask the DVLA to do.

As you are offering legal advice I expect you to do the same.

Personally I'd either run with it, or get some legal advice. The DVLA are famous for running silly prosecutions and then dropping out just before trial.

I've provided you with a link for the classification of property types. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into categories known as 'Use Classes'. Ask your council what the use class for the property is and they will tell you.

If you want individual case law for your defence then pay a lawyer instead of asking on a car forum!

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 21st September 12:32

You are assuming that because someone could be guilty of a, then they are guiltY of b. In the same way folk on here post that you have no insurance if your tyres are worn out.

I'm not convinced that the dvla can state that a vehicle was not in the trade because there has been no change of usage. The dvla are pretty famous for bottling dodgy prosecutions at the last minute. So giving someone advice to hand over their hard earned is a bit dodgy in my opinion.

[shep1001]

photosnob said:

You are assuming that because someone could be guilty of a, then they are guiltY of b. In the same way folk on here post that you have no insurance if your tyres are worn out.

I'm not convinced that the dvla can state that a vehicle was not in the trade because there has been no change of usage. The dvla are pretty famous for bottling dodgy prosecutions at the last minute. So giving someone advice to hand over their hard earned is a bit dodgy in my opinion.

Lets see what the solicitor says tomorrow then. One way or another he should find out on Nov 5th if he elects to go to court!

[98elise]

photosnob said:

98elise said:

photosnob said:

shep1001 said:

Red Devil & 98elise have it nailed here. The stumbling block will be there is unlikely to be a registered change in interest for the land and all the costs and paper work trail that sits behind it. Personally I suggested he pays up. At the moment they only want £130, £90 towards costs + 6 months back tax. They already have £260 from when the vehicle was seized. If it goes to court potentially it could cost unto £1150 + costs & the tax.

Please provide case law or statute that indicates that you need to have the premises registered as business premises. This is what I'd ask the DVLA to do.

As you are offering legal advice I expect you to do the same.

Personally I'd either run with it, or get some legal advice. The DVLA are famous for running silly prosecutions and then dropping out just before trial.

I've provided you with a link for the classification of property types. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into categories known as 'Use Classes'. Ask your council what the use class for the property is and they will tell you.

If you want individual case law for your defence then pay a lawyer instead of asking on a car forum!

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 21st September 12:32

You are assuming that because someone could be guilty of a, then they are guiltY of b. In the same way folk on here post that you have no insurance if your tyres are worn out.

I'm not convinced that the dvla can state that a vehicle was not in the trade because there has been no change of usage. The dvla are pretty famous for bottling dodgy prosecutions at the last minute. So giving someone advice to hand over their hard earned is a bit dodgy in my opinion.

I would agree. The car being in the trade, and the status of the land its on are two seperate things. Both have to be satisfied before you don't have to SORN it. My opinion (and its just that) is that they would only accept a properly classed premesis as a business premesis.

Only the courts can decide who is right.

[Magog]

Is there an end to this story yet?

[motco]

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I've no idea, but to me, your friend sounds like he will win, hands down.


And for the record - how can pursuing a prosecution like this POSSIBLY be in the public interest, or a sensible use of legal resources?

This country sure does amaze me at times.

It makes some of the Blair/Brown Gestapo-like rulings sound quite liberal!

[shep1001]

Magog said:

Is there an end to this story yet?

Yep got to court start December & the DVLA folded. A different representative turned up this time and basically said had it been his case from the beginning he would have binned it months ago as it was a non starter