*Help/Thoughts please* - untaxed car parked on public road - Court Summons

[anonymous-user]

Contrary to bloke in pub opinion, courts hate techie points. Pay up.

[Centurion07]

Are you sure the secondary offence is for parking an UNTAXED car on a public road as opposed to a SORNED car on a public road?

[GI Jnr]

Centurion07 said:

Are you sure the secondary offence is for parking an UNTAXED car on a public road as opposed to a SORNED car on a public road?

it's for parking a SORNED car on a public road.

Court summons/Statement of Facts - "You are required to appear... ... to answer to the charge that on 28/04/15 at [NAMED PUBLIC ROAD] you kept on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle registration mark... ...for which a licence was not in force whilst a SORN as in force"

[Centurion07]

Was the clamping incident for being untaxed?

[Muzzer79]

Breadvan72 said:

Contrary to bloke in pub opinion, courts hate techie points. Pay up.

I'm no lawyer but surely this....

If you get off the charge for it not being on a public road, surely you'll just open up your case for probing as to how the car got to the supermarket and be brought up on another offence?

I'd pay it and not risk (with respect) coming across like a smart arse in court.

[GI Jnr]

Centurion07 said:

Was the clamping incident for being untaxed?

Yup.

[balls-out]

Pegscratch said:

Then with the greatest of respect can I suggest that maybe the intelligent answer is not to sell what appears to be an essential vehicle?

FFS - he didn't ask for advice on whether to sell the car. If you actually respect him, then either provide some relevant comment (if you have anything of value), or desist from posting.

[anonymous-user]

SORNed car used on public highway

so it was spotted untaxed / SORNed and clamped

you paid, net, £100 to have the clamp released

subsequently a further charge of using a SORNed vehicle are made, citing a road that the car had not been used on

I can see why the technical get out might appear attractive, but I would be seeking the advice of a suitably experienced specialist solicitor in this area to understand if a not guilty plea might be a less good option than a guilty plea with a good explanation of the mitigating circumstances.

I would also be enquiring if being kept on a public road is a separate (and lesser) charge from driving on a public road

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd July 16:47

[Centurion07]

GI Jnr said:

Centurion07 said:

Was the clamping incident for being untaxed?

Yup.

It reads to me then that they're two separate offences.

The first clamping incident was for having no tax and the court summons is for having a SORNED car in a public place. If that IS the case, then I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to argue it wasn't actually on the road named.

[Centurion07]

JPJPJP said:

I would also be enquiring if being kept on a public road is a separate (and lesser) charge from driving on a public road

Also, this^.

[GI Jnr]

So cutting to the chase then, and moral high ground aside.

What I'm essentially asking is whether or not the case will stick when one of the key specifics - location - is not true? Is the court empowered to change the terms of the charge or will they just find for or against the specifics of the charge that the DVLA have brought?

I can see the risk that then the DVLA may/will choose to pursue a subsequent case with correct details. But that's a new scenario entirely isn't it? Are the DVLA even geared up to follow up on cases that haven't gone anywhere?

What if in reviewing the case, I provide sufficient evidence to caste enough doubt over the SORNed car being parked on X public road because I know it wasn't? I don't believe there is any requirement for me to volunteer anything other than sufficient proof as to where it was parked at the time of the offence. I won't hide it if asked obviously but I'm not going to bare my soul on the day.

Do I plead guilty to the specifics when they're not (all) true?
Do I fess up and plead guilt to a different set of charges/specifics? Can I even do that?
Do I plead not guilty as according to the charge that I've been summoned for, it's not true?

Morality aside - as I accept that this is my/our doing - keen to get your objective views/experiences.

Thanks.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Centurion07 said:

It reads to me then that they're two separate offences.

The first clamping incident was for having no tax and the court summons is for having a SORNED car in a public place. If that IS the case, then I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to argue it wasn't actually on the road named.

Two bites of the same cherry surely though.

[GI Jnr]

JPJPJP said:

SORNed car used on public highway

so it was spotted untaxed / SORNed and clamped

you paid, net, £100 to have the clamp released

subsequently a further charge of using a SORNed vehicle are made, citing a road that the car had not been used on

I can see why the technical get out might appear attractive, but I would be seeking the advice of a suitably experienced specialist solicitor in this area to understand if a not guilty plea might be a less good option than a guilty plea with a good explanation of the mitigating circumstances.

I would also be enquiring if being kept on a public road is a separate (and lesser) charge from driving on a public road

Edited by JPJPJP on Thursday 2nd July 16:47

Thanks for the logical/objective response - appreciated.

I'll be speaking to someone (suitable) to form more of a view. Thanks again.

[Amused2death]

Isn't the word "kept" also encompassing the word "used"? In which case, substitute the words and you end up with "On such a date you "used" a vehicle on a public road blah, blah, blah"

It was on that road being used to get to and from the supermarket.

[Centurion07]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Centurion07 said:

It reads to me then that they're two separate offences.

The first clamping incident was for having no tax and the court summons is for having a SORNED car in a public place. If that IS the case, then I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to argue it wasn't actually on the road named.

Two bites of the same cherry surely though.

I wouldn't have said so, IF the DVLA can clamp cars that are merely untaxed.

The initial fine of £260, minus the £160 if taxed within two weeks, makes it sound like that was solely for the tax issue.

The court summons sounds like it is solely for the "SORNED vehicle in a public place" issue, which are two completely separate offences in my eyes. As has been mentioned, SORNing a car does not stop it from being taxed/mot'd/insured, but it IS an offence to use/keep a SORNED vehicle in a public place.

Hopefully OP will talk to a professional and keep us updated.

[herewego]

Don't you think the magistrate is going to ask you how the car got there? Your wife will have to say she drove it on the road. Put yourself in the mags position, given someone trying to pull the wool over your eyes, would you select a fine from the lower end of the range?

[LoonR1]

I'm completely lost with this. I am though interested in some other things.

You have a car that you don't need and is so superfluous to your needs that you can SORN it, presumably to save the cost of the road tax. However, it still has a valid MOT, which is fine and you continue to insure it, even though you can't use it at all. That seems a waste of money.

However, the next bit really confuses me.

The car isn't needed, hence the SORN above, but you have a child with a serious medical condition that's close to needing an ambulance and you leave your wife with no way of getting to a chemist to get the medicine. Really? You value the saving of road tax over the potential well being of your child. Bizarre.

[GI Jnr]

LoonR1 said:

I'm completely lost with this. I am though interested in some other things.

You have a car that you don't need and is so superfluous to your needs that you can SORN it, presumably to save the cost of the road tax. However, it still has a valid MOT, which is fine and you continue to insure it, even though you can't use it at all. That seems a waste of money.

However, the next bit really confuses me.

The car isn't needed, hence the SORN above, but you have a child with a serious medical condition that's close to needing an ambulance and you leave your wife with no way of getting to a chemist to get the medicine. Really? You value the saving of road tax over the potential well being of your child. Bizarre.

We all make errors of judgement chap. A series of unfortunate/unplanned events led to a shortfall of the stock of medication that's normally in the house. And I'm normally not so far away. And don't want to spend the time trying to recover what would have been a small proportion of the car insurance that I paid lump up front.

You may be pleased to know that we now are keeping two cars. Both fully taxed, MOTd and insured.

[V8LM]

Was the emergency that your daughter needed the Epipen? If it was then I hope she is ok. Walking back from the supermarket must have been difficult.

[stuart313]

herewego said:

Don't you think the magistrate is going to ask you how the car got there? Your wife will have to say she drove it on the road. Put yourself in the mags position, given someone trying to pull the wool over your eyes, would you select a fine from the lower end of the range?

The wife wont have to say anything apart from politely declining the offer to take the witness stand and saying "I wont be giving any evidence toady thanks". Its not what they know its what they can prove, for all anyone knows the car may have been trailered to the supermarket. Let the prosecutors do their job and prove it, however the simple fact that the car wasn't on the road at the time in question should kill the case stone dead. I would imagine they will fold outside court.