*Help/Thoughts please* - untaxed car parked on public road - Court Summons
Discussion
stuart313 said:
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.REALIST123 said:
stuart313 said:
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.
stuart313 said:
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.Thinking about this its even odder. I thought the only cars to be clamped on private but public access areas were cars that were neither taxed nor sorned. The only place you cant keep a sorned car is on a road maintainable at the publics expense. All the cars that were being clamped on things like MOT forecourts were cars that were simply not taxed.
If they were going to prosecute you it would be for using a sorned vehicle on a road, not an untaxed one. Are you sure the vehicle is registered sorn?
If they were going to prosecute you it would be for using a sorned vehicle on a road, not an untaxed one. Are you sure the vehicle is registered sorn?
GI Jnr said:
Epipen/severe asthma/steroids for our daughter, medication which was ready for collection at the pharmacy in the supermarket. With an autistic son and two others on tow. We've had it before where emergency services don't respond in time/the knock out questions don't qualify for blue lights.
Like I've said before, I'll willingly accept the charges if I'm being charged for something I did.
Considering the consequences- didn't you/MISSUS ever consider one of those council registered vehicles (which would have Tax & insurance ), AKA TAXI? OR the other alternative- contact the pharmacy, telling them that she couldn't collect the medicine ,but that a driver from (insert name of taxi company ) ,would collect. She could have even asked for name /badge number of driver( from taxi firm ) to give to pharmacy to act as security cover .Like I've said before, I'll willingly accept the charges if I'm being charged for something I did.
Here we go, from the horses mouth, sections 7.2 and 7.3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up b
ks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up b
ks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one. 
stuart313 said:
Here we go, from the horses mouth, sections 7.2 and 7.3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up bks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one.
Thanks for this. There's explicit confirmation of the SORN in the court evidence.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up b
ks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one. I've thought about it overnight and all of the other comments - thanks - and I think I'm going to play it like this;
- I'll just attend court as the registered keeper - no wife - and plead Not guilty to the charge in question. Specifically to the location with the reason being that at the same time of the alleged offence, the car was clamped for being a SORNED car parked somewhere else
- Within my statement I will though clearly acknowledge the other offence, therefore make it clear that I'm not trying to worm my way out of it on a technicality
- What I do think would be worth doing also though is to ask the court to consider a couple of things;
a) To question why the DVLA/DVLA officer saw it appropriate/correct to raise this offence when the vehicle was never in said location (my fundamental point). The said public road is no way associated to the car park and so plan fact is the charge is incorrect. Not necessarily unjustified, but incorrect.
b) Whether the original offence was valid anyway taking into account Section 7.2/7.3 above which makes it clear (as i read it) that it is not unlawful for a SORNED car to be parked in a 'public car park' Obviously I would tread this part carefully as I'm not denying an offence was committed but I'd like to have it considered if it was legally correct to clamp the car in the first place
I think this'll allow me to hold my hands up to an offence, but not the offence in which I am being accused of. Because just pleading guilty to that doesn't ring true with me either. But I'm also not pleading not guilty and trying to get off on a technicality...
This sounds reasonable in my head, but would this just p!ss off the magistrate?
Thanks for all your comments. Been on PH a long time and I knew by putting this up there, I'd get all sorts of views.
Tuan
GI Jnr said:
plead Not guilty to the charge in question. Specifically to the location with the reason being that at the same time of the alleged offence, the car was clamped for being a SORNED car parked somewhere else
So in complete contradiction to this: GI Jnr said:
Like I've said before, I'll willingly accept the charges if I'm being charged for something I did.
You admit using the car on public roads so the fact the road name & the exact time is wrong is a bit irrelevant.You NEED to see a qualified solicitor to clear things up for you, namely:
1. Is the location going to be grounds enough to get the charge thrown out? I very much doubt it.
2. Was the car clamped for no tax or being SORNED in a "public area"?
AIUI, you were clamped for no tax & the summons is for being SORNED in a public area.
If that IS correct then going to court and trying to argue that "yes, I did use my car whilst it was SORNED but not actually on the road stated" is going to look like you're taking the piss and will probably result in a punishment at the heavier end of the scale. It's certainly not going to come across as willingly accepting the charges.
A magistrate is a normal rational human being.
He, I am sure, will see it like this :-
The medication you are talking about (in mitigation) is life sustaining in the event of an emergency.
You ran out of Medication (poor planning, but that happens) - but there was no actual emergency at the time so this was a preventative choice
Rather than re-tax your car, you decided that you would drive your vehicle - which you have legally declared and committed to keeping off-road - to the super market.
He will consider - was there an alternative to committing an offence? :- taking a taxi, pharmacy delivery, getting a friend or family member to pick it up for you, walking to the shops, paying up for the VED to make your car LEGAL to drive on the road etc.
He may question you why you didnt use an alternative.
If your answer as to why you didnt use an alternative means is not convincing then he will not allow mitigation of the offence.
This thread is a good indication that the majority of the public would not consider your situation and decisions to be "mitigating circumstances".
However, if all the taxi companies you called were booked out, no-one family member or neighbour was available to go, no-one would deliver, and by walking to the supermarket you would have endangered the lives of your children (asthma attack etc) then he may consider these to be mitigating circumstances.
SO.
Did you call a taxi and find they had none available?, did you call a friend/family member/neighboura nd none of them could help ?, did you ask if they would deliver and find out that they wont?, was your child showing signs of an impending asthma attack?
He, I am sure, will see it like this :-
The medication you are talking about (in mitigation) is life sustaining in the event of an emergency.
You ran out of Medication (poor planning, but that happens) - but there was no actual emergency at the time so this was a preventative choice
Rather than re-tax your car, you decided that you would drive your vehicle - which you have legally declared and committed to keeping off-road - to the super market.
He will consider - was there an alternative to committing an offence? :- taking a taxi, pharmacy delivery, getting a friend or family member to pick it up for you, walking to the shops, paying up for the VED to make your car LEGAL to drive on the road etc.
He may question you why you didnt use an alternative.
If your answer as to why you didnt use an alternative means is not convincing then he will not allow mitigation of the offence.
This thread is a good indication that the majority of the public would not consider your situation and decisions to be "mitigating circumstances".
However, if all the taxi companies you called were booked out, no-one family member or neighbour was available to go, no-one would deliver, and by walking to the supermarket you would have endangered the lives of your children (asthma attack etc) then he may consider these to be mitigating circumstances.
SO.
Did you call a taxi and find they had none available?, did you call a friend/family member/neighboura nd none of them could help ?, did you ask if they would deliver and find out that they wont?, was your child showing signs of an impending asthma attack?
What this appears to boil down to is:
Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
_dobbo_ said:
What this appears to boil down to is:
Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
^this. What I guess I've been trying to say/ask over the last two days...Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
GI Jnr said:
_dobbo_ said:
What this appears to boil down to is:
Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
^this. What I guess I've been trying to say/ask over the last two days...Tuan has cast iron proof the summons charge of parking a SORNed car on a road is fabricated, because the car was clamped at the time, somewhere else.
Case comes before the beak - does he
a.) Throw it out because it's clearly fabricated
b.) Say, ah but, ignoring the fact the charge is fabricated, I'm going to throw the book at you anyway because you must have used the car on a public road.
Question - is the magistrate empowered to alter the charge to suit his desire to dole out a punishment? Might the magistrate take an equally dim view of the fabrication?
IANAL but would it be possible for the DVLA to argue they thought that road was part of the supermarket's address and therefore is just a typo? It doesn't matter if it is or isn't, if they say that's what they meant when filling out the paperwork then you're screwed.
The offence itself isn't 100% made up. You can argue the exact location, you can try and argue the "public area" angle, but at the end of the day a SORNED car was used on the road. Whether or not a magistrate has the power to overule any or all of those points is why you need a solicitor.
stuart313 said:
Here we go, from the horses mouth, sections 7.2 and 7.3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up bks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one.
This does appear to provide useful information but your final paragraph is incorrect I believe.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2266/pdfs/...
Public car parks are ok for storing a SORNED car on. I hope you have proof of your SORN.
I'll bet a penny to a pound that they have realised they shouldn't have clamped you as it was SORNED so have removed the SORN which has triggered the no tax fine along with the made up b
ks of seeing it on a road. I recomend you go digging on this one. The car was clamped because the enforcement officer reasonably believed it was driven there, and the car had no VED. The OP has admitted it was.
The proceedings appear incorrect as the car was never parked on the road in question according to the OP, and on that basis he should plead not guilty.
One question though, is the road stated on the proceedings the one the car park is accessed from?
GI Jnr said:
I've thought about it overnight and all of the other comments - thanks - and I think I'm going to play it like this;
- I'll just attend court as the registered keeper - no wife - and plead Not guilty to the charge in question. Specifically to the location with the reason being that at the same time of the alleged offence, the car was clamped for being a SORNED car parked somewhere else
- Within my statement I will though clearly acknowledge the other offence, therefore make it clear that I'm not trying to worm my way out of it on a technicality
- What I do think would be worth doing also though is to ask the court to consider a couple of things;
a) To question why the DVLA/DVLA officer saw it appropriate/correct to raise this offence when the vehicle was never in said location (my fundamental point). The said public road is no way associated to the car park and so plan fact is the charge is incorrect. Not necessarily unjustified, but incorrect.
b) Whether the original offence was valid anyway taking into account Section 7.2/7.3 above which makes it clear (as i read it) that it is not unlawful for a SORNED car to be parked in a 'public car park' Obviously I would tread this part carefully as I'm not denying an offence was committed but I'd like to have it considered if it was legally correct to clamp the car in the first place
I think this'll allow me to hold my hands up to an offence, but not the offence in which I am being accused of. Because just pleading guilty to that doesn't ring true with me either. But I'm also not pleading not guilty and trying to get off on a technicality...
This sounds reasonable in my head, but would this just p!ss off the magistrate?
Thanks for all your comments. Been on PH a long time and I knew by putting this up there, I'd get all sorts of views.
Tuan
Hi all,- I'll just attend court as the registered keeper - no wife - and plead Not guilty to the charge in question. Specifically to the location with the reason being that at the same time of the alleged offence, the car was clamped for being a SORNED car parked somewhere else
- Within my statement I will though clearly acknowledge the other offence, therefore make it clear that I'm not trying to worm my way out of it on a technicality
- What I do think would be worth doing also though is to ask the court to consider a couple of things;
a) To question why the DVLA/DVLA officer saw it appropriate/correct to raise this offence when the vehicle was never in said location (my fundamental point). The said public road is no way associated to the car park and so plan fact is the charge is incorrect. Not necessarily unjustified, but incorrect.
b) Whether the original offence was valid anyway taking into account Section 7.2/7.3 above which makes it clear (as i read it) that it is not unlawful for a SORNED car to be parked in a 'public car park' Obviously I would tread this part carefully as I'm not denying an offence was committed but I'd like to have it considered if it was legally correct to clamp the car in the first place
I think this'll allow me to hold my hands up to an offence, but not the offence in which I am being accused of. Because just pleading guilty to that doesn't ring true with me either. But I'm also not pleading not guilty and trying to get off on a technicality...
This sounds reasonable in my head, but would this just p!ss off the magistrate?
Thanks for all your comments. Been on PH a long time and I knew by putting this up there, I'd get all sorts of views.
Tuan
Update on this. The court case was planned for tomorrow. All prep done with (what I believed was) a half decent narrative of to the events to justify my Not Guilty plea. Received a letter in the post from the DVLA; "in light of new information we are withdrawing the charge"
So I didn't even have my day in court.
Now imagine if I'd just coughed up the £400 odd quid they were offering as an alternative to court....
Thanks for your posts/comments.
Tuan
Toad, eh? That reminds me ....
"To my mind," observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, "the only difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any."
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. "Some people would consider," he observed, "that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself—those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years—"
"First-rate!" said the Chairman.
"—So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side," concluded the Clerk.
"An excellent suggestion!" said the Chairman approvingly. "Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!"
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the market-place, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely "wanted," assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.
Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon
"Oddsbodikins!" said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. "Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his—and a murrain on both of them!"
The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.
(The Wind in the Willows, Chapter 6)
"To my mind," observed the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates cheerfully, "the only difficulty that presents itself in this otherwise very clear case is, how we can possibly make it sufficiently hot for the incorrigible rogue and hardened ruffian whom we see cowering in the dock before us. Let me see: he has been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, first, of stealing a valuable motor-car; secondly, of driving to the public danger; and, thirdly, of gross impertinence to the rural police. Mr. Clerk, will you tell us, please, what is the very stiffest penalty we can impose for each of these offences? Without, of course, giving the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, because there isn't any."
The Clerk scratched his nose with his pen. "Some people would consider," he observed, "that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undoubtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought. Supposing you were to say twelve months for the theft, which is mild; and three years for the furious driving, which is lenient; and fifteen years for the cheek, which was pretty bad sort of cheek, judging by what we've heard from the witness-box, even if you only believe one-tenth part of what you heard, and I never believe more myself—those figures, if added together correctly, tot up to nineteen years—"
"First-rate!" said the Chairman.
"—So you had better make it a round twenty years and be on the safe side," concluded the Clerk.
"An excellent suggestion!" said the Chairman approvingly. "Prisoner! Pull yourself together and try and stand up straight. It's going to be twenty years for you this time. And mind, if you appear before us again, upon any charge whatever, we shall have to deal with you very seriously!"
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the market-place, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely "wanted," assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.
Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon
"Oddsbodikins!" said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. "Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his—and a murrain on both of them!"
The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.
(The Wind in the Willows, Chapter 6)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff