*Help/Thoughts please* - untaxed car parked on public road - Court Summons
Discussion
Hi,
interested in your views on this. Will stick to the facts to keep it straightforward;
28/04/15
- We had a car that was declared SORN as it's not essential and considering selling it
- Family emergency (child medication) meant that my wife needed to use the car to take it to the local supermarket. Drive there and parked it in their car park - which is private property
- When she came back somebody from the DVLA had clamped the car. This is around 15:30. She packs up the kids and walks home
- I'm in London at the time and I'm told that if I pay the £260 release fee before 16:00 (which I did at 15:57) the chap can return and unclamp it. If I then get it taxed within 2 weeks, they'll refund £160 of it. Therefore a £100 fine effectively, which I accept and did
- Now the car was then left in the car park until c18:00 when my mother could arrive to look after the kids for my wife to walk to the car and drive it straight back
- So to be clear, from 15:30 - 18:00 the car was stationary on private property in the supermarket car park.
Now here's the rub.
About three weeks ago I received a notice saying that our car "was reported parked stationary on [PUBLIC ROAD] untaxed and that I either paid a £400 odd fine or go to court. This isn't to reclaim tax, but a penalty for parking an untaxed car in a public road.
I completed the form stating my details but that I didn't recognise this offence and could I be supplied with photographic evidence.
This week I receive a summons. Now my point/question is this;
- I do not contest that the car was driven by my wife untaxed to/from the supermarket and that it was parked on private property in-between. Accepted and paid the fine. But this isn't the alleged offence.
- The summons specifically calls out that the car was parked on X public road (close to the supermarket) at a time that is completely incorrect as at the time accused (16:16) it was parked in the supermarket. I can't confirm whether it was clamped at the time or not and I don't know what time DLVA man returned to the car but it was definitely after 15:57 but before 17:21 (when I called the DVLA centre again to confirm it was unclamped) but it was 100% at the supermarket
- In the court summons I also have a written statement that this DVLA officer (I don't know if this is the same person who actually clamped the car) saw the car parked on the public road at that time, Which is at best inaccurate or at worst, a barefaced lie because he (if it were the same person) clamped/unclamped it in the car park
My wife also categorically denies even driving it down the road.
So i intend to plead not guilty that the car was parked on the public road at 16:16 on said day. I have some evidence - that whilst not concrete - hopefully builds a picture;
- Mobile phone bills showing phonetical/text exchange starting from 15:53 right through to 18:00
- Also phone logs showing I called the DVLA clamping centre to pay the fee at 15:57 and again later 17:21 to confirm the car was unclamped
- I phoned the supermarket at 17:05 and spoke to somebody explaining the situation as I didn't want to be clamped by their car park attendants for overstaying (they have a 1 hour limit)
- Sadly no CCTV but I am trying to get a witness statement from the supermarket employee confirming that I told him the car was in their car park and to please not clamp it for overstaying to corroborate my story
- witness statement from my wife confirming the above and that the car at the time of alleged offence that it was not parked on the alleged public road
- witness statement from my mum confirming that she didn't arrive to our house to have the kids until gone 17:30 so my wife could get the car.
My personal view is that the nice DVLA man clamped the car in the supermarket (which I'm not even sure he should have done as it was technically on private property, but I'm leaving that) but then decided for whatever reason to report that the car was parked on the public road (close to the supermarket) to secure another fine or prosecution?
So based on the above, do you think the magistrate will throw it out as the car was definitely not on the road at that time at all. Granted it was somewhere else untaxed but that was private property and isn't the alleged offence.
I'm not one to dodgy/break the law and have accepted my fair share of reprimands in the past but this one isn't (IMHO) a fair one that's due.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance, Tuan.
interested in your views on this. Will stick to the facts to keep it straightforward;
28/04/15
- We had a car that was declared SORN as it's not essential and considering selling it
- Family emergency (child medication) meant that my wife needed to use the car to take it to the local supermarket. Drive there and parked it in their car park - which is private property
- When she came back somebody from the DVLA had clamped the car. This is around 15:30. She packs up the kids and walks home
- I'm in London at the time and I'm told that if I pay the £260 release fee before 16:00 (which I did at 15:57) the chap can return and unclamp it. If I then get it taxed within 2 weeks, they'll refund £160 of it. Therefore a £100 fine effectively, which I accept and did
- Now the car was then left in the car park until c18:00 when my mother could arrive to look after the kids for my wife to walk to the car and drive it straight back
- So to be clear, from 15:30 - 18:00 the car was stationary on private property in the supermarket car park.
Now here's the rub.
About three weeks ago I received a notice saying that our car "was reported parked stationary on [PUBLIC ROAD] untaxed and that I either paid a £400 odd fine or go to court. This isn't to reclaim tax, but a penalty for parking an untaxed car in a public road.
I completed the form stating my details but that I didn't recognise this offence and could I be supplied with photographic evidence.
This week I receive a summons. Now my point/question is this;
- I do not contest that the car was driven by my wife untaxed to/from the supermarket and that it was parked on private property in-between. Accepted and paid the fine. But this isn't the alleged offence.
- The summons specifically calls out that the car was parked on X public road (close to the supermarket) at a time that is completely incorrect as at the time accused (16:16) it was parked in the supermarket. I can't confirm whether it was clamped at the time or not and I don't know what time DLVA man returned to the car but it was definitely after 15:57 but before 17:21 (when I called the DVLA centre again to confirm it was unclamped) but it was 100% at the supermarket
- In the court summons I also have a written statement that this DVLA officer (I don't know if this is the same person who actually clamped the car) saw the car parked on the public road at that time, Which is at best inaccurate or at worst, a barefaced lie because he (if it were the same person) clamped/unclamped it in the car park
My wife also categorically denies even driving it down the road.
So i intend to plead not guilty that the car was parked on the public road at 16:16 on said day. I have some evidence - that whilst not concrete - hopefully builds a picture;
- Mobile phone bills showing phonetical/text exchange starting from 15:53 right through to 18:00
- Also phone logs showing I called the DVLA clamping centre to pay the fee at 15:57 and again later 17:21 to confirm the car was unclamped
- I phoned the supermarket at 17:05 and spoke to somebody explaining the situation as I didn't want to be clamped by their car park attendants for overstaying (they have a 1 hour limit)
- Sadly no CCTV but I am trying to get a witness statement from the supermarket employee confirming that I told him the car was in their car park and to please not clamp it for overstaying to corroborate my story
- witness statement from my wife confirming the above and that the car at the time of alleged offence that it was not parked on the alleged public road
- witness statement from my mum confirming that she didn't arrive to our house to have the kids until gone 17:30 so my wife could get the car.
My personal view is that the nice DVLA man clamped the car in the supermarket (which I'm not even sure he should have done as it was technically on private property, but I'm leaving that) but then decided for whatever reason to report that the car was parked on the public road (close to the supermarket) to secure another fine or prosecution?
So based on the above, do you think the magistrate will throw it out as the car was definitely not on the road at that time at all. Granted it was somewhere else untaxed but that was private property and isn't the alleged offence.
I'm not one to dodgy/break the law and have accepted my fair share of reprimands in the past but this one isn't (IMHO) a fair one that's due.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance, Tuan.
Sounds to me like you're trying to get off on a technicality.
You admit driving it there and back and a supermarket car park, whilst private property, is open to the public and therefore generally considered part of the highway (although there was a thread on here not too long ago discussing this as it involved a court case which you might want to look up).
Personally I'd be pleased not to be getting done for no insurance/MOT/etc etc as well!
Check the supermarket's address; might be the supermarket is technically ON that road?
You admit driving it there and back and a supermarket car park, whilst private property, is open to the public and therefore generally considered part of the highway (although there was a thread on here not too long ago discussing this as it involved a court case which you might want to look up).
Personally I'd be pleased not to be getting done for no insurance/MOT/etc etc as well!
Check the supermarket's address; might be the supermarket is technically ON that road?
Edited by Centurion07 on Thursday 2nd July 14:26
V8LM said:
Supermarket car park is not private property in this case.
It's either private property or it isn't - it doesn't depend on who is asking.You're presumably thinking of it as being a "public place" for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, which it is in the sense that the general public use it. However the Road Traffic Act has precisely naff all to do with tax/SORN issues. Those are governed by the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, for which the key question is whether it was a "public road", which is defined (in England and Wales) as "a road repairable at public expense" ( link). A supermarket car park would not generally fall into that category.
That may not necessarily be of much help the OP's wife given that there's no dispute that she did drive it on a public road to get there.
Centurion07 said:
Sounds to me like you're trying to get off on a technicality.
Personally I'd be pleased not to be getting done for no insurance/MOT/etc etc as well!
Check the supermarket's address; might be the supermarket is technically ON that road?
Thanks for this. The supermarket is not registered to the address in question. And the alleged offence isn't about driving without insurance/MOT.Personally I'd be pleased not to be getting done for no insurance/MOT/etc etc as well!
Check the supermarket's address; might be the supermarket is technically ON that road?
Edited by Centurion07 on Thursday 2nd July 14:26
I guess the way I see it is that I dispute the time and location of the offence for which I'm being prosecuted. If a subsequent case came to be with different details then my plea would be different?
Or is this not how it's done?
Aretnap said:
V8LM said:
Supermarket car park is not private property in this case.
It's either private property or it isn't - it doesn't depend on who is asking.You're presumably thinking of it as being a "public place" for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, which it is in the sense that the general public use it. However the Road Traffic Act has precisely naff all to do with tax/SORN issues. Those are governed by the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, for which the key question is whether it was a "public road", which is defined (in England and Wales) as "a road repairable at public expense" ( link). A supermarket car park would not generally fall into that category.
That may not necessarily be of much help the OP's wife given that there's no dispute that she did drive it on a public road to get there.
It almost sounds like you're being fined for the same thing twice?
Surely the fine to release the wheel clamp must kill off the so called second offence? The car was clamped, you were fined for having the car untaxed at that point, surely they cant do it a second time later that day?
Whats to stop them fining you for every road you used on the way home.
Just wondering if its been spotted by a separate dept and there isn't a system to not fine someone twice. Unless when paying they specifically told you not to drive it home and have it recovered surely they cant fine you again unless they can prove you used the car after returning home?
On a side note, why do people feel when someone asks for advice after sticking their hands in the air being honest about it, that its their god given right to jump all over them and get all bend out of shape over a non event. The OP has said it was a mistake and is happy to pay the initial fine, but the second has got to be rubbish, its even stating the car was somewhere it wasn't!
Surely the fine to release the wheel clamp must kill off the so called second offence? The car was clamped, you were fined for having the car untaxed at that point, surely they cant do it a second time later that day?
Whats to stop them fining you for every road you used on the way home.
Just wondering if its been spotted by a separate dept and there isn't a system to not fine someone twice. Unless when paying they specifically told you not to drive it home and have it recovered surely they cant fine you again unless they can prove you used the car after returning home?
On a side note, why do people feel when someone asks for advice after sticking their hands in the air being honest about it, that its their god given right to jump all over them and get all bend out of shape over a non event. The OP has said it was a mistake and is happy to pay the initial fine, but the second has got to be rubbish, its even stating the car was somewhere it wasn't!
It is private property, but it is also a public place, about the only place they cannot clamp is within the curtilage of your home.
From what i understand, they can clamp anyone untaxed parked on any road maintainable at public expense at any time. To clamp elsewhere, the car need to have been observed being used or parked on the road before they can clamp to prevent further offences being committed.
So i suspect the nice man from the dvla (who is infact probably a thug from a clamping firm who have nothing more than a contract with the dvla) might have made up his observation to give him the authority to clamp the car.
From what i understand, they can clamp anyone untaxed parked on any road maintainable at public expense at any time. To clamp elsewhere, the car need to have been observed being used or parked on the road before they can clamp to prevent further offences being committed.
So i suspect the nice man from the dvla (who is infact probably a thug from a clamping firm who have nothing more than a contract with the dvla) might have made up his observation to give him the authority to clamp the car.
Is the £100 fine for having no insurance?
That would be a separate issue to the penalty for driving the SORN vehicle on the road.
What I am getting at is if the penalty is for using the car, even if you were caught in the supermarket, you would have had to have driven on the road to get there?
That would be a separate issue to the penalty for driving the SORN vehicle on the road.
What I am getting at is if the penalty is for using the car, even if you were caught in the supermarket, you would have had to have driven on the road to get there?
spats said:
It almost sounds like you're being fined for the same thing twice?
Surely the fine to release the wheel clamp must kill off the so called second offence? The car was clamped, you were fined for having the car untaxed at that point, surely they cant do it a second time later that day?
Thanks for the comments.Surely the fine to release the wheel clamp must kill off the so called second offence? The car was clamped, you were fined for having the car untaxed at that point, surely they cant do it a second time later that day?
I've just looked through the paperwork again, which I think makes it clearer;
DLVA leaflet on the windscreen - I paid a total of £260 on the day and when the car was retaxed, I telephoned again and got a £170 refund (needed to do this within two weeks of the offence). The £100 is referred to as a 'Release fee' and the £160 was a 'Surety fee' to make sure I sorted the problem.
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"
Notice of penalties - there are two potential ones;
1 - Maximum penalty of £2,500 or 5x annual duty, whichever is greater + £90 legal costs for the the offence.
2 - The prosecutor will ask you to pay a further penalty of £96.67 being an amount equal to the outstanding duty from X to Y.
I'll happily pay 2, but I'm contesting #1.
So stepping back, I (think) I effectively paid £100 for the pleasure of someone adding/removing a physical clamp. Now this is about the consequence of the offence I'm 'accused' of committing. But the statements of facts as copied above, I stand by as being incorrect.
I think.
ging84 said:
So i suspect the nice man from the dvla (who is infact probably a thug from a clamping firm who have nothing more than a contract with the dvla) might have made up his observation to give him the authority to clamp the car.
This is the nub of my problem I think. The car was *never* on the road in question so how can the DVLA person be willing to statement that it was when it clearly wasn't?! (assuming my version of events above is true of course)NiceCupOfTea said:
It is perfectly possible for a car to be MOTed and insured without being taxed (mine was for some time), so that is a red herring.
You can tax it online in less than 5 minutes though if it's MOTedI'm not sure what kind of family emergency would require a trip to a super market to get medication which could not handle a 5 minute delay while the car is taxed, but ended up with the car parked up for long enough to be observed and clamped, sounds a lot more like a shopping trip to me, i wonder if it wasn't the first time either.
Pegscratch said:
How can a car be SORNed as it's not essential, but necessary for your wife to get medication for a child - from a supermarket, of all places. Was this perhaps Sunny Delight medication?
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.
GI Jnr said:
Like I've said before, I'll willingly accept the charges if I'm being charged for something I did.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious. The car didn't get there by itself.It was used on the road by your wife without VED. Plead mitigation by all means but stop trying to worm out of it.
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.
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?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff