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

[GI Jnr]

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.

[GI Jnr]

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?

Edited by Centurion07 on Thursday 2nd July 14:26

Thanks for this. The supermarket is not registered to the address in question. And the alleged offence isn't about driving without insurance/MOT.

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?

[GI Jnr]

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.

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.

[GI Jnr]

JustinP1 said:

Is the £100 fine for having no insurance?

No. As covered in my other reply, the £100 fine was to release the clamp.

[GI Jnr]

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)

[GI Jnr]

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]

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"

[GI Jnr]

Centurion07 said:

Was the clamping incident for being untaxed?

Yup.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[GI Jnr]

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.

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]

_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...

[GI Jnr]

PurpleMoonlight said:

One question though, is the road stated on the proceedings the one the car park is accessed from?

Nope. You drive past it but there's no reason to drive down/into it.

PS: I am going to seek a solicitor's advice BTW.

[GI Jnr]

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,

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