When I bought my new car I passed my Escort on to my wife. We agreed she'd run it in and then we'd buy her a new one. Problem is, she forgot to keep the tax and MOT up to date and yesterday we were clamped for having an invalid tax disc. Which is fair enough.
Today, having paid the £80 fine and the £120 surety (held until I present a valid tax disc) I am told the car will be declamped. I will them drive it to my local garage to have it MOT'ed so I can buy the tax disc.
If, as I suspect, the car fails the MOT I will take it off the road and buy my wife the new car I promised her. In other words, I will not tax the car. But the DVLA have told me they will not refund my £120 surety unless I do actually tax it because they can only refund on presentation of a tax disc.
Does anybody have any experience of this ruling? Is it right? I am not sure the two people I spoke to at DVLA were masters of their subjects but I need something concrete to back me up if I'm going to make a fuss about this. It seems wrong to me that the surety is lost because I make a decision to take the car off the road.
Any advice or help would be much appreciated,
Gary
|
I think (but I'm not absolutely certain) that the £120 surety is to ensure that you pay a minimum of £120 tax for the period that the vehicle was untaxed. Otherwise, if you were to take the car off the road and not re-tax it then the car would have been "on the road" but untaxed from the day the tax was due to the day you took it off the road. If you had things your way it would mean that you wouldn't pay any tax at all for that period. The £80 fine was exactly that ~ a fine for not complying with the rules.
I could be wrong, of course, but that explanation seems logical.
|
If the £120 is intended to represent "tax" for the period the car was untaxed and without MOT, then even if it now passes an MOT, that would not have been valid during the period in question. So they appear to be allowing an MOT in effect to be retrospective. Curious logic.
Is the £120 a fine, a surety, or a tax?
|
|
Does the OP have to tax the car retrospectively, that is back to the date the last one expired? I suppose that would make sense if it wasn't SORN'd.
|
|
|
So they appear to be allowing an MOT in effect to be retrospective. Curious logic.
I don't think its curious logic at all. Unless you have a time machine there is no way of going back and getting it MoT'd when it should have been. They want the OP to do what he should have done - i.e. get it MoT'd and then get it taxed. And the £120 is to make sure it is taxed (or he forfeits the money).
It seems reasonable to me, otherwise there would be an incentive for even more people to run around in untaxed cars without MoT.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your replies.
The lack of MOT is not something the clampers would have known about at the time of clamping. I think they only knew the car was untaxed. That's the reason given for the clamping, anyway.
According to the people I spoke to at DVLA the whole £120 surety is returned on production of a valid tax disc so there seems not to be an attempt to acquire tax not already paid.
They are simply saying that if I do anything other than tax the car the 120 quid is lost. And that's the bit that seems a tad unfair to me.
Gary
|
What is unfair about being fined for breaking the law?
|
Must sting a bit Gary but the authorities are getting very good at checking everyone's documentation by occult electronic means these days, and you aren't the only one who has been stung just for a bit of slobbishness. I speak from recent experience here. Think of it as rather a steep fine.
No doubt getting the lady a nice new projectile or roller skate (depending on where you live) will soothe your feelings a bit.
By the way: isn't it time some politician started a campaign to repress all the cloned illegal motors people say are driving about?
Edited by Lud on 02/05/2008 at 19:18
|
|
|
|
|
Gary, it's a forgetfulness tax, pure and simple. Obviously it was your turn to be unlucky. Intent (or lack thereof) is deemed irrelevant.
|
Like Customs and Excise the DVLA have the powers to levy their own fines and have relevant scales of penalty.
As the vehicle was not SORNed they will automatically presume the vehicle was being used on the road and will want the requisite duty from the date it was last taxed.
They will also levy a fine for having to deal with the matter.
I do not think they will have an interest in the MOT so are not concerned re your problems re getting it tested before being taxed.
I'm afraid you are going to have to bite the bullet. DVLA have a tight grip now and I'm afraid that any laid back attitude will not wash for whatever reason.
|
No offence to the OP, but personally I'm please that DVLA are cracking down. You can't get a tax disc without MoT and IMHO one of the good things about going after untaxed cars is it simultaneously weedles out the people running around without MoT. Not sure what your insurance situation would be either - I know that you still have cover even if the MoT is lapsed (so long as the car is roadworthy) but if the MoT is lapsed then puts you in a weaker position if you do have a bump.
Presumably if you had tax then £120 would be returned - as it is you now have to get MoT and then tax - which puts you back where you would be before it was clamped.
|
Believe the OP got off quite lightly.
As the registered keeper of an untaxed vehicle, you could be fined a minimum of £1000. In addition to this, you will be required to purchase a tax disc, pay arrears of vehicle tax accrued whilst the vehicle was untaxed and pay a penalty of £80. The maximum penalty for making a false declaration by declaring SORN when the vehicle is actually used or kept on a public road is £5000 and two years imprisonment.
As well as this, you could find your vehicle wheelclamped by DVLA's wheelclamping contractor. You would be charged a fee to have your vehicle released and you would also have to produce a valid tax disc or surety fee. If you did not pay this within 24 hours, DVLA would impound your vehicle. If you did not pay the necessary release and storage fees, DVLA would get rid of your vehicle, generally by crushing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all who replied - I have an update as I have just received a response to my appeal.
Just to clarify: I am NOT arguing against the fine or the surety. I am arguing against the idea that the surety - which is refundable - can ONLY be refunded if I produce a valid tax disc whereas I would prefer to SORN the car and present the SORN certificate instead. They were quite right to clamp me and fine me - I have no argument with that.
Anyway, DVLA have confirmed that to get the 120 quid surety back only a valid tax disc will do. Taking the vehicle off the road isn't good enough so I have to accept the loss of the surety and learn a lesson from it.
Thank you all for replying - I do appreciate it.
Cheers,
Gary
|
Surely 6 months tax is cheaper than £120?... and then just get a refund after a few weeks for the remaining 5 months tax?
Or have they put a closure to that loophole?
Edited by mfarrow on 09/05/2008 at 18:59
|
mfarrow, the point is that the car is not expected to pass the MOT, and thus, as the OP has not considered spending money on it to fix it (because the repairs are too expensive?) he will not be able to tax it to get the refund. He will have to scrap it and lose his £120.
So the OP (or his wife) was driving around in a very unroadworthy, untaxed car with an expired MOT. I wonder if it was insured...
|
|
Will you get your money back if you scrap it ?
|
|
Was the car insured or not ?
|
|
get it taxed, get your £120 back then cash your new tax in then scrap it you will only lose a months worth that way
|
|
|
|
I admit I overlooked that part of the OP, but it hasn't even been for an MoT, so he has no idea how much it would have cost to fix I know at worst it's an extra £50, but less if you find a garage that's doing a deal.
I have it on good authority from this forum this week that you can very easily get an MoT without a tester seeing the car.
|
>so he has no idea how much it would have cost
Oh yes he does. Too much.
>I have it on good authority from this forum this week that you can very easily get an MoT without a tester seeing the car
Wow, I missed that one. Where did you see that?
|
>I have it on good authority from this forum this week that you can very easily get an MoT without a tester seeing the carWow, I missed that one. Where did you see that?
So did I. Go on, tell us more, mfarrow.
BTW, I thought (I may well be wrong) that if you went to tax a car that had not been declared SORN (and you had been caught using it on the road without the tax), you would be asked to pay all the back tax due on it.
So the "trick" mentioned above of getting it taxed and then cashing in the disc with the loss of just one month's value does not work.
|
|
Last year the RFL renewal for SWMBO car never materialised (DVLA had computer problems so I was told) and it was two months before I noticed - I went to tax it but because it wasn't SORN ed I had to back date tax for the two months. We were lucky she managed to get away with it for so long without being stopped.
|
You know, this thread illustrates how difficult life has become for the ordinary citizen to deal with the bureaucracy needed to live a normal life.
I reckon that I have to deal with more paperwork in my own home than a secretary at work had to in the 1950's or 1960's. The scope for error is huge and the penalties out of proportion to the alleged crimes involved.
My poor old dad who is 80 years old and lives alone finds things almost impossible to deal with and is prone to get ripped off by the supposedly most honourable of organisations, British Gas being the most recent.
Driving issue? Well he has been advised by us all to have his driving assessed formally. He lives in Carlisle but the only centre that can do this is in Newcastle, 60-70 miles away, and a charge of £50 is made. OK, so I will drive him there and back but not all 80 year old gents have that service to hand. What if he had to make the drive himself?
More than ever we have a scenario of state against citizen rather than state for the benefit of citizen.
|
>>>>>> Well he has been advised by us all to have his driving assessed formally.
At least he has taken notice of you.
My late step-grandfather (still keeping up??!!) refused to stop driving despite protests from family members to his GP, the DVLA and even the Police!! Doctor passed him fit to drive even though 5 minutes in the car would have reduced anyone to a jibbering wreck. Worst of all, his insurance company never questioned the fact about a 93 year old still driving, just happy to keep taking the premium every year..........
|
|
|
He lives in Carlisle but the only centre that can do this is in Newcastle 60-70 miles away and a charge of £50 is made.
There is an alternative though; you could ask an ADI (registered driving instructor) to accompany him and give an honest appraisal of the driving standard afterwards. Most ADIs are more than capable and willing to do this and it's much cheaper and more convenient!
I don't like to say it, but if he cannot drive the 60-70 miles to the test centre, then to me that says something about whether he should be driving or not. Why can't he drive himself?
Edited by pendulum on 11/05/2008 at 09:04
|
He would make the drive if we let him, it's me who insists he shouldn't. Basically we want the authorities to officially declare him no longer fit to drive, at which point he agrees he will, reluctantly, give up his car.
If we try and do it any other way then I'm afraid he will continue to drive and be a danger to himself and others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
