|
Yes, failure to fill in the DVLA's cumbersome SORN form was the reason for the £80 fine - mea culpa! I did, however, write to DVLA (Swansea) telling them that although the vehicle had just passed its MOT, it could not be driven and was being scrapped (welding for MOT had wrecked some engine management system). This happened over 2 years ago (change of address resulted in non receipt of their communications) and the car (my son's actually) did - so far as I can remember - hang around off-road a bit (people wanted spares).
A contributor to this forum refers to the 'aggressive' arm of the State. Yes, they referred the £80 debt to a debt collection agency BEFORE they had received my defence! AND my defence (not yet submitted) is to be judged not by some independent arbiter but by the DVLA. What kind of justice is this? Someone else mentioned Russia!
DVLA tell me that the purpose of the SORN legislation was to prevent tax evasion and to keep track of cars. It seems, though, that they interpret the law as an excuse for extracting money from citizens. Why else, in this case, penalise someone who made no attempt to evade tax and never used the public highway after its breakdown? Why, too, whilst on this subject, do they sell number plates that they must know are going to be personalised by illegal modification? Hypocrisy - corruption?
Another contributor asked what they did all day. Take a look at their list of vehicle types; it's difficult to know whether to laugh or explode with anger! It's unbelievable. Kafka would have understood!
|
|
Why do you need to complain, by your own admission you did not declare SORN.
To call the form "cumbersome" is nonsense, its a tick in a box when you send a tax disk back, when they send you a tax reminder and you don't want to re-tax for some reason or on the annual SORN renewal form, how hard is that.
I was once sent the letter telling me I had not SORN'd a car when I sent the tax back. I knew I had but did not ahve a copy to prove it. presumed it would be a waste of time but wrote to DVLA pointing out I had ticked the box, got a letter back saying OK, no fine.
But I agree, they are not always that understanding, mate had to go to Hong Kong for family emergency, whilst there his tax ran out and when he got back after 3 months he had a fine waiting for him. Would they listen and accept that he was not in a position to pick up his mail and he had more important things to worry about, no way, had to pay up.
At the end of the day I totally support the need to ensure vehicles are taxed if they are kept/used on the road. I report a chap down our street twice a year when he fails to re-tax his Transit, he will eventually get the message.
|
Why do you need to complain, by your own admission you did not declare SORN.
Sorn is another Stalinist racket. Being fined for not telling some Government agency you're not doing anything with your car really is bonkers.
It might be a third tax but it would not be an extra one, it would be an existing one transferred..
And don't think that's not exactly the sort of flim flam they'd use to justify it. Transferring an existing tax onto something else which is already 50p too expensive is the policy of a nutjob.
The amount paid would relate to the mileage driven and fuel consumed, which is fairer than a flat rate for all.
That's already the case with our already heavily taxed fuel. Just how much more tax should people pay for consuming fuel?
Surely the difficulty about increasing fuel taxes is the comparison with other countries, which hits any continental truck drivers. Anyone able to would come back across the channel with full tanks whenever possible.
Well quite. The most effective constraint on big Government and punitive taxes is international competition. Government can only go so far before a more friendly jurisdiction starts to suck all your business, jobs and revenue away. Considering the EU's share of world GDP is shrinking by the day, it's clear that's already happening.
Diesel in the UK is 30p more than in France and people wonder why every Haulier in the country purposely plans their route so as they'll run out of diesel in France and not in England.
But I don't see anything wrong in principle with taking all the tax via the fuel. One of our cars costs about 12p/mile in VED, which must be more than I would pay via fuel.
I violently oppose anything being taxed twice. If you're going to apply a bespoke tax to something (fuel, tobacco, alcohol etc) then make it VAT exempt. I also violently oppose inheritance tax on the same principle.
We shouldn't be discussing what last morsals of our money the Government can steal from us, we should be discussing what parts of Government we can shut down and how much Government spending we can cut to bring taxes down to a reasonable level.
|
|
But in Europe diesel vehicles are taxed much more and are also subject to high road tolls plus a heavy tax on trailers its swings and roundabouts. If it was up to you we would pay no tax but then again unemployment would be horrendous.
Edited by Avant on 07/03/2013 at 22:09
|
|
Unemployment in Eurozone countries run by people with economics degrees is already horrendous. The fact the high tax EU is shrinking as part of the world economy every single day suggests I have a point. We need to stop thinking Governments rapacious assault on our wallets is acceptable.
If the Government was better at spending our money than we are then communism would've worked and we'd be talking in Russian right now.
|
|
I violently oppose anything being taxed twice. .
Oh come on, Jamie - money is taxed every time it changes hands, except in the black economy (which you may favour). It is a simple proposition that the tax the DVLA takes once a year is replaced by one taken every time you fill up. You lose one, you gain one. 'Twice' doesn't come into it. Fuel is already taxed 'twice' in any case.
And calling an £80 fine Stalinist is just rant. If you don't tell the system your car is off the road, they assume it isn't and you should have a tax disc. After all, you're saving some cash. In other places there are signs saying that if you trespass on the railway you may get fined £1000 - much more Stalinist. It's meant to deter.
|
Oh come on, Jamie - money is taxed every time it changes hands
That's not what I mean and you know it, so stop being difficult for sake of argument. I'm saying (and said, but you missed it) items laden with bespoke taxes such as fuel, tobacco and alcohol don't need VAT on them as well.
It is a simple proposition that the tax the DVLA takes once a year is replaced by one taken every time you fill up. You lose one, you gain one.
Moving a tax which shouldn't exist onto something else which is grossly overtaxed already is a poor proposition. Also I've seen enough Government 'reforms' in my relatively short life to know whenever Government reforms something it ends up costing us more. If you think they'd only raise fuel tax to cover lost VED revenue then you're living on Mars.
'Twice' doesn't come into it. Fuel is already taxed 'twice' in any case.
Exactly, so a third tax is beyond farce. VAT is apparently meant to be a percentage of the price of 'goods and/or services' yet 10p of that 140p you pay for petrol is due to VAT being charged on tax, which is neither. We shouldn't be taxing tax. Your method would see us taxing two taxes.
If you don't tell the system your car is off the road, they assume it isn't and you should have a tax disc.
Do you think they'd scrap the whole SORN racket (with it's associated fines) if they did away with car tax so we no longer needed a tax disc? Hardly, they'd just find something else to fine us for instead.
After all, you're saving some cash.
Oh how nice of them. You see I already earned the money, paid tax on it, then paid tax on it again in the form of 'national insurance' - which they keep trying to convince us is not income tax - so I thought I could leave my own car on my own private property and not have to tell anybody, frankly.
Clearly in your world the state has divine right over your income. Very dangerous.
|
Clearly in your world the state has divine right over your income. Very dangerous.
Keeping it simple - all government spending has to be paid for by taxation, in one form or another, whether it's taxation on income, taxation on wealth or taxation on consumption - government borrowing is just a way of spend now, tax later.
No-one, so far, has a magic wand to reduce government spending without reducing "benefits" in the widest sense - ie, defence, education, health as well as State Benefits - so all any politicians can do is to tinker with WHERE to get the taxation from.
Personally, I'd love to see VED abolished even with a corresponding increase in fuel duty because this would save a big chunk of administration costs, ie jobs, as well as cutting VED evasion at a stroke.
I'd also like to see a reduction in fuel duty funded by an increase in Income Tax but I don't expect much support on that one!
|
Personally, I'd love to see VED abolished even with a corresponding increase in fuel duty because this would save a big chunk of administration costs, ie jobs, as well as cutting VED evasion at a stroke
Not much to save in reality as the same admin would still be needed to track keepership.
|
Personally, I'd love to see VED abolished even with a corresponding increase in fuel duty because this would save a big chunk of administration costs, ie jobs, as well as cutting VED evasion at a stroke
Not much to save in reality as the same admin would still be needed to track keepership.
Why? The accuracy of "keepership" information is irrelevant given that ANPR and the Insurance database is used rather than paper records.
|
Personally, I'd love to see VED abolished even with a corresponding increase in fuel duty because this would save a big chunk of administration costs, ie jobs, as well as cutting VED evasion at a stroke
Not much to save in reality as the same admin would still be needed to track acy of "keepership" information is irrelevant given that ANPR and the Insurance database is used rather than paper records.
|
|
|
Why? The accuracy of "keepership" information is irrelevant given that ANPR and the Insurance database is used rather than paper records.
Surely there needs to be an accurate central record of who 'owns' each vehicle for the purpose of laibilty for damage, tracing offenders etc. Keeping that up to date is a pretty big job. No doubt changes could be managed on line, although the security against fraud and deception would be challenging.
However there are still a significant section of the population without web access and a fair chunk of those who do struggle with complex transactions. Others just don't trust it.
The government is about to launch Universal Credit with web only access. I can confidently predict they'll have to u-turn on that when the hard cases come out and bite.
|
Surely there needs to be an accurate central record of who 'owns' each vehicle for the purpose of laibilty for damage, tracing offenders etc. Keeping that up to date is a pretty big job. No doubt changes could be managed on line, although the security against fraud and deception would be challenging.
The system doesn't work well on that score, not among the criminal section of the community.
There's no value in maintaining an accurate database of law-abiding vehicle users !
|
The system doesn't work well on that score, not among the criminal section of the community.
There's no value in maintaining an accurate database of law-abiding vehicle users !
Obviously the truly determined pros have their ways. However plenty of not so pro petty criminals have been traced from the reg of their cars. And that's before we start on traffic offences, civil liability etc etc.
|
|
|
|
No-one, so far, has a magic wand to reduce government spending without reducing "benefits" in the widest sense - ie, defence, education, health as well as State Benefits - so all any politicians can do is to tinker with WHERE to get the taxation from.
Attempting to find the taxation required is a fools errand because history proves it is literally impossible for a country of our size to generate enough tax revenue to match HMG's current spending plans, so 'where do we get the money from?' is a pointless question. The question is 'what do we cut?'
The Government is currently spending nearly half of our GDP and that's just crazy, even an economic boom wouldn't provide them with enough to keep that up, so it's pointless debating what to tax and whose wallet to rape. So lets leave 'increase this tax' or 'increase that tax' debates behind because it's pointless. Let's start discussing what to slash. I can think of £50billion I could save right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
Do you think they'd scrap the whole SORN racket (with it's associated fines) if they did away with car tax so we no longer needed a tax disc? Hardly, they'd just find something else to fine us for instead..
Oh dear, 'they' are after us again. You are sounding like a well-balanced person, chips on both shoulders. I am not grumbling, because I have never been fined, yet. So I don't waste time complaining about a system which doesn't disadvantage me.
But I do have sympathy with the OP, who was a victim of circumstances. My wife has suffered at the 'hands' of a parking meter, into which she put the correct amount (£1.60) but it didn't detect a 5p coin. So she was fined for non-payment, and the jobsworths ('they') refused to accept any explanations. That was injustice too.
Edited by Andrew-T on 07/03/2013 at 11:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you need to complain, by your own admission you did not declare SORN.
The vehicle had been SORNed, but it had expired! My son had changed his address and so didn't receive the reminder.
To call the form "cumbersome" is nonsense
Once you know (after several minutes' reading) which box to tick, it's not, I know, that 'cumbersome'; it does, however, take up a lot of one's time when, perhaps, you have more pressing things to consider. The state is, in effect, stealing my time!
If, thunderbird, your friend was believed when he told the DVLA that he had in fact declared SORN but had no evidence to prove it, why am I not believed when I tell them that I'd written to them to explain why, after an MOT pass, the car was not driveable and was to be scrapped.
Yes, of course, if I'd followed all the rules assiduously, i wouldn't have been sent a penalty. My complaint was about the authoritarian manner in which the business had been handled (no excuses allowed for changed addresses, non tax evasion etc) and the sheer pointlessness of this huge over-bearing and arrogant arm (sorry, 'fist') of government.
I have a French registered car - when I use it, I pay tax on the fuel I buy; there's no tax for the car. So, if I want to use it for the 30th June and !st of July, I'm not required to pay two months' tax. The car tax here is extremely user unfriendly.
|
|
Motoristsdeservebetter has a valid point
|
|
|
|
It may be true for you but not all French people company cars are taxed and private cars are taxed through the toll system swings and roundabounts,my Uncle when he worked paid a fortune in toll taxes and company tax now hes retired he pays almost zero a bit like the UK.The French authoities can be just as pedantic as in the UK when they want.
Edited by Collos25 on 06/03/2013 at 17:50
|
|
The DVLA is one of the least rubbish governmental units. Getting an answer back off HMRC is a lot slower.....
|
The DVLA is one of the least rubbish governmental units. Getting an answer back off HMRC is a lot slower.....
DVLA and HMRC are about the same - if you measure it on an accurate response - quick wrong answers are no use to man or beast.
|
The DVLA is one of the least rubbish governmental units. Getting an answer back off HMRC is a lot slower.....
DVLA and HMRC are about the same - if you measure it on an accurate response - quick wrong answers are no use to man or beast.
This is not my experience. But there you go.
|
|
HMRC are a pretty dreadful department but in their defence they weren't helped by Gordon Brown doubling the length of the tax code and making it the longest in the entire World. They're still working through refunds for the 2007 over-taxing problem.
|
|
My tax code number in the UK (just received a new one) is four digits long three numbers and a letter 308L , my tax code number in Germany is seventeen digits.My NH number is as it was when it was issued on my birthday many moons ago.
|
My tax code number in the UK (just received a new one) is four digits long three numbers and a letter. My NH number is as it was when it was issued many moons ago.
Same here, Collos. I think Jamie and I live in parallel universes, or at least in different countries.
|
|
I think Jamie is repeating something oft mentioned in the media. Micky Clarke quoted it on five live money just today.
The issue is the length and complexity of the official handbook on tax.
It's a bit speciuos to blame Gordon Brown as he simply continued a trajectory from previous governments. The present lot have been in power for three years and don't seem to have improved the position.
|
It's a bit speciuos to blame Gordon Brown as he simply continued a trajectory from previous governments.
Kim Jong-ill simply continued the trajectory set by his father. Doesn't make it right does it?
The issue is the length and complexity of the official handbook on tax.
When one-eyed-Gordon wandered into the Treasury with his chainsaw, the tax code was around 5,000 sheets of A4. By the time he left it had more than doubled. Tax lawyers love it, obviously.
The present lot have been in power for three years and don't seem to have improved the position.
Well quite, but they're just continuing the trajectory set by Gordon Brown so presumably that's fine?
|
|
|
|
|
