 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Classic Cars (UK group) / January 2009At what point is a vehicle a vehicle?
In light of another thread in uk.legal about an unlicenced car, a question has occurred to me - when does a collection of parts become a car for the purposes of road tax (or, more appropriately, SORN)? I have a car purchased middle of last year that is in midst of a rebuild, it has a registration number and is in fact insured should anything happen to it, but its certainly not a car in the conventional sense yet - its a rolling chassis at the moment. When engine and gearbox are installed, steering, brakes, etc it'll be nearer a 'complete' car, but it isn't due to be MOT'd until end of Feb. Is *that* the point it becomes liable for SORN? I'm happy to tax it anytime, since its a zero-duty vehicle pre-'71, but of course I *can't* tax it yet because it doesn't have an MOT. Cheers _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > In light of another thread in uk.legal about an unlicenced car, a > question has occurred to me - when does a collection of parts become a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > anytime, since its a zero-duty vehicle pre-'71, but of course I *can't* > tax it yet because it doesn't have an MOT. Cheers If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. If it's not been taxed since SORN was introduced ('98, IIRC), then you don't need to SORN it. If it has, then you do. And you WILL get fined if you don't. You can find out when it was last taxed at vehiclelicence.gov.uk > If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. Doesn't > matter how many carrier bags it's in. But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines the location of the "car"? It's hard to believe it would be the one with the ashtray. I can see how the whole collection of them may require a SORN, but it's less clear which one would place that "car" on the road. Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. > But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines the > location of the "car"? Why's the location necessary? You used to be asked for it for SORN, but haven't been for years. The only location DVLA care about is the one on the V5, which is just somewhere you can be contacted by post. >>> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >>> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. >> But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines the >> location of the "car"? >Why's the location necessary? Because it might determine whether the car requires a valid tax disc or whether it may be SORNd.  SignatureCynic Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >>>> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. >>> But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines >>> the location of the "car"? >>Why's the location necessary? > Because it might determine whether the car requires a valid tax disc or > whether it may be SORNd. I don't see how. At 09:33:14 on 07/01/2009, Adrian delighted uk.legal by announcing: > Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't see how. If it's 'off the road', it doesn't need to be taxed. If it's not 'off the road', it cannot be SORN'd. "Alex" <no.spam@mail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >>>> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >> >>>> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. >> >>> But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one >> >>> defines the location of the "car"? >> > > Why's the location necessary? >> > Because it might determine whether the car requires a valid tax disc >> > or whether it may be SORNd. >> I don't see how. > If it's 'off the road', it doesn't need to be taxed. If it's not 'off > the road', it cannot be SORN'd. Indeed. Now, how does the location of the carrier bags affect that? There's not been any suggestion that some of the carrier bags may be left at the side of the road - because, clearly, they wouldn't remain there for very long... >"Alex" <no.spam@mail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >saying: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >at the side of the road - because, clearly, they wouldn't remain there >for very long... Would that mean the tealeaves would get stuck for the forty quid? SignatureIan D >>>>> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >>>>> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. >>>> But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines >>>> the location of the "car"? >>>Why's the location necessary? >> Because it might determine whether the car requires a valid tax disc or >> whether it may be SORNd. >I don't see how. If the carrier bags are on a public road it will need a tax disc. If they are on private land it may be SORNd. Now, what if *one* of the carrier bags is on public land and the other nine are on private land? It is not such an unlikely situation. The car chassis may well be parked in the street while the engine and gearbox are in a garage. SignatureCynic Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>> If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. >>>>>> Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in. >>>>> But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines >>>>> the location of the "car"? >>>>Why's the location necessary? >>> Because it might determine whether the car requires a valid tax disc >>> or whether it may be SORNd. >>I don't see how. > If the carrier bags are on a public road it will need a tax disc. If > they are on private land it may be SORNd. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is not such an unlikely situation. The car chassis may well be > parked in the street while the engine and gearbox are in a garage. Fine. I'll go and leave a chassis in the street - you come and identify the vehicle it belongs to. Anyway, what about if there's a couple of doors and a pile of wheels left on the pavement? Or, indeed, some of the VIN plates that I've got in the other room? Would I be liable for a fine (other than for littering) if I left them on the pavement? > Anyway, what about if there's a couple of doors and a pile of wheels left > on the pavement? That's an odd question for you to ask since it's a paradox of your own claim that "it's a car. Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in." Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Anyway, what about if there's a couple of doors and a pile of wheels >> left on the pavement? > That's an odd question for you to ask since it's a paradox of your own > claim that "it's a car. Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in." Not really. If something recognisably and identifiably a particular, complete, vehicle is on the road, then it needs to have valid VED. If the vehicle is dismantled to a point of unidentifiability, then the location of the parts is irrelevant for the purposes of VED. If parts are left on the road, then obstruction of the highway or littering is a strong possibility, but a breach of SORN isn't. Anyway, this subthread has moved quite a way from the original question that that claim was answering - which was "Do I need to SORN a dismantled car?". Message-ID: <lB28l.161326$XB5.38610@newsfe29.ams2> By the way, you may find that the snipped first half of the sentence you quoted makes that rather clearer... "If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in." It's quite simple. For the purposes of SORN, any _current_ vehicle registration record on the DVLA database which isn't currently taxed or has been untaxed for over a decade needs to be SORNed. Doesn't matter if the V5C is the only remaining extant bit of the vehicle. > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "If it's UK registered then, for the purposes of SORN, it's a car. > Doesn't matter how many carrier bags it's in." But I believe that's wrong. A registered keeper may indeed still have SORN duties and obligations but, those obligations do not prove it's a car. > It's quite simple. For the purposes of SORN, any _current_ vehicle > registration record on the DVLA database which isn't currently taxed or > has been untaxed for over a decade needs to be SORNed. Doesn't matter if > the V5C is the only remaining extant bit of the vehicle. I believe you are conflating two different issues. AIUI SORN regulations apply only to registrations while VED regulations apply to extant vehicles. If a vehicle was registered, remains on the register and is now untaxed then it needs a SORN. The fact that it may no longer be a vehicle does not offer a defence to the need to SORN or to notify and evidence the vehicle's export or destruction. However the fact that the registered keeper has duties under SORN does not prove it's still a vehicle regardless of how many carrier bags it's in. Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> It's quite simple. For the purposes of SORN, any _current_ vehicle >> registration record on the DVLA database which isn't currently taxed or >> has been untaxed for over a decade needs to be SORNed. Doesn't matter >> if the V5C is the only remaining extant bit of the vehicle. > I believe you are conflating two different issues. AIUI SORN > regulations apply only to registrations while VED regulations apply to > extant vehicles. I'd love for you to explain this huge conceptual difference between SORN & VED regulations. No, seriously. > If a vehicle was registered, remains on the register and is now untaxed > then it needs a SORN. The fact that it may no longer be a vehicle does > not offer a defence to the need to SORN or to notify and evidence the > vehicle's export or destruction. Yes, dear. That's near-as-dammit what I said, dear. > However the fact that the registered keeper has duties under SORN does > not prove it's still a vehicle regardless of how many carrier bags it's > in. Go back and read the original question, Tony. > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Go back and read the original question, Tony. Sorry that I asked now! No, its actually been a pretty fascinating discussion even though its drifted far from the original question. I was quite surprised to find that my 'car' was already SORN'd, given that when I bought it it didn't actually exist as a car and was only a bare chassis. TBH I guess I wouldn't have to register it with the reg mark allied to that anyway, given that large parts of that chassis have been replaced and that no other part of the car that the chassis was once part of have been used. I suppose a whole different question arises there, that of how much of the car needs to be new in order to give it an identity other than that originally associated with it, but thats not one I'm bothered about since it'd look a bit strange with a 58 reg mark (and of course wouldn't give me free tax!). It *is* interesting though, to think further down that road, even just hypothetically. My engine and gearbox are brand new and have never been in a car, the rear axle CASE is recovered from another vehicle, but everything within the case is new, prop new, body is all brand new panels, parts of interior are recovered from a different make of car and the rest is brand new, every electrical item is brand new (including the loom). All road wheels are brand new, as is the dash instruments and even steering wheel. Kilo for kilo, I'd guess less than 10% of an identifiable car exists within the new car, so is that the one that *should* be nominated as the final result? > Sorry that I asked now! No, its actually been a pretty fascinating > discussion even though its drifted far from the original question. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > replaced and that no other part of the car that the chassis was once > part of have been used. Hang on, are you saying the car's still SORN's in the previous owner's name? If so, that would normally be cancelled automatically as soon as you became registered as the keeper. If you haven't done so, for whatever reason, then you're risking a fine for not notifying the DVLA of the change of keeper. You're also risking the previous owner declaring the vehicle to have been scrapped, which he may well do when he gets a SORN reminder. If that happens, you'll have one hell of a headache trying to get it resurrected. >> Sorry that I asked now! No, its actually been a pretty fascinating >> discussion even though its drifted far from the original question. I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > may well do when he gets a SORN reminder. If that happens, you'll have > one hell of a headache trying to get it resurrected. No, it wasn't until I asked the question here that I actually had a logbook with a reg number on it for me to enter into that enquiry form. I've sent it off now for change of keeper (well, and change of most of the other bits!) I hadn't realised until I read your post though that SORN is tied to the person registering it - if I read your post right thats what you're saying. If a car is SORN'd, what the hell does it matter if it changes hands during that period, its still 'registered' as SORN so I cant see why a new owner would need to reaffirm that. Put it this way, you dont have to surrender an existing tax disc and apply for a new one when a car is sold, do you? <snip> >> Hang on, are you saying the car's still SORN's in the previous owner's >> name? If so, that would normally be cancelled automatically as soon as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > hands during that period, its still 'registered' as SORN so I cant see > why a new owner would need to reaffirm that. Well no, but neither, apparently, did you see why you should have carried out, or checked that the previous owner had carried out, the correct procedures for change of ownership. There's really no need to get aerated about it: the SORN procedures, whether you like them or not, and whether you can spot any logic in them or not, are perfectly clear, and readily available. If you buy a vehicle that's SORNed, or should have been SORNed, you immediately either re-SORN it, tax it, or notify permanent destruction. "Willy" is dead right in what he's said. Put it this way, you dont > have to surrender an existing tax disc and apply for a new one when a > car is sold, do you? No - different rules. SignatureKevin Poole ****Use current date to reply (e.g. jan2009@mainbeam.co.uk)**** > <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > carried out, or checked that the previous owner had carried out, the > correct procedures for change of ownership. Eh? > There's really no need to > get aerated about it: the SORN procedures, whether you like them or not, > and whether you can spot any logic in them or not, are perfectly clear, > and readily available. If you buy a vehicle that's SORNed, or should > have been SORNed, you immediately either re-SORN it, tax it, or notify > permanent destruction. "Willy" is dead right in what he's said. I'm not remotely aerated. And no, the procedure is most defintely NOT clear or readily available. Nowhere on the V5 is there any reference to making a SORN declaration, and no online page I've come across tells me that I need to SORN a vehicle for the same period twice - in fact I've still only the posters in this group to go on! Even as I made an online SORN declaration I was told that I did not need to as there was a current one already. > Put it this way, you dont >> have to surrender an existing tax disc and apply for a new one when a >> car is sold, do you? > > No - different rules. Then how about the DVLA actually telling the customer what he needs to do in order to stay within the law? Oh no, hang on, that wouldn't allow them to criminalise and extract extra money from people, would it? _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Well no, but neither, apparently, did you see why you should have >> carried out, or checked that the previous owner had carried out, the >> correct procedures for change of ownership. > Eh? Have you got a V5 with your name on? Somebody SORNed it last summer. It was either you, and you've forgotten, or the previous owner - in which case, he's probably still getting the paperwork through for it. > I'm not remotely aerated. And no, the procedure is most defintely NOT > clear or readily available. Nowhere on the V5 is there any reference to > making a SORN declaration, and no online page I've come across tells me > that I need to SORN a vehicle for the same period twice You don't. SORN expires after 12 months _or_ a change of keeper. > - in fact I've still only the posters in this group to go on! http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sorn+new+keeper > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Have you got a V5 with your name on? Not yet, no. It hasn't been necessary up to now. I now have the old V5, which was the only thing that alerted me to the reg number, which I've now sent off so a new V5 will be along shortly. The 'change of ownership' is a piece of string - when, precisely, does the car become 'mine'? When I pay a deposit? But there *wasn't* a car then? When I take delivery of the finished vehicle? Or some arbitrary date in between? > Somebody SORNed it last summer. > It was either you, and you've forgotten, or the previous owner - in which [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sorn+new+keeper Yes, I can Google the answer. What, presuming that I dont post here and come across it by accident, alerts me to ask the question? _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Have you got a V5 with your name on? > Not yet, no. Right. So SORN isn't your problem, since you aren't the registered keeper. > Yes, I can Google the answer. What, presuming that I dont post here and > come across it by accident, alerts me to ask the question? Your basic responsibility to do a little simple research as to what you're getting into? > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your basic responsibility to do a little simple research as to what > you're getting into? Dont be silly. There is no reason publicly known to investigate the possibility of SORN needing re-notifying. I'm not a frivolous person who knowingly avoids obligations - I didn't realise a SORN was not transportable, in the same way that a VED is. I reckon if you asked the man on the omnibus, he'd not think he needed to re-apply either. Yes, there is an obligation to make oneself aware of rules and regs concerning an something they are about to do, but it would be inequitable for me to prosecute you for, for example, not having insurance to cover you against earthquakes linked to you digging spuds in your allotment when there is no sensible reason why you should have known that you *needed* such insurance. By the way, you *do* have earthquake cover, dont you? _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Your basic responsibility to do a little simple research as to what >> you're getting into? > Dont be silly. There is no reason publicly known to investigate the > possibility of SORN needing re-notifying. I'm not a frivolous person who > knowingly avoids obligations - I didn't realise a SORN was not > transportable, in the same way that a VED is. It's on the back of the VED/SORN form. > I reckon if you asked the > man on the omnibus, he'd not think he needed to re-apply either. He probably wouldn't even know what you were on about. Does that mean he wouldn't need to declare SORN at all? "The man on the omnibus" is never going to buy an untaxed car and leave it untaxed. End of. (Oh, and I don't have an allotment) > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's on the back of the VED/SORN form. Wouldn't get a VED form for it, since it wasn't mine then. And a SORN *form*? I thought it was only done online. Still, I'm sure you're right. Lets not fall out over it - I just maintain that, unlike the requirement for taxing a car or SORNing it in the first place, the requirement to RE-SORN an existing SORN'd vehicle isn't as widely known. >> I reckon if you asked the >> man on the omnibus, he'd not think he needed to re-apply either. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "The man on the omnibus" is never going to buy an untaxed car and leave > it untaxed. End of. Given the circs, I dispute that. As I said, I'm not aware that I'm overly lax with keeping up with things, and I didn't know about it. > (Oh, and I don't have an allotment) Who says that obviates the need to be insured for it?!! _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> It's on the back of the VED/SORN form. > Wouldn't get a VED form for it, since it wasn't mine then. > And a SORN *form*? No, a VED/SORN form. The normal "your tax is expiring" reminder. > I thought it was only done online. Tick the box, scrawl, drop on PO counter. > Lets not fall out over it - I just maintain that, unlike the requirement > for taxing a car or SORNing it in the first place, the requirement to > RE-SORN an existing SORN'd vehicle isn't as widely known. It's not. But it's something that's a fairly rare requirement amongst the populace- at-large. >> (Oh, and I don't have an allotment) > Who says that obviates the need to be insured for it?!! Oh, ffs... Don't start the legal lot off again... > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, a VED/SORN form. The normal "your tax is expiring" reminder. Oh, *that* bloody thing! Are we meant to actually *read* that then? >> I thought it was only done online. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But it's something that's a fairly rare requirement amongst the populace- > at-large. Probably not, no. I'd imagine only a tiny percentage of used car sales involve an active SORN, but then I could be wrong I suppose. My question now though is have I fulfilled the obligation which you and others kindly made me aware of. I've 're-SORNed' that car, by virtue of filling in its reg and the document number off the V5. But I wasn't asked who *I* was, not that I remember anyway. And since I got all the bollocks about it already being SORN'd for the next six months I suppose they still have it registered to the previous keeper. So in doing that new SORN, even before they acknowledge that I'm the owner, have I SORN'd it as the new owner, if you follow my question! >>> (Oh, and I don't have an allotment) > >> Who says that obviates the need to be insured for it?!! > > Oh, ffs... Don't start the legal lot off again... _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> It's on the back of the VED/SORN form. >>> Wouldn't get a VED form for it, since it wasn't mine then. And a SORN >>> *form*? >> No, a VED/SORN form. The normal "your tax is expiring" reminder. > Oh, *that* bloody thing! Are we meant to actually *read* that then? So how DO you want them to get the information across to you? Phone you personally and, in lilting Swansea accents, explain every last detail before asking if there's any possible scenarios they could have missed? > My question now though is have I fulfilled the obligation which you and > others kindly made me aware of. Umm, not if it's not your car it isn't. And by "your" car, I mean as far as Swansea's concerned... > I've 're-SORNed' that car, by virtue of filling > in its reg and the document number off the V5. But I wasn't asked who > *I* was, not that I remember anyway. And since I got all the bollocks > about it already being SORN'd for the next six months I suppose they > still have it registered to the previous keeper. Of course. The registered keeper is the only person with any real stake in whether it's SORNed or not. He's going to be wondering when he gets the confirmation letter in a couple of weeks... > So in doing that new SORN, even before they acknowledge that I'm the > owner, have I SORN'd it as the new owner, if you follow my question! No, you've SORNed it _for_ the current keeper... Is it your car? Is it his car? I've completely lost track here of what the _actual_ situation is... > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > personally and, in lilting Swansea accents, explain every last detail > before asking if there's any possible scenarios they could have missed? That last one was just me taking the piss. Yes, right, its on the form. >> My question now though is have I fulfilled the obligation which you and >> others kindly made me aware of. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Is it your car? Is it his car? I've completely lost track here of what > the _actual_ situation is... So when is it possible for ME to SORN it on MY behalf then? Because as far as this thread seems to be concerned, I'm liable for the penalties as soon as its 'my' car. But we dont *know* the date it became/becomes 'my' car, because we cant ascertain what conditions need to be met to change ownership. I've contracted to buy a car on one day, paid a deposit on another day, became aware of a particular vehicle being the one we're working from on yet another day, paid and will pay further installments on yet other days, and will owe a final payment on a different date on which I'll collect it. Which one of those, if any, is the date I 'bought' the car? If the date that is arbitrarily drawn from the hat as being the day it changed hands is a day prior to today, then the DVLA have made me liable for an offence without any method of *not* committing it - the SORN I've done we now reckon is not 'my' SORN, but if the car is now mine then I'm liable for not letting them know I still want to SORN it! _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> So in doing that new SORN, even before they acknowledge that I'm the >>> owner, have I SORN'd it as the new owner, if you follow my question! >> No, you've SORNed it _for_ the current keeper... >> >> Is it your car? Is it his car? I've completely lost track here of what >> the _actual_ situation is... > So when is it possible for ME to SORN it on MY behalf then? When it's registered in your name. When you open the envelope, and remove the V5C in your name, just go online within the next week or three, and SORN it then. > And a SORN *form*? I thought it was only done online. The V11 that DVLA send out as a reminder has a box on it "If you want to declare that the vehicle is off the road, put an X in this box" So it isn't a SORN Form, but a form that includes the SORN option. All the guidance on the form encourages you to do a SORN online, but they do admit that you can take the form to a Post Office that issues Road Tax or post the form to an address (which is a department in the Local Authority and not the DVLA). > I just maintain that, unlike the requirement > for taxing a car or SORNing it in the first place, the requirement to > RE-SORN an existing SORN'd vehicle isn't as widely known. On the back of the V11, it is quite specific "You cannot transfer a SORN". Logically this makes sense - if a vehicle is taxed and the tax disc is transferred with the car, then the fact that it is taxed is obvious, and only taxed cars can be used on public roads[1]. As there is no equivalent marker put on a car (or a carrier bag containing a car) there is no physical evidence that a SORN is in place; and a SORN is a personal promise by the registered keeper to not put the vehicle on a public road, so each new keeper needs to make their own promise. Whether this is widely known is debatable, but it can be arrived at by logic. Jim [1] I know that there are specific exceptions in the legislation, but I didn't want to complicate the scenario. > By the way, you *do* have earthquake cover, dont you? Yes, thanks for asking. My home is also built to comply with current earthquake regulations. <snip> >>> If a car is SORN'd, what the hell does it matter if it >>> changes hands during that period, its still 'registered' as SORN so I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Eh? It's about half a year since you bought the car, but you said you have only recently sent off the V5. <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicl e/DG_4022311> explains how it should be done. >> There's really no need to get aerated about it: the SORN procedures, >> whether you like them or not, and whether you can spot any logic in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > I'm not remotely aerated. OK. It was the "what the hell" stuff that made me wonder. > And no, the procedure is most defintely NOT > clear or readily available. Nowhere on the V5 is there any reference to > making a SORN declaration, and no online page I've come across tells me > that I need to SORN a vehicle for the same period twice - in fact I've > still only the posters in this group to go on! "Buying a vehicle that has SORN on it If you keep the vehicle off the road then you’ll need to make a SORN when you become the registered keeper. The previous SORN comes to an end on the date you buy the vehicle." from <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_069727> > Even as I made an online > SORN declaration I was told that I did not need to as there was a > current one already. But wasn't that before you were the registered keeper? >> Put it this way, you dont >>> have to surrender an existing tax disc and apply for a new one when a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do in order to stay within the law? Oh no, hang on, that wouldn't allow > them to criminalise and extract extra money from people, would it? They usually do. There are plenty of logical holes in DVLA procedures, but I don't think this is one of them. If you think they're unclear here, try telling them you've sold a car to Johnny Foreigner, but not actually pushed it onto the boat yourself, without signing something that's patently untrue. SignatureKevin Poole ****Use current date to reply (e.g. jan2009@mainbeam.co.uk)**** Kevin Poole <jan2009@mainbeam.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > If you think they're unclear > here, try telling them you've sold a car to Johnny Foreigner, but not > actually pushed it onto the boat yourself, without signing something > that's patently untrue. Yup, done that a couple of times lately-ish. No problem at all. "I declare that the vehicle will be exported on the date shown opposite" "Only use this section if the vehicle is being exported permanently" > Kevin Poole <jan2009@mainbeam.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "I declare that the vehicle will be exported on the date shown opposite" > "Only use this section if the vehicle is being exported permanently" But their assumption seems to be that the owner is exporting it personally, and can thus (subject to being run over by a tram on the way to the port) give such a promise. After a long series of letters to them in 2004, they agreed to alter their wording to those you quote, but still, I believe, tell you if you ring up to ask, to hand parts 1-10 to any non-UK keeper, while the form says 1-8 must be returned to them on sale. You are still signing that something will happen over which you have no control once the car is driven off or loaded onto the transporter. So you don't actually sign an untruth on a post2005-ish form, just something that may or may not be true. Meanwhile, poor Johnny Foreigner gets his "new" car with either no documents at all, or, at best, half a V5C showing it's still registered to John Bull in the UK. SignatureKevin Poole ****Use current date to reply (e.g. jan2009@mainbeam.co.uk)**** > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/RegisteringAVehicl e/DG_4022311> Well I think thats at least open to argument - I *still* haven't "bought the car", because its still with the seller, such as it is, and will remain so for a number of weeks yet. It is mine? Well, no, what it will *become* is mine, when it finishes becoming what it will become. > explains how it should be done. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>> > But wasn't that before you were the registered keeper? Indeed it was (or rather, *is*). But thats the point, isn't it? I have to notify the DVLA that I'm the new keeper, but at the moment that I send that off I now am responsible for SORNing it. Because the system isn't aware that paperwork is en route to tell them there is a new keeper, it attempts to stop me making the declaration for SORN. Its a chicken egg scenario! >>> Put it this way, you dont >>>> have to surrender an existing tax disc and apply for a new one when [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > actually pushed it onto the boat yourself, without signing something > that's patently untrue. Sorry, I dont get that! Gimme it again Because the DVLA have probably about 30,000,000 customers and I reckon that they think that they all have at least a general grasp of the Law!! >> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > in order to stay within the law? Oh no, hang on, that wouldn't allow them > to criminalise and extract extra money from people, would it? > Because the DVLA have probably about 30,000,000 customers and I reckon > that they think that they all have at least a general grasp of the Law!! Charles, have you always been a sanctimonious retard, or do you make a special exception here? Now, how can I put this nicely for you? How about "shut the f.ck up you top-posting dickhead"? > I hadn't realised until I read your post though that SORN is tied to the > person registering it - if I read your post right thats what you're > saying. If a car is SORN'd, what the hell does it matter if it changes > hands during that period, its still 'registered' as SORN so I cant see > why a new owner would need to reaffirm that. It's all in the wording. You make a SORN declaration not registration. As the keeper, you're declaring that the vehicle is not being used (or parked) on the road. Effectively, you're making a promise to the DVLA and accepting that you'll be subject to a fine if you break that promise. No problem as long as you're in control of the vehicle, but you wouldn't want to be held to that promise once it's in someone else's posession. _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Sorry that I asked now! No, its actually been a pretty fascinating > discussion even though its drifted far from the original question. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > replaced and that no other part of the car that the chassis was once > part of have been used. Umm, have you actually registered it in your name yet? Or did the previous owner SORN it? If you haven't registered it in your name, do so. Now. > I suppose a whole different question arises there, that of how much of > the car needs to be new in order to give it an identity other than that > originally associated with it, but thats not one I'm bothered about > since it'd look a bit strange with a 58 reg mark (and of course wouldn't > give me free tax!). You'd be more likely to get a Q-plate and non-free-tax. > It *is* interesting though, to think further down > that road, even just hypothetically. My engine and gearbox are brand new [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > less than 10% of an identifiable car exists within the new car, so is > that the one that *should* be nominated as the final result? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014246 > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You'd be more likely to get a Q-plate and non-free-tax. Ewwwww. You can *shove* that idea! >> It *is* interesting though, to think further down >> that road, even just hypothetically. My engine and gearbox are brand new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ > RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014246 Well, reading that has (just) put my mind at rest. An existing chassis, yep, I qualify there, AND two of the following from the original vehicle: suspension (front & back); steering assembly; axles (both); transmission or engine. Well I've got the full orig steering assembly (if you discount the actual steering wheel at the end!), and I've got the full original suspension. Phew, *just* made it! >> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ >> RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014246 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > actual steering wheel at the end!), and I've got the full original > suspension. Phew, *just* made it! Or you could just take the pragmatic view (I'm not advising you do this, of course) and not worry about it. The vehicle's already registered, so as long as the MOT station's happy with it, nobody'll be any the wiser. And as long as the MOT station can see an appropriate chassis plate / VIN plate / number / nothing (requirement varies with vehicle's age) they shouldn't have any reason to think anything's out of the ordinary. >>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ >>> RegisteringAVehicle/DG_10014246 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > VIN plate / number / nothing (requirement varies with vehicle's age) > they shouldn't have any reason to think anything's out of the ordinary. Yeah, I think I prefer that course of action :) > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'd love for you to explain this huge conceptual difference between SORN > & VED regulations. No, seriously. The difference is that a registered keeper can remain on the register and so remain bound in certain duties even after the vehicle has ceased to be a vehicle and so after the vehicle ceases to be liable for VED. >> If a vehicle was registered, remains on the register and is now untaxed >> then it needs a SORN. The fact that it may no longer be a vehicle does [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Go back and read the original question, Tony. Okay, done that. Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> I believe you are conflating two different issues. AIUI SORN >>> regulations apply only to registrations while VED regulations apply to >>> extant vehicles. >> I'd love for you to explain this huge conceptual difference between >> SORN & VED regulations. No, seriously. > The difference is that a registered keeper can remain on the register > and so remain bound in certain duties even after the vehicle has ceased > to be a vehicle and so after the vehicle ceases to be liable for VED. And that differs for VED and SORN how? >>> However the fact that the registered keeper has duties under SORN does >>> not prove it's still a vehicle regardless of how many carrier bags >>> it's in. >> Go back and read the original question, Tony. > Okay, done that. Apology accepted. > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Apology accepted. My apologies to all for my being slow in recognizing your troll. Bye. Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> Go back and read the original question, Tony. >>> Okay, done that. >> Apology accepted. > My apologies to all for my being slow in recognizing your troll. The uk.rec.cars groups don't usually regard "answering the question that was asked rather than trying to score points from a snipped half-sentence quote with some abstruse point related to nothing in particular" as a troll. I realise that does make them slightly more useful than the mess that uk.legal has become, but there we go. >If a vehicle was registered, remains on the register and is now untaxed >then it needs a SORN. The fact that it may no longer be a vehicle does not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Tony If you haven't notified DVLA that the vehicle has been broken up you have to sorn it. There was a case a couple of years ago of someone with a motorcycle in bits who fell foul of that. He even as I recall produced the bits in court. At one time you could take it apart yourself but ISTR new legislation covering the disposal of vehicles requiring an authorised person to do the breaking and notify the DVLA. Alang <invalid@invalid.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > If you haven't notified DVLA that the vehicle has been broken up you > have to sorn it. There was a case a couple of years ago of someone with > a motorcycle in bits who fell foul of that. He even as I recall produced > the bits in court. At one time you could take it apart yourself but > ISTR new legislation covering the disposal of vehicles requiring an > authorised person to do the breaking and notify the DVLA. You can still break it yourself, but until you send the V5C back with the "permanently scrapped" box ticked, it's a vehicle as far as VED/SORN is concerned. If you don't break it yourself, you hand the V5C over to the scrapper - few now _should_ take a car without the paperwork, because there's been so many nicked and weighed in whilst scrap prices were high. >Alang <invalid@invalid.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >were saying: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"permanently scrapped" box ticked, it's a vehicle as far as VED/SORN is >concerned. I thought the breaker had to be registered under the EU environment regulations >If you don't break it yourself, you hand the V5C over to the scrapper - >few now _should_ take a car without the paperwork, because there's been >so many nicked and weighed in whilst scrap prices were high. I usually run a car until it gets uneconomical to repair. Last one cost me 20 quid to have towed away and scrapped 3 years ago. I just filled the paper work out and handed it over to the scrapman but also followed it up with a letter to the DVLA. >> If a vehicle was registered, remains on the register and is now untaxed >> then it needs a SORN. The fact that it may no longer be a vehicle does not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > yourself but ISTR new legislation covering the disposal of vehicles > requiring an authorised person to do the breaking and notify the DVLA. Indeed, and that points to the difference between liability for VED and SORN. You are only potentially liable for VED so long as it remains a motor vehicle, and which will not be the case if it is in carrier bags or was ground to powder and scattered to the winds. However you will remain liable for SORN until the registration of this no longer extant vehicle is removed from the register by certification of either export or destruction. Tony "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Indeed, and that points to the difference between liability for VED and > SORN. You are only potentially liable for VED so long as it remains a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicle is removed from the register by certification of either export > or destruction. Sorry, but no. Fail to tax the car OR declare SORN, and you'll get hit with exactly the same fine whether the car is intact or only exists on a V5. > "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry, but no. Okay, I may regret this but why "no". > Fail to tax the car OR declare SORN, and you'll get hit > with exactly the same fine whether the car is intact or only exists on a > V5. That is true but it is not contradictory. Are you are confusing a liability - as in obligation - with a penalty - as in a fine? Again, there is no obligation to tax a collection of shopping bags but there will remain an obligation to maintain SORN on an undeleted registration that no longer benefits from a VED, regardless of whether there are shopping bags or not. Tony >"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >with exactly the same fine whether the car is intact or only exists on a >V5. That's wot he said only better Alang <invalid@invalid.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Indeed, and that points to the difference between liability for VED >>> and SORN. You are only potentially liable for VED so long as it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> no longer extant vehicle is removed from the register by certification >>> of either export or destruction. >>Sorry, but no. Fail to tax the car OR declare SORN, and you'll get hit >>with exactly the same fine whether the car is intact or only exists on a >>V5. > That's wot he said only better Not quite, because he's still making some distinction between VED & SORN. They're basically two of the three points on one line that any registered vehicle must sit on - with the third being "sit back and wait for the letter telling you where to send the cheque". By Tony's logic, I can't possibly have had valid tax discs for cars that either no longer exist or are in multiple counties. > By Tony's logic, I can't possibly have had valid tax discs for cars that > either no longer exist or are in multiple counties. Not so, by my logic you can not be liable for paying VED on cars that no longer exists, but that does not imply that you can not pay VED or that any VED disc are invalid or that you will not be guilty of a SORN offence if you do not either pay VED or declare SORN on an undeleted registration. Again, shopping bags are not a car for any purpose but SORN liability exists merely on the undeleted registration and not on the car. Tony > Again, shopping bags are not a car for any purpose but SORN liability > exists merely on the undeleted registration and not on the car. BTW, it may sometimes be useful to pretend that a shopping bag is a car because SORN is free whereas retention certificates are not :-) Ton "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > BTW, it may sometimes be useful to pretend that a shopping bag is a car > because SORN is free whereas retention certificates are not :-) You seem to be forgetting that getting a valid MOT on a shopping bag, so you can transfer the plate onto another vehicle, is slightly trickier than transferring the plate off a retention. > But if those carrier bags are in different places, which one defines the > location of the "car"? > It's hard to believe it would be the one with the > ashtray. I can see how the whole collection of them may require a SORN, > but it's less clear which one would place that "car" on the road. Bodyshell would be a good guess for anything where the body can't be split from the chassis as the VIN number is stamped on that. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you don't. You can find out when it was last taxed at > vehiclelicence.gov.uk Thanks for that. The webpage returned the following for my car, which is as clear as...well, mud, to be honest! Date of Liability 01 06 2009 Date of First Registration 19 09 1968 Year of Manufacture Not Available Cylinder Capacity (cc) Not Available CO2 Emissions Not Available Fuel Type Petrol Export Marker Not Applicable Vehicle Status SORN Not Due Vehicle Colour BLUE Vehicle Type Approval null Date of liability in six months time. Liability for what, exactly? And where did that date of now plus six months come from?! Glad they got the date of first reg right, at least. And Vehicle Status: SORN not due? What, its already SORN'd? Or its not necessary to be SORN'd? >> _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >> saying: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >date of first reg right, at least. And Vehicle Status: SORN not due? >What, its already SORN'd? Or its not necessary to be SORN'd? Liability for tax or re-SORN. It's already on SORN. SignatureIan D _ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Thanks for that. The webpage returned the following for my car, which is > as clear as...well, mud, to be honest! > > Date of Liability 01 06 2009 > Vehicle Status SORN Not Due > Date of liability in six months time. Liability for what, exactly? And > where did that date of now plus six months come from?! Glad they got the > date of first reg right, at least. And Vehicle Status: SORN not due? > What, its already SORN'd? Or its not necessary to be SORN'd? It's currently SORNed, and the SORN expires at the start of June. >_ <whos@prettyboy.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's currently SORNed, and the SORN expires at the start of June. The SORN only lasts a year. The info tells you it must be renewed in June when the old one runs out. Mike. > In light of another thread in uk.legal about an unlicenced car, a > question has occurred to me - when does a collection of parts become a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > tax it yet because it doesn't have an MOT. > Cheers Many years ago, (pre SORN) when I was in the auto trade, we were fined by the LA (Hounslow) because an untaxed car was on the road. We had the fine cancelled (i.e. no offence committed) when we proved the engine had been removed and the car was scrapped the following week. However, the enforcement officer we saw pointed out that whilst the car without the engine did not require tax to be on a public road, if the engine was replaced at some point in the future, then it would be liable for tax - INCLUDING the period when it was on-road without the engine. HTH There appear to be one or two "grey areas" in the legislation. AFAIK the definition of "Off Road" to the Old Bill is whether it's being used or not, not whether it's in contact with the road surface. Many years ago a guy who lived near us had a Ford Pilot outside his house "up on bricks" and argued with the authorities that it wasn't on the road therefore didn't need tax. "Old Bill" agreed with that but did him for causing an obstruction. As previously stated I don't think it really matters where the vehicle actually is for SORN purposes, just that the registered owner is contactable to take responsibility for it. A similar argument regarding "Viability" applies when towing an untaxed vehicle. A mate of mine got done once because his car being towed was "Capable of self-propulsion" and wasn't taxed or tested or insured. Present legislation allows the "Old Bill" to confiscate uninsured vehicles, so beware if you're towing your uninsured treasured classic home!! I think that "A-Frames" were once the answer because technically they were part of the towing vehicle but even that has been got round now. I think that currently you can argue that you were unaware that the regulation existed, "onus on the supplier and manufacturer to inform", but that will change!! >> In light of another thread in uk.legal about an unlicenced car, a >> question has occurred to me - when does a collection of parts become a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HTH "Charles Hamilton" <dyolfknip@btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > There appear to be one or two "grey areas" in the legislation. I strongly suspect it's wishful thinking. > A similar argument > regarding "Viability" applies when towing an untaxed vehicle. A mate of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that "A-Frames" were once the answer because technically they were part > of the towing vehicle but even that has been got round now. No, the law is quite simple. You can tow a road-legal (mot'd/insured/taxed) car a short distance for "emergency recovery purposes", at low speed. Other than that, anything being towed must be a trailer. A trailer has certain legal requirements, too - not least that any trailer over 750kg max authorised mass (max laden weight) MUST be braked on all wheels in contact with the road by the towing vehicle. There's A-frames which have a Heath-Robinson arrangement to put the brakes on, which may be legal - but normal A-frames aren't for anything other than the very smallest Aixam-style microcars. Even a 2cv's too heavy (if you look at the GVW, as you should) for an A-frame. There's only one real answer - don't pikey about - use a proper car transporter trailer. > I think that > currently you can argue that you were unaware that the regulation > existed, "onus on the supplier and manufacturer to inform", but that > will change!! Ignorance is never an excuse. > In light of another thread in uk.legal about an unlicenced car, a question > has occurred to me - when does a collection of parts become a car for the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because it doesn't have an MOT. > Cheers It becomes liable for SORN when the last road tax ran out unless it was last taxed before SORN came into force. The date of the MOT is neither here nor there, nor is the state of completion of the car. SignatureDave Baker |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.