Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:23 PM
Bought a bike last October, was told it was SORN`ed.Heard nothing since from DVLA. Got it Insured and Mot`d last month, came to tax it and DVLA tell me SORN doesn`t transfer with change of ownership so a gap has appeared on their records, and a fine is due. Just had to write grovelling letter to local Taxation office to hopefully avoid fine, stating obviously that I wasn`t trying to avoid duty as tax exempt..
Should have done what the local criminals/joy riders do, and not bothered registering it in my name?
Ads By Google
Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:51 AM
Some months later a fine for not taxing his bike came through the post, he contacted the licencing authority and explained the situation but the fine stood. Sorry, they said, that's the rule.
Hope you have more luck than he did.
Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:41 AM
On a side note, from some when in June 2011 you will be breaking the law if your vehicle is MOTíd and taxed but not insured. So if you purchase a bike that was MOTíd, taxed and insured from the previous owner and the MOT and tax are valid for another 4 months but you donít intend riding it on road you would be breaking the law and fined if its not insured by you. The only way around this is to do a SORN from day one.
Posted 02 June 2011 - 11:39 AM
then every year i've sent off a sorn form to cover this. ive still never had any confirmation back.
so last week i contacted the dvla. told them about it and when they checked their records they deemed the bike "off road" anyway as it had not been taxed for so long.
they also said they had ignored my sorn applications because of this.
i asked if they would not update their records to state it was sorn and they said they couldnt.
its a rather grey area now on this. i've done all i can on it. if they try fining me for anything its them in the wrong and not me.
Posted 02 June 2011 - 02:41 PM
It's much easier and costs Dvla nothing to keep track of V5's that roll over yearly than back track 5 years or more to try and find a motor that has been stored but not declared sorn,there money making exercise will then cost them money in resources.
Yep i've been stung on this a few years ago,im sure the fine then was the price of the road Tax.
I think the soviets have taken over.
Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:41 PM
I have an Ossa that was last taxed in about 1995. They are not interested if I try to SORN it. I bought a Bultaco a couple of years ago that was registered but had no V5. I checked the DVLA vehicle enquiry database and found that the registration number was still 'live' and it had last been taxed in the 80s. I sent off for the V5 and sent a SORN form with it. Again, they weren't interested and sent the SORN form back.
If your vehicle was not taxed when SORN was introduced SORN doesn't apply.
If you buy a vehicle that is currently on SORN (as someone above did) you have to declare it SORN again now that you are the new owner. Seems ridiculous as the SORN is logged against the registration number not the owner, but I think that when there is a change of ownership the former owner's obligation is discharged and the new owner has to SORN it again, assuming they don't tax it. This makes sense but it would seem easier to just leave the SORN active, if the new owner left it on SORN they would get a reminder at expiry, if they tax it the SORN is cancelled anyway. Too simple probably.
The DVLA guidance on this is hazy as it says SORN is needed if you buy an untaxed vehicle and don't tax it. It doesn't say that you have to do this if it is already on SORN with the previous owner. I wonder if that wording is deliberately misleading...
In the case of a vehicle written off, the V5 is completed by the owner using the write-off section. This discharges any future obligation on the owner (now former owner) from tax duty or SORN, so how the chap with the written off bike got fined for not renewing the tax at a later date I don't know. DVLA were wrong with that one, providing he had completed the V5 and the change had been processed - he should have received confirmation from DVLA. If it was still in his name then he was liable.
I can see how DVA justify all this by saying they want to get all untaxed and insured vehicles off the road and in principle it's a good idea. Only problem is, it only affects people who obey the law, tax and insure their vehicles and then innocently get caught out through not understanding the rules properly. They have to pay the fines as they are 'traceable'.
The anonymous turds that drive around uninsured, taxed and with false documents are generally unaffected.
Posted 03 June 2011 - 04:33 PM
Posted 04 June 2011 - 05:52 AM
The bike was registered on 12/09/1979 and "date of liability" is 01/09/1980.
Can we suppose the bike was never taxed after that?. At that time every man and his dog in Kinlochleven had a trials bike and I doubt if any were taxed or insured.
Posted 10 September 2011 - 05:29 PM
I have said this before but it won't be long before we have to pay for sorn...
Ads By Google
Posted 10 September 2011 - 08:38 PM
When the V5 came back in my name for the new van, there was a flyer concerning uninsured vehicles.
It is an offence to have a vehicle taxed but not insured, even if it is being kept off road! So I've returned the tax disc to DVLA for a refund and declared the car SORN.
It's a pity as it always looks better to sell a vehicle with T&T.
What's more, you only get a refund based on the monthly cost of a 12 month tax disc and not the cost of a 6 month one if that's what you paid for.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users