|
|
Jun 22, 2011 19:30:34 GMT
|
From a discussion on another Forum - he put it way better than I ever could My take on this is simple ( terms used relatively loosely without checking the acts, regs and wording and looking to be corrected if case law or statute contradicts my assertions ) . Yes, but as that caveat suggests, it's all a load of conjecture with absolutely no basis in fact. No lawyer is going to dig into this on their own clock, as their time is worth more than the resulting information ever will be. The concept that a displayed tax disc is valid falls foul of the computerisation of it all. If the DVLA computer says "the car is SORN", then you get the fine; their position is that SORN replaces the licence paid and it's your own sorry mess if you forget to return the disc for a refund. Similarly, if an ANPR spots it, the car is untaxed. Part of the reason for the ruling is to get PARKED taxed, un-MOTd, uninsured cars off the public highway by providing a mechanism to fine those vehicles just in case they're there - after all, if you have somewhere off road to park it, you'll SORN it, and if you don't, you'll insure it or lose it I suspect. Case law is one thing, but not checking the acts is just being lazy if you want to put forward an authoritative opinion or explanation. So their post has no weight, no matter how well-worded it is or logical it may seem.
|
|
|
|
|
30psi
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,024
|
|
|
I spoke to someone I know via work at the DVLA. They have been working on the CIE project. I didn't ask too many questions as it's a fairly dull subject to be honest and it wasn't the purpose of my call, but they explained that when SORNing a car if it was to change keeper, un-SORNed or otherwise it will still be shown as unlicensed on their records and therefore ANPR cameras will pull it up as unlicensed. This is even if it's got a tax disc in the window because this hasn't been surrendered for a refund. They pointed out that it may be dishonest selling a car as licensed when it fact it fact it actuallly isn't.
Whilst you could try to drive around in your tax disc'd but unlicensed car if the old plod pull you over you'll be a in a sticky position which will lead to a bunch of letters to have to go to and fro the DVLA and other respective hassle.
|
|
1962 Ford Thunderbird 6.4L
1981 Datsun Bluebird SSS CA18DET
1981 Datsun Bluebird SSS SR20DE
|
|
|
|
|
It's no different to the state of play with disabled tax. You might have a valid tax disc in the window, and back in the days of real coppers you'd probably get away with it.
Of course, if the DVLA were to update the "historic vehicle" status so it's 25 years old, rather than the 1973 cut-off, I doubt many people would care about having to SORN and retax their classic cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 16:34:10 GMT
|
i sorned the micra last week, aint going to be using it as ive got the seats out prior to giving them and the rest of the interior good scrub, BUT... the sorn dosent start until the 1st june, (when the current tax runs out) but the vehicle is parked on my driveway out of the way, so AM I breaking the law? i knew this was coming in, thats why i sorned it last week! ( have confirmation letter that states sorn starts 1/7/11 )
|
|
2006 Audi A3 2003 Fusion 2 looking for a project....
|
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 23:51:33 GMT
|
I wouldnt worry about it..they're gonna be sending out warning letters first,before anyone gets a fine.Your sorn will be valid in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah good
|
|
2006 Audi A3 2003 Fusion 2 looking for a project....
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 12:04:21 GMT
|
I spoke to someone I know via work at the DVLA. They have been working on the CIE project. I didn't ask too many questions as it's a fairly dull subject to be honest and it wasn't the purpose of my call, but they explained that when SORNing a car if it was to change keeper, un-SORNed or otherwise it will still be shown as unlicensed on their records and therefore ANPR cameras will pull it up as unlicensed. This is even if it's got a tax disc in the window because this hasn't been surrendered for a refund. They pointed out that it may be dishonest selling a car as licensed when it fact it fact it actuallly isn't. OK - but you are basing that on SORN cancels VED. If you haven't surrendered the VED disc for a refund then the VED disc is still paid for and still valid - Unless DVLA starts automatically sending out refunds for cars on SORN that have current VED and they aren't likely to do that... You've paid for 6 or 12 mths VED - DVLA might want the VED to be "void" but it doesn't make it so. Unless you surrender the VED for a refund then the vehicle is still Licenced SORN is a statement as I previously said - You declare your car "off the road" VED doesn't come into it with the introduction of CI (sure it used to because there was absolutely not sense no surrendering any VED left (more than a month anyway) for a refund) You couldn't use the Online SORN declaration with more than "One Month" VED left before introduction of CI - now you can - why would that be the case? The Website offers you a link to the form for refund of remaining VED - it doesn't state that you must submit the VED for a refund So the situation with CI is completely different and now there are a number of senarios where you wouldn't want to surrender any remaining VED. I'm about to find out what happens when ownership changes to status of a car that is SORN'd as a result of CI introduction but where I haven't surrendered the VED - once it's (the Polo) is sold I'll update accordingly. Whilst you could try to drive around in your tax disc'd but unlicensed car if the old plod pull you over you'll be a in a sticky position which will lead to a bunch of letters to have to go to and fro the DVLA and other respective hassle. It's not unlicenced at all right now - It's SORN'd - DVLA vehicle enquiry on line confirms that. It doesn't say "unlicenced" - it says "SORN NOT DUE" Change of owner cancels the SORN - Vehicle should go back to Licenced with expiry of licence as per VED expiry date unless the VED is surrendered for a refund. There is no attempt to defraud - VED is paid for and valid regardless of if car is SORN or NOT SORN Edited to correct some formating errors
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 12:13:45 GMT
|
It's no different to the state of play with disabled tax. You might have a valid tax disc in the window, and back in the days of real coppers you'd probably get away with it. But that's fraud and completely different - Disabled VED is Nil - when you sell a car previously issued with £Nil VED then it has to be re-classified and the appropriate VED payment made. In the case you describe the VED disc would not be valid.
|
|
|
|
Tim
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,340
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 12:30:41 GMT
|
load of rubbish this new law. no-one in their right will carry on paying out money on insurance on a car their not using just because its taxed, they'll simply chop the tax in for a refund then sorn it. You don't need to surrender the tax DVLA told me the opposite (asked them directly) - SORN renders the current disc useless as the car will have dropped off the 'taxed' register. You don't need to surrender, but you cant use it again wither Whether this is correct or not is another thing (DVLA have told me lies in the past)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 12:57:43 GMT
|
It's no different to the state of play with disabled tax. You might have a valid tax disc in the window, and back in the days of real coppers you'd probably get away with it. But that's fraud and completely different - Disabled VED is Nil - when you sell a car previously issued with £Nil VED then it has to be re-classified and the appropriate VED payment made. In the case you describe the VED disc would not be valid. The VED disc on my £Nil rated C3 stays on it. As it does on a historic vehicle. Yet if you declare SORN, those discs are invalidated. You can argue all you like, but I bet that if you SORN that car and don't refund the tax, a new owner would be fined. The issue you're raising is that this tax class is dependent on the owner - however, whilst it's illegal, there's no automatic fine or process when the vehicle changes keeper. FWIW, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is affected by the Finance Acts of 2001 and 2008. 2001,8 and 9 amendments define the surrender of the vehicle licence. In essence, in law as I understand it - and I am not a lawyer, but at least I've taken the time to read the bloody law - your SORN statement IS a legal surrender of your VED to the Secretary of State, and you're entitled to a refund. Whether you then take that refund is up to you. As far as I can tell, you should - if you know the procedure - be able to SORN the car in June, leave the disc on and get the full refund amount a few months later. However, the CRITICAL bit is VERA Section 19 Subsection 7 (and there's a LOT more to it than that, but following the definitions of rebate, surrender and so forth is tedious - this is a crude summation for brevity): (7)Where an application is made under subsection (1) and the licence is not surrendered on the making of the application, it ceases to be in force when the application is made. Subsection 1: (1)If the relevant person makes an application to the Secretary of State under this subsection for a rebate of the duty paid on a vehicle licence in force for a vehicle, the person is entitled to receive from the Secretary of State the amount specified in subsection (2). Also relevant: (3)An application under subsection (1) may only be made if— (d)the vehicle is neither used nor kept on a public road and the particulars and declaration required to be furnished and made by regulations under section 22(1D) are furnished and made in relation to it in accordance with the regulations Though you can keep chasing through to find the letter of the law, as it were. And this is in Finance Act 2008 section 144. Now, my search skills are overwhelmed by my need to do some bloody paid work instead of explaining the bleeding obvious on the internet, to whit, "The Government is older and uglier than you and damn well knows how to screw you" - but I suspect if I dig into later acts, I would find more clarification on this legislation. To sum up: Declare SORN and get your refund ASAFP, Declare SORN and let the Government keep the money the law says you're entitled to, or insure the car.
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 27, 2011 13:14:10 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 13:25:15 GMT
|
But that's fraud and completely different - Disabled VED is Nil - when you sell a car previously issued with £Nil VED then it has to be re-classified and the appropriate VED payment made. In the case you describe the VED disc would not be valid. The VED disc on my £Nil rated C3 stays on it. As it does on a historic vehicle. Yet if you declare SORN, those discs are invalidated. You can argue all you like, but I bet that if you SORN that car and don't refund the tax, a new owner would be fined. The issue you're raising is that this tax class is dependent on the owner - however, whilst it's illegal, there's no automatic fine or process when the vehicle changes keeper. FWIW, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is affected by the Finance Acts of 2001 and 2008. 2001,8 and 9 amendments define the surrender of the vehicle licence. In essence, in law as I understand it - and I am not a lawyer, but at least I've taken the time to read the bloody law - your SORN statement IS a legal surrender of your VED to the Secretary of State, and you're entitled to a refund. Whether you then take that refund is up to you. As far as I can tell, you should - if you know the procedure - be able to SORN the car in June, leave the disc on and get the full refund amount a few months later. However, the CRITICAL bit is VERA Section 19 Subsection 7 (and there's a LOT more to it than that, but following the definitions of rebate, surrender and so forth is tedious - this is a crude summation for brevity): (7)Where an application is made under subsection (1) and the licence is not surrendered on the making of the application, it ceases to be in force when the application is made. Subsection 1: (1)If the relevant person makes an application to the Secretary of State under this subsection for a rebate of the duty paid on a vehicle licence in force for a vehicle, the person is entitled to receive from the Secretary of State the amount specified in subsection (2). Also relevant: (3)An application under subsection (1) may only be made if— (d)the vehicle is neither used nor kept on a public road and the particulars and declaration required to be furnished and made by regulations under section 22(1D) are furnished and made in relation to it in accordance with the regulations Though you can keep chasing through to find the letter of the law, as it were. And this is in Finance Act 2008 section 144. Now, my search skills are overwhelmed by my need to do some bloody paid work instead of explaining the bleeding obvious on the internet, to whit, "The Government is older and uglier than you and damn well knows how to screw you" - but I suspect if I dig into later acts, I would find more clarification on this legislation. To sum up: Declare SORN and get your refund ASAFP, Declare SORN and let the Government keep the money the law says you're entitled to, or insure the car. Sorry - Like most things one persons view might not be the same as anothers All that says is "if I surrender a VED for a refund it's no longer valid" - makes perfect sense to me That doesn't say - if I don't make an application for a refund but declare SORN it's no longer valid AFAIA - SI or Laws tell me what is an offence CI SI here www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/20/made
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 14:09:12 GMT
|
That's not what you want. You need to find the definition of surrendered licenses as they related to VERA and RTA. That SI is setting out the penalties, not defining the terms. The Road Vehicles (Statutory Off-Road Notification) Regulations 1997 Section 2. “the required declaration” means a declaration made to the Secretary of State by a person surrendering a vehicle licence or[/size] the keeper of a relevant vehicle to the effect that (except for use under a trade licence) he does not for the time being intend to use or keep the vehicle on a public road and will not use or keep the vehicle on a public road without first taking out a vehicle licence (or if appropriate a nil licence) for the vehicle; There's no penalty in law for declaring SORN and then not requesting your refund, because until CI, why on earth would anyone do that? So there's no definition for that situation. Seriously, if anything FA 2009 Schedule IV section 4 appears to be firming up my interpretation (and is partly why I came to it): "(3B)Where— (b)the application is made by virtue of paragraph (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (3)" Section 19, VERA: (3)An application under subsection (1) may only be made if— (d)the vehicle is neither used nor kept on a public road and the particulars and declaration required to be furnished and made by regulations under section 22(1D) are furnished and made in relation to it in accordance with the regulations You know what, I'm not remotely ashamed if I'm wrong - this isn't my job - but I don't think I am otherwise I wouldn't be wasting time persuing this. All I'm trying to demonstrate is that as far as the law is concerned, declaring SORN is treated as an application to refund the tax disc, but the process of applying for the refund is a different one (and also defined in law). Section 19's amendments go on to explain different rates of rebate for different situations (lower rate of duty).
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 27, 2011 14:12:02 GMT by Deleted
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,855
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:09:05 GMT
|
As much as your method would be excellent Ian I can't see it working. At the bare minimum it's gonna cost you £160 + £12 a day when the police impound the car for not being taxed, even if you manage to prove that it is taxed.
Matt
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:10:00 GMT
|
I've cut a load out of your post - don't be offended - it's not selective I just wanted to concentrate on the last bit - we could argue over interpretation untill the cows come home You know what, I'm not remotely ashamed if I'm wrong - this isn't my job - but I don't think I am otherwise I wouldn't be wasting time persuing this. I'm also not trying to create an arguement and if I'm wrong it wouldn't worry me either Only way we can understand each other it to talk about things openly - In the forum guidelines "be respectfull to each other" or something similar - Please don't think of this as anything but respectfull discussion - imagine maybe over a beer or similar with a load of Printouts of relevant SI's etc etc. You are effectively giving a different interpretation of the rules and it is appreciated - I mean that honestly! All I'm trying to demonstrate is that as far as the law is concerned, declaring SORN is treated as an application to refund the tax disc, I can't agree with you - you buy a car that's SORN'd already - ownership changes revokes the SORN already in place - Your action is to declare SORN again - this is not an application to refund a tax disc - vehicle doesn't have one........ Prior to CI requirement to SORN was brought into the equation it would have been madness not to surrender a VED for a refund (unless £NIL) CI requires you declare SORN - You are linking SORN to surrender of VED because that's what up untill now you would have done. Doesn't mean that it is in law I can't find anything anywhere in any of the SI's or Ammendments that says a VED disc is Void if you declare SORN I can fully understand that if you surrender a VED disc for a refund of course it would be void - that would be fraud wouldn't it. but the process of applying for the refund is a different one (and also defined in law). Section 19's amendments go on to explain different rates of rebate for different situations (lower rate of duty). The process for applying for a refund may well be a different one and defined in Law and I'm sure it covers all bases - but I'm not surrendering a disc for a refund so none of the requirements apply
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:20:55 GMT
|
As much as your method would be excellent Ian I can't see it working. At the bare minimum it's gonna cost you £160 + £12 a day when the police impound the car for not being taxed, even if you manage to prove that it is taxed. Matt Hi Matt You conclusion hinges on the VED being "Void" - on the other hand I do not believe it can be................. Seriously It's not fraudulently obtained, It's been fully paid for, it has an expiry date (valid from - to) Up till a short while ago if you tried to SORN on line more than a month in advance of the VED expiring - Computer said no Now with CI you can SORN regardless of time left on the VED it appears you could buy 12 mth VED and SORN it the day after. So DVLA have made a change to the parameters otherwise how could people SORN when the insurance lapsed but VED was still current I might have it totally wrong but I don't think so - maybe time for another test. bearing in mind the rules associated with CI - here is a situation. My motor insurance - I'm going to transfer it from car A to car B in order to demonstrate the car to a potential buyer Car A becomes uninsured for 1 day - I shall declare SORN in order to comply with the CI rules (currently has 5 mths tax on it) So that VED disc becomes void...... ;D I'm merely complying with the requirements of CI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:30:50 GMT
|
I can't find anything anywhere in any of the SI's or Ammendments that says a VED disc is Void if you declare SORN The process for applying for a refund may well be a different one and defined in Law and I'm sure it covers all bases - but I'm not surrendering a disc for a refund so none of the requirements apply All points noted, and appreciated Basically as far as I can interpret, SORN as defined by 2002 regs. is interpreted by VERA as an application to the Secretary of State to surrender the license at the time it's declared; the terms of that declaration include "and will not use or keep the vehicle on a public road without first taking out a vehicle licence (or if appropriate a nil licence) for the vehicle." So the law's pretty much based around the assumption that SORN invalidates the license, by virtue of also being application to surrender the license. And I suspect the DVLA's answer to it if pushed would be to fine you for making a SORN and then failing to return the VED disc, rather than allowing the balance of VED to be transferred to a new keeper. Your point about being able to declare SORN before the expiry of VED is interesting. My gut feeling is that if they've done that (and it hasn't always been the case) then it's so it's easy for people to avoid being fined under CI, but they're still expecting an application for repayment where applicable. It will be very interesting to see if your car reverts to licensed or Unlicensed when sold - my money's on the latter BUT if that's the case, you'll be able to apply for a refund from the date SORN was declared.
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:44:03 GMT
|
I can't find anything anywhere in any of the SI's or Ammendments that says a VED disc is Void if you declare SORN The process for applying for a refund may well be a different one and defined in Law and I'm sure it covers all bases - but I'm not surrendering a disc for a refund so none of the requirements apply All points noted, and appreciated Basically as far as I can interpret, SORN as defined by 2002 regs. is interpreted by VERA as an application to the Secretary of State to surrender the license at the time it's declared; the terms of that declaration include "and will not use or keep the vehicle on a public road without first taking out a vehicle licence (or if appropriate a nil licence) for the vehicle." ie "I'm not going to use the car on the road and I'm going to keep it off the road" If it's unlicenced "then I'll purchase a licence before I use it on the road" So the law's pretty much based around the assumption that SORN invalidates the license, by virtue of also being application to surrender the license. And I suspect the DVLA's answer to it if pushed would be to fine you for making a SORN and then failing to return the VED disc, rather than allowing the balance of VED to be transferred to a new keeper. Nothing anywhere on any of the forms makes it clear that it is Mandatory to return any unexpired VED for a refund...... Related to SORN application One of the forms says "don't use this is you have VED on the vehicle" One of the forms says "use me and attach VED if you want to SORN and obtain refund of VED" The Online process says "you may be eligable for a refund - see form" DVLA can't fine you for making a SORN and not returning the VED for a refund - that would have to be an offence under statute - if that was the case all the forms for SORN would have to declare that it is an offence to declare SORN and then Not surrender VED for a refund" And of course we all know they don't say anything like that...... Your point about being able to declare SORN before the expiry of VED is interesting. My gut feeling is that if they've done that (and it hasn't always been the case) then it's so it's easy for people to avoid being fined under CI, but they're still expecting an application for repayment where applicable. My gut feel too - but just because SORN has always been associated with VED refund doesn't mean it is associated in Law.... It will be very interesting to see if your car reverts to licensed or Unlicensed when sold - my money's on the latter I haven't a clue - just got to finish the last couple of jobs and it can go to the new owner. BUT if that's the case, you'll be able to apply for a refund from the date SORN was declared. Hmmm - hadn't thought of that aspect.
|
|
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,855
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 15:52:24 GMT
|
Hi Matt You conclusion hinges on the VED being "Void" - on the other hand I do not believe it can be................. Seriously It's not fraudulently obtained, It's been fully paid for, it has an expiry date (valid from - to) Up till a short while ago if you tried to SORN on line more than a month in advance of the VED expiring - Computer said no Now with CI you can SORN regardless of time left on the VED it appears you could buy 12 mth VED and SORN it the day after. So DVLA have made a change to the parameters otherwise how could people SORN when the insurance lapsed but VED was still current I might have it totally wrong but I don't think so - maybe time for another test. bearing in mind the rules associated with CI - here is a situation. My motor insurance - I'm going to transfer it from car A to car B in order to demonstrate the car to a potential buyer Car A becomes uninsured for 1 day - I shall declare SORN in order to comply with the CI rules (currently has 5 mths tax on it) So that VED disc becomes void...... ;D I'm merely complying with the requirements of CI If you sell it and the new owner is caught by an ANPR camera/police car the computer will say it is on SORN. Even if the new owner points out the 'valid' tax disk the police will ring the DVLA and they'll say "no sorry the car is on SORN and has been since **/**/****" and then the car will be impounded and the owner will have the recovery fee to pay. I really can't say it working. When I was doing recovery there was a spate of fraudulent tax disks going around (real backing's that had been stolen). The first few people who got caught argued till they were blue in the face that they were legal, but obviously they weren't and we dragged the cars in. They were invalid tax disks, and if you SORN a car it invalidates the tax disk so the same will happen.
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,916
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 16:09:14 GMT
|
Hi Matt You conclusion hinges on the VED being "Void" - on the other hand I do not believe it can be................. Seriously It's not fraudulently obtained, It's been fully paid for, it has an expiry date (valid from - to) Up till a short while ago if you tried to SORN on line more than a month in advance of the VED expiring - Computer said no Now with CI you can SORN regardless of time left on the VED it appears you could buy 12 mth VED and SORN it the day after. So DVLA have made a change to the parameters otherwise how could people SORN when the insurance lapsed but VED was still current I might have it totally wrong but I don't think so - maybe time for another test. bearing in mind the rules associated with CI - here is a situation. My motor insurance - I'm going to transfer it from car A to car B in order to demonstrate the car to a potential buyer Car A becomes uninsured for 1 day - I shall declare SORN in order to comply with the CI rules (currently has 5 mths tax on it) So that VED disc becomes void...... ;D I'm merely complying with the requirements of CI If you sell it and the new owner is caught by an ANPR camera/police car the computer will say it is on SORN. Even if the new owner points out the 'valid' tax disk the police will ring the DVLA and they'll say "no sorry the car is on SORN and has been since **/**/****" and then the car will be impounded and the owner will have the recovery fee to pay. SORN is cancelled by change of keeper I really can't say it working. When I was doing recovery there was a spate of fraudulent tax disks going around (real backing's that had been stolen). The first few people who got caught argued till they were blue in the face that they were legal, but obviously they weren't and we dragged the cars in. They were invalid tax disks, and if you SORN a car it invalidates the tax disk so the same will happen. I can see your point very clearly in case of fraudulent VED discs but the disc in my Polo isn't fraudulent - it's properly obtained and valid from date - to date and nothing I have found yet indicates that it is no longer valid as a result of the SORN declaration. and if you SORN a car it invalidates the tax disk so the same will happen Based on SORN invalidating the VED disc - which appears to be a comonly held opinion without any "clear" basis in law or SI. Like I said - The Polo SORN will be void once DVLA get notification of change of keeper - one of the conditions in which SORN is cancelled. Then we have two senarios 1. if that change of ownership changes status from "SORN not Due" to "Unlicenced" even tho I haven't surrendered the disc fo a refund then I will surrender the VED for a refund and new owner will purchase a new 6 mth or 12 mth VED disc (I'll contribute to the cost based on months remanining that he has lost) 2. if that change of ownership changes status from "SORN not Due" to Licenced till the expiry of the VED in the window then I'm not going to do anything and I think we will have proved a point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 16:11:32 GMT
|
I'm too lazy to do the nested quotes, but basically the first bit, yes, with the unlicenced bit being unnecessary as the application to surrender associated with SORN has been accepted - you've surrendered it. To the second bit - they can't fine you YET. They couldn't fine you for not having insurance on a taxed car last year, and they couldn't fine you for having an untaxed car in 1997. Just wait
|
|
|
|
|