Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
I have been away in Spain for 10 days. I still think the advice on directgov is wrong. There are many governmnet leafltes I have seen in my working life which interpret the law wrongly, it wouldn't be a first
The sections quoted do not deal witrh SORN, just the exemption from requiring an MOT to take to or from an approved test center for a pre booked test.
SORN is a declaration that the vehicle is not on the road and whilst SORNd it is my understanding, notwithstanding directgov, that it cannot be used on the road and there is no statutory equivalent to the MOT exemption.
I have been away in Spain for 10 days. I still think the advice on directgov is wrong. There are many governmnet leafltes I have seen in my working life which interpret the law wrongly, it wouldn't be a first
The sections quoted do not deal witrh SORN, just the exemption from requiring an MOT to take to or from an approved test center for a pre booked test.
SORN is a declaration that the vehicle is not on the road and whilst SORNd it is my understanding, notwithstanding directgov, that it cannot be used on the road and there is no statutory equivalent to the MOT exemption.
I will try and check it again
Quote:
Driving to an MOT test when a SORN is in place
You can drive your vehicle to and from a pre-arranged test at an MOT test station provided you have adequate insurance cover in place for that vehicle.
I think you both miss the point. Direct gov is information, not law, and is not legally binding in court. The extracts from Acts and regulations above do not deal with SORN and going to/from an MOT.
I believe the text of directgov is wrong and to get a definitive answer we need to find the right regulation.
At present I cannot find a regulation that allows a SORNd vehicle to be kept or driven on the road, at all. For going to/from a prebooked MOT there is a specific exemption in the MOT regulations. The regulations say you cannot have a non MOTd non taxed vehicle on the road unless it is in an exepemted category and then the exempted categories include to/from a prebooked test as long as you have insurance. There will have to be a similar one for SORN for the views above and directgov to be right.
I cannot find a similar exemption regulation, at present, in the SORN/continuous insurance regulations . They do provide a SORNd vehicle cannot be on a road; so for those who disagree where does it say in legislation, primary or secondary, that driving to/from a prebooked MOT is exempted for SORN, apart from in a government information web site that may well be wrong and has no legal force and effect
As I observed above it wouldn't be the first time a civil servant has commissioned info leaflets or web pages that are wrong in law.
I have not done my own search for any SORN exemption, but relying on 'thieawin's info I agree with his interpretation.
It is interesting to note that the directgov paragraph does not say anything in the paragraph text about SORN - it is only mentioned in the paragraph title. Further the text is identical to the text of the paragraph describing the exemption from the need to have an MOT when driving to a test.
I suspect that there has been some editing mistake which has lead to a mis-match of the paragraph title and the text.
OR somebody has tried to cover up the fact that the legislation, as drafted, creates an unintended situaton that, as 'thieawin' said, requires the SORNed vehicle to be transported not driven to the MOT test.
I would think that perhaps the law of "estoppel" would apply here.
Quote:
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."
The fact that the advice has been published in text form on an official website would strengthen the case in my view.
In effect a person is entitled to rely on advice given them by a representative of a public body and it is not up to them to check the truth or veracity of that advice.
Not only that, I was informed that they are entitled to rely (and act) on the advice even if the representative giving the advice is not officially empowered to give that advice. For this very reason I was instructed (when giving advice on Planning matters) to preface everything I said with "This is only my informal advice given on the basis of what you have told me today - it is not a formal opinion. For a formal opinion you will need to submit a planning application.
Not in criminal law Stanner. If the text is wrong it is no defence, it may be mitigation, but not a defence.
If I say it is OK to kill X and you act on it, that is no defence. Estoppels do not generally arise from mistaken statements of law in any event, but of fact. If directgov is incorrect it is a misstatement of law, not of fact. We are all deemed to know the law, so should recognise it as wrong. It is generally only misstatements of fact that give rise to estoppels
I still cannot find any regulation that exempts vehicles on way to/from prebooked MOT whilst SORNd to be on road. I can for MOT.
I may be wrong and looking in the wrong place, but so far apart from an advisory text with no legal force and until someone else finds the regulation that text is based on, and shows it includes a to/from exemption, my suggestion is that it would be foolish to rely on the text with a SORNd vehicle.
Stanner I understand what you say, but estoppel is not so wide, generally applies in civil law. The reason in planning you were told to preface is to stop a civil suit against the organisation if wrong.
I haven't checked but suspect there will be a disclaimer somewhere on directgov, foolish if there isn't
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 4 of 4Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
France
