4. Dr X complains that in 2012, DVLA seized his vehicle without his knowledge and sold it at auction.
5. He says DVLA’s actions have caused him and his family financial detriment, upset, distress and inconvenience.
6. Dr X is seeking a financial compensation.
7. In summer 2012 Dr X left the UK for work and family reasons, returning four months later.
8. The tax disc on Dr X’s vehicle expired 13 days after he left the UK.
9. When Dr X returned to the UK in winter 2012, he found several letters from both DVLA and VEAS, DVLA’s national wheel-clamping contractor. These letters advised that his vehicle had been impounded and would be disposed of.
10. Dr X was informed his vehicle had been sold at auction on the day that he arrived back in the UK. He raised his complaints with DVLA and VEAS the following day.
11. DVLA issued its final response in early 2013.
14. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
15. Dr X complains DVLA seized his vehicle without his knowledge and sold it at auction in late 2012.
16. Within its responses, DVLA stated that it is not its responsibility to determine accidental breaches of VERA and the Regulations. It reiterated that Dr X’s vehicle was parked unlicensed and with no Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) registered on a public road. It explained to do so is an offence and therefore enforcement action was appropriate.
17. Section 29(1) of VERA states if a person uses or keeps a vehicle which is unlicensed, they are guilty of an offence.
18. Furthermore, section 31A stipulates that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.
19. Section 5 of the Regulations states that if an authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under VERA section 29(1) is being committed, relating to a vehicle that is stationary on a public road, they or a person acting on their behalf may fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle while it remains in the place where it is stationary.
20. Furthermore, sections 9 and 10 of the Regulations state that if 24 hours has passed since the device was fixed to the vehicle, then the authorised person or a person acting on their behalf, may remove the vehicle and deliver it to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to keep vehicles (called a custodian). The custodian of a vehicle delivered to them in accordance with section 9 may dispose of it by selling it or dealing with it as scrap, as they think fit.
21. The evidence available confirms Dr X left his vehicle parked outside his residence in a designated parking space when he left the UK in Summer 2012.
22. The parking space was situated on a public road.
23. As the road tax on Dr X’s vehicle expired shortly after he left the UK, this meant his vehicle was parked on a public road unlicensed.
24. DVLA sent Dr X a late licensing penalty (LLP) letter in Autumn 2012. LLPs are issued to the registered keeper of a vehicle that has no valid tax or SORN.
25. As Dr X’s vehicle remained unlicensed on a public road and he had not responded to the LLP, VEAS fitted a wheel clamp to it 14 days after the date of the LLP. VEAS then removed his vehicle two days later, taking it to their pound.
26. VEAS sent Dr X a letter the day after it impounded his vehicle. This letter offered him the opportunity to retrieve his vehicle and explained if he did not do so, it would dispose of it.
27. As Dr X did not respond to VEAS’ letter, his vehicle was sold at auction five weeks later in winter 2012.
28. We acknowledge that Dr X was not in the UK at the time the events took place. We appreciate it must have been upsetting and distressing for him to discover his vehicle had been seized and sold upon returning in winter 2012.
29. With the above being said, VERA clearly identifies the registered keeper of a vehicle to be the responsible party for ensuring that vehicle has valid road tax or a valid SORN registered against it. We are therefore satisfied that Dr X was responsible for ensuring his vehicle was either taxed or SORNed before he left the UK. However, he did not do so.
30. As Dr X left his vehicle unlicensed on a public road and did not respond to DVLA’s or VEAS’ letters, enforcement action was taken. We are satisfied the enforcement action DVLA took was appropriate and in line with the Regulations as detailed above.
31. That being the case, we have decided not to consider Dr X’s complaint further.
32. We would like to thank Dr X for providing us with the opportunity to review his concerns regarding DVLA.
1. We have carefully considered Dr X’s complaint about DVLA. We are sorry to learn of the seizure and sale of his car and how upsetting and costly this was for him.
2. We consider that HMRC acted in line with relevant regulations when it seized and sold Dr X’s vehicle in 2012. We have therefore decided not to consider his complaint further.
3. We acknowledge that this is likely not the decision Dr X had hoped for. We do not wish to diminish the impact the issues have had on him and his family. We explain our decision below.