I’ve appealed against two traffic offences (unpaid ULEZ, parking in a taxi rank) committed within Birmingham City Council’s (BCC) jurisdiction. The car was still registered to me as its keeper when the offences were made, although I no longer owned it and was not the driver when the offences were committed.
Both BCC and now Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) have rejected my appeals against these. I understood when making my appeals that I was the registered keeper, which rendered me liable for the offences committed in it by the new driver. That I was the registered keeper was not contested in my appeals; yet was stated as the reason for rejecting them.
My appeal rested on mitigating factors that explain the car remaining registered to me after I had sold it. Neither BCC nor TPT took any of them into account when explaining their reasons to reject the appeals.
Here, as I explained to them in mitigation, is why I was still the registered keeper after selling it:
Background: The car was stolen from outside my house and then recovered by the police. Their insurance assessors classified it not economically viable to repair and marked it a Category N vehicle. They returned it to me so that I could sell it for scrap.
Other items had been stolen from it, the glove compartment had been emptied and documents in it violated, including the V5C - only its front sheet was in tact. The form to complete the transfer of ownership was discarded with other items.
I advertised it on a scrap merchant comparison website, a man called, we agreed a price and he came and towed it away to scrap – or so I thought.
The buyer reassured me about not having the transfer of ownership form; explaining that it’s not required when disposing of a vehicle, that his company knew the process well and would complete it.
There was no key to the car, the steering was locked and the windows left open since the police recovered it.
I called DVLA for advice about the transfer of ownership. They told me to write and notify them. They explained that it could take 4-6 weeks to receive and process as they had a backlog. I wrote this at once and sent it by first class post. I phoned them after four weeks and they hadn’t received it. This was in December, so I sent another letter to the same effect, also by first class post. In the new year, I called them again and they could not acknowledge receipt of either of my letters. In the meantime, I had received fines for driving offences committed in my old car.
In my appeals, I showed documentary evidence of SmS messages between me and the buyer in which we agreed a price, and the bank transaction in which he then paid me that amount.
While waiting for DVLA to process my letter/s, I reported the deceit of the buyer to the police, with the personal details for him that I had: given name, mobile phone number, bank account and sort code numbers. He could have been traced with these, but they only wanted to give me an incident reference and not record a crime.
Given that the fines were for traffic offences, and that I gave evidence of having sold the car, with the reasons for not having completed the transfer of ownership, I think that BCC and TFT have applied the letter of the law and not one whiff of its spirit. Their rejection notices refer only to the fact that I was still the registered keeper: missing the point of my appeal entirely.
I had other fines, too. Leeds city council and a private parking company BOTH EXONERATED ME from paying them after reading my appeals against them. I think BCC should have done the same, and that TPT are even worse for upholding BCC’s position ie for not reading my appeal properly.
Any advice or insights would be very welcome. Many thanks.
