Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I would really appreciate some guidance on a DVLA Single Justice Procedure Notice I have received.

Timeline:

• 28 Nov 2025 – I submitted a full written representation to DVLA (case ref 2529128) explaining that:
– the vehicle was immobile due to battery failure
– I had an active Direct Debit which was not collected
– I had been advised incorrectly regarding SORN requirements

• DVLA acknowledged receipt

• 5 Dec 2025 – The vehicle was clamped and removed despite that representation

• 10 Dec 2025 – I submitted a formal follow-up/appeal via the DVLA online system (accepted and acknowledged)

• Dec–Jan – I received generic responses but no clear confirmation that my appeal was being properly processed

• 2 Jan 2026 – DVLA issued a penalty notice alleging no valid response

• Now – I have received a Single Justice Procedure Notice

Key issue:

The DVLA witness statement says no reply was received, which is factually incorrect as I have acknowledgements of my submissions.

Key points:

• I did engage and respond before enforcement action
• The vehicle was immobile and not being used
• I relied on incorrect DVLA guidance regarding SORN
• Enforcement action appears to have proceeded despite my representation

Questions:

Does this sound like a defensible “not guilty” position?
Should I rely on the earlier representations as my defence?
Is there anything specific I should include or avoid in the SJP response?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Happy to upload the SJPN or any specific pages if that would help.

Thank you.

What does "I relied on incorrect DVLA guidance regarding SORN" actually mean?

Thanks for coming back to me.

By that I mean that when I contacted DVLA previously regarding the vehicle, I was advised that a SORN could only be made once the vehicle was physically off the public road, for example in a garage or on a private driveway.

As I do not have access to a private driveway or garage, and the vehicle had become immobile due to battery failure, I understood from that guidance that I could not declare SORN while it remained parked on the street.

Based on that understanding, I did not submit a SORN at that stage and instead sought to resolve the situation once the vehicle could be moved.

In hindsight, I appreciate that this understanding may have been incorrect, but it was based on the guidance I received at the time.

That info from DVLA is correct - but missing perhaps the additional information that if on the road the car must be taxed and insured. You haven't told us what offence DVLA is pursuing you for, nor the timeline.  However, in general these cases are black and white - on the road + no tax = problem, no tax or SORN in place = problem, or taxed + no insurance in place = problem. They don't even have to see it - the computer adds 2+2 and spits out the fine.

Thanks, that makes sense in general.

To clarify the specific position in my case:

• The vehicle was on the road and not taxed at the relevant time (I understand that point)
• However, I had already submitted a written representation to DVLA on 28 Nov explaining the situation (vehicle immobile, etc.), which was acknowledged
• Despite that, the vehicle was clamped and removed on 5 Dec
• I then submitted a formal follow-up/appeal via the DVLA online system on 10 Dec

So my concern is less about the underlying rule, and more about whether enforcement action was taken despite an ongoing representation/appeal.

I would appreciate any views on whether that affects how this should be approached in the SJP.

The “ongoing representation” does not hold any water. Your car must either be taxed or declared (and kept) off road.

If you do anything other than plead guilty in response to the SJPN you will face a trial and almost certainly be convicted (bar a major administrative balls-up). The fine and costs will then be considerably higher. The long and short of it is that if you have a vehicle that is immobile and the tax expires you must get it shifted off the road.

A couple of things I don’t understand:

Quote

– I had an active Direct Debit which was not collected

Why was it not collected? When did the tax expire?

In any case, why didn’t you just tax it? Was the point of your representations to get the DVLA to waive the tax for the period it was immobile?

Thanks, that’s helpful.

To clarify further:

• The tax was not renewed because the MOT had expired, which meant the Direct Debit could not be processed
• Around that time the vehicle became immobile due to battery failure, so I was unable to move it to obtain an MOT
• I did not ignore the situation — I submitted a written representation to DVLA on 28 Nov explaining the circumstances, which was acknowledged
• Despite that, the vehicle was clamped and removed on 5 Dec, and DVLA later stated that no valid response had been received

I understand the general requirement to either tax or SORN the vehicle, but my concern is that I had already engaged with DVLA about the situation before enforcement action was taken.

This is a criminal matter, just holding up your hands and saying you know you are committing an offence doesn't give you any immunity from prosecution.

You had plenty of time to have the battery replaced and moved the vehicle. Suggest you plead guilty as nothing you have said is going to form any part of a defence.

I understand the general point about the offence being strict.

Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that simply contacting DVLA prevents liability.

My concern is more specific to the facts of this case:

• I submitted a written representation to DVLA on 28 Nov explaining the situation, which was acknowledged
• The vehicle was then clamped and removed on 5 Dec
• DVLA later issued a penalty notice stating that no valid response had been received

The letter I have now received appears to proceed on that basis. I’ve attached it here:
https://storage.to/HkQGDMDpi

I’ve highlighted the key section (page 5) which states that no written reply had been received.

So my question is whether that apparent inconsistency — between DVLA acknowledging receipt and then later stating no response was received — has any bearing on how this should be approached in the SJP, rather than disputing the general rule itself.