DVLA agent removed vehicle from private land

[dls]

I was hoping the letter contents may help confirm that the land needs to be public highway, unadopted road etc for the DVLA agent to remove the vehicle

I do not think it does, and, again, it has no legal effect. It merely tries to explain the statute.

[theycantdothat]

It seems to be that whilst at one time the tax was not payable if you kept a car off the road, now it is not payable only if you keep it at home*. The revision of the statute sets out where you can keep a car so that it is deemed to be kept at home. Essentially, paragraph (a) covers houses and (b) flats. Whilst it is not possible to define precisely what constitutes a curtilage, it is still the case that for most urban properties it is possible to say with some precision where the curtilage is. The wording of paragraph (a) helps in those cases (such as we have here) where the extent of the curtilage is in doubt or where the parking is in a separate compound outside the curtilage. The land on which the car was parked is in the vicinity of a dwellinghouse and enjoyed with it. The OP can show that by producing his title and also show that the land in question is not part of the public highway. With the information we have, it is difficult to see how the position is not covered by paragraph (a).

*or possibly in other cases not relevant to this discussion

[darkdog]

Just a quick update so far.
the company who removed the car have now conceded the land is not a highway verge based on the statements and deeds I sent them, they have now decided that they consider the land is not associated to the dwelling as part of the driveway is mentioned as having shared maintenance and up keep costs. so as far as I can see it still does not mean it is a retail car park, un-adopted road, municipal car park, housing association road or common land which is the only off road areas allowed to be removed from. I now need to clarify what is classed as associated.

[blig]

So, it could arguably be considered a privately owned car park not being within the curtilage of the house?

[theycantdothat]

Just a quick update so far.
the company who removed the car have now conceded the land is not a highway verge based on the statements and deeds I sent them, they have now decided that they consider the land is not associated to the dwelling as part of the driveway is mentioned as having shared maintenance and up keep costs. so as far as I can see it still does not mean it is a retail car park, un-adopted road, municipal car park, housing association road or common land which is the only off road areas allowed to be removed from. I now need to clarify what is classed as associated.

I thought they might do that.

I do not think you are going to get much clearer than the wording of the Act:

any place which is [...] in the vicinity of a dwelling-house [...] and which is normally enjoyed with it

Whilst one can often be surprised by what judges make of statutes, that seems straightforward. Only two questions need to be asked in respect of the land in question:

1. Is it in the vicinity of a dwelling-house?

2. If it is, is it normally enjoyed with the dwelling-house?

Can the answer to both questions be other than "yes"? Whether use of the land is shared between the owners of more than one property and what the arrangements are for maintaining it are irrelevant as they are not questions which the statute requires to be asked.

[blig]

1. Is it in the vicinity of a dwelling-house?
2. If it is, is it normally enjoyed with the dwelling-house?

I'd agree these are the correct questions to be asking, but depending on more detail than was given I can also see the answer to (2) being argued. The OP has said the parking area was bought by a previous owner in 1980 which would suggest in 1979 that the parking area was not normally enjoyed with the dwelling house. The letter of 1st March 2009 talks of "your car park" so suggests that the DVLA are regarding this area as a privately owned car park, not within the curtilage. It seems that anyone can park in this area, so it could be argued that the area is enjoyed by whoever chooses to park there and as such it is not normally enjoyed with the dwelling house.

[theycantdothat]

1. Is it in the vicinity of a dwelling-house?
2. If it is, is it normally enjoyed with the dwelling-house?

I'd agree these are the correct questions to be asking, but depending on more detail than was given I can also see the answer to (2) being argued. The OP has said the parking area was bought by a previous owner in 1980 which would suggest in 1979 that the parking area was not normally enjoyed with the dwelling house. The letter of 1st March 2009 talks of "your car park" so suggests that the DVLA are regarding this area as a privately owned car park, not within the curtilage. It seems that anyone can park in this area, so it could be argued that the area is enjoyed by whoever chooses to park there and as such it is not normally enjoyed with the dwelling house.

What the position was in 1979 is irrelevant.

There are three different things:

1. A publicly owner public car park.

2. A privately owned public car park.

3. An area within the curtilage or in the vicinity of a dwelling-house and enjoyed with it and capable of being used for parking cars.

Whether the area in question is normally enjoyed with the house depends on the facts, but whether others also use it is irrelevant.

It should also be noted that there is no requirement that the car be parked where the owner lives.

[dls]

1. Is it in the vicinity of a dwelling-house?
2. If it is, is it normally enjoyed with the dwelling-house?

As usual tcdt is spot on, but I might put it the other way around.
There is no point in the phrase 'vicinity of a dewllinghouse' unless it includes land which is not owned as part of the house.
'Normally enjoyed' similarly necessarily implies that it will not always be so enjoyed. It matters not why not - it can be interrupted access.

as someone might once have said
'Educated been I have'

[blig]

There is no point in the phrase 'vicinity of a dewllinghouse' unless it includes land which is not owned as part of the house.

Alternatively, it could be a limitation.

Consider: a farmer owns 100,000 acres of land in the middle of which there is his dwelling house. The farmer cannot park his car for which a SORN has been made on the majority of his 100,000 acres of land, only the portion that is in the vicinity, or near to, the dwelling house. So the farmer cannot keep a car for use on his 100,000 acre estate only and have a SORN declaration. But not relevant here.

The one that the area is being confused with is a "privately owned public car park".

edit in red by atticus!

[Hairyloon]

The farmer cannot park his car for which a SORN has been made on the majority of his 100,000 acres of land...

I am not convinced by that but assuming we accept it, is the DVLA agent not trespassing if he enters the land to seize the vehicle?