My tax fell off the windscreen and now I have a ticket......

[detective-boy]

What happens if someone nicks your tax disc?
How is that your fault?

It doesn't have to be your fault. It is what is known as an "absolute" offence - if the tax disc is not displayed as required it is an offence, end of. In the circumstances of the original post (or if it was stolen) you MAY convince a court to sentence to an absolute discharge, but they will have to convict as a matter or law.

With the database now instantly accessible, I think the time is coming where discs will disappear altogether ... but until then, it is an absolute offence - the only hope is to persuade the agency involved (it could be police, traffic wardens, local authority wardens or DVLA enforcement officers) not to prosecute ... but it sounds like they have already blanked that.

Entirely disproportionate and "jobsworth" ... but legally sound.

(ETA: The only way to avoid an offence if your disc is lost / stolen is to keep the vehicle off the road, otherwise you are liable to prosecution / conviction for the "not displaying" offence).

 

[detective-boy]

If they don't have photographic evidence the tax disc wasn't on display, they have f*ck all that would stand up in court, surely?

Whilst it may be good practice to have photograhic evidence, there is no legal requirement. It is a common misconception that "proof" needs to be more than one persons evidence - it doesn't. The witness evidence of one person could be used to convict six others who all agreed if the Court believed it and did not believe the others.

 

[detective-boy]

I was driving a car (some years ago) with a disk six months out of date, I got fined for not having valid tax, and for failing to display a valid tax disk, and had to pay the back tax!

You should only have been convicted of one - they are alternatives. You may be charged / summonsed for both but the evidence would prove you either didn't have tax (offence 1) OR that you did have it but didn't display it (offence 2).

 

[detective-boy]

Luckily the police were understanding about it.

You would be VERY unlucky to find a copper who prosecuted when they knew you had tax but for some reasnable reason you weren't displaying it properly. (though I did have one such prick on my team when I was a sergeant ... I used to pull all his reports for the "fail to display" offence and mark them up for a warning letter ... )

 

[dessiato]

You should only have been convicted of one - they are alternatives. You may be charged / summonsed for both but the evidence would prove you either didn't have tax (offence 1) OR that you did have it but didn't display it (offence 2).

too far ago to worry about now, but at the time it seemed extreme to get done twice for what was, in my opinion, only one offence. The first I knew that I'd been done was when someone told me I'd appeared in the court round up of the local paper. I wasn't summonsed or anything before that so had no opportunity to plead a defence (although to be honest I had just not bothered to tax the vehicle out of laziness, and did deserve the conviction)

 

[detective-boy]

I wasn't summonsed or anything before that so had no opportunity to plead a defence (although to be honest I had just not bothered to tax the vehicle out of laziness, and did deserve the conviction)

You probably didn't get "done twice" then ... if you didn't have tax the Court would have been told that and would have convicted you and sentenced you on that offence in your absence. The requirement to pay back tax comes from that offence as well (it is not part of the sentence with a "fail to display" offence).

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Whilst it may be good practice to have photograhic evidence, there is no legal requirement. It is a common misconception that "proof" needs to be more than one persons evidence - it doesn't. The witness evidence of one person could be used to convict six others who all agreed if the Court believed it and did not believe the others.

Thank you Detective Boy- I'm happy to stand corrected here.