De-registering Car

[smoky]

Hello, I want to de-register my car with the dvla. I just wanted to know if anyone out there has successfully de-registered their car and what the correct procedure is.


Be a lover not a hater!

:o)

[yozhik]

the correct procedure would be to use the Search function to find the multitude of threads that already exist, on this much debated topic, rather than starting a new thread.

:rolleyes:

[rydeon]

Hello, I want to de-register my car with the dvla. I just wanted to know if anyone out there has successfully de-registered their car and what the correct procedure is.


Be a lover not a hater!

:o)

Just SORN it, that'll end any car-tax worries you have...

[oghene]

Just SORN it, that'll end any car-tax worries you have...

Exempt vehicles

Electrically propelled vehicles

1 (1) An electrically propelled vehicle is an exempt vehicle.
(2) A vehicle is not an electrically propelled vehicle for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) unless the electrical motive power is derived from—
(a) a source external to the vehicle, or
(b) an electrical storage battery which is not connected to any source of power when the vehicle is in motion.
Trams

2 A vehicle used on tram lines is an exempt vehicle.
Vehicles not for carriage

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

If you do not want to pay tax, inform the DVLA that you claim an exemption under this act. No need to SORN it.
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Schedule 2,3

[christophera]

The easiest is to just let it expire then cite the original law when you are pulled over for expired registration.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

[pleasuredome]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

If you do not want to pay tax, inform the DVLA that you claim an exemption under this act. No need to SORN it.
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Schedule 2,3

nice bit of info ;)

[smoky]

Thanks for the replies folks. Has anyone actually been successful in de-registering their vehicle?

[dharmic one]

nice bit of info ;)

We're looking forward to the footage of the freeman conference cos you did a good talk that day!!!

I'm working on my own NOUI + COR, more general than yours, claiming several rights....

But I was intrigued at your non use of a notary as I can't afford to pay them up to £100 to claim these rights. I intend to serve mine at the home office and my local constabulary using three people of good standing. I intend to have them witness my Oath, Truth and Law, recording the whole process and posting it recorded delivery to all interested parties. I noticed during your presentation that once you got the estoppel you had your witnesses resend all the documents to the relevant people, have I got that right??

They would have to follow a similar procedure and be prepared to make counterclaim or lawfully object through sworn documents.

In your experience, is this a feasible way to achieve this? As long as I am careful in responding to any lawful objections they might have...as I claim the right to address such things in public....

Thanks for any help you can give,

peace...

PS....you still experiencing freedom in your conveyance??

[dharmic one]

The easiest is to just let it expire then cite the original law when you are pulled over for expired registration.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

I think this is very interesting, the Magna Carta using the term freeman..........does it only apply to freemen???

Just a question cos I know christophera has done some intriguing research on the Magna Carta..just haven't managed to read it all yet!!!

Peace all!!

[bsmurph83]

[QUOTE=dharmic one;1039211]
But I was intrigued at your non use of a notary as I can't afford to pay them up to £100 to claim these rights. I intend to serve mine at the home office and my local constabulary using three people of good standing. I intend to have them witness my Oath, Truth and Law, recording the whole process and posting it recorded delivery to all interested parties. I noticed during your presentation that once you got the estoppel you had your witnesses resend all the documents to the relevant people, have I got that right??

They would have to follow a similar procedure and be prepared to make counterclaim or lawfully object through sworn documents.

QUOTE]

yeh 3 men of good standing in the community is equivalent to a notary public, there's really little need to pay the money if you can get the 3 people together. that's how i and others in Oz are doing/have done it. a month after the parties you served it on don't rebut it or respond in any way, you send them the judgement and it's done. noone's gonna rebut or even respond unless you've put incorrect info and made claims you can't make. silence is agreement, is it not? but you still send the judgement after a month to get it into the public record and for your own future reference in case ya need to notice someone of your standing (cop for instance - yeh I'd carry a copy in the car or something)

[wakeupworld]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

Sorry don`t quite understand, isn`t this law saying that you are exempt from road tax as long as you don`t drive the `vehicle`? Which defeats the object of a freeman. Apologies if I`ve misunderstood this.

[dharmic one]

yeh 3 men of good standing in the community is equivalent to a notary public, there's really little need to pay the money if you can get the 3 people together. that's how i and others in Oz are doing/have done it. a month after the parties you served it on don't rebut it or respond in any way, you send them the judgement and it's done. noone's gonna rebut or even respond unless you've put incorrect info and made claims you can't make. silence is agreement, is it not? but you still send the judgement after a month to get it into the public record and for your own future reference in case ya need to notice someone of your standing (cop for instance - yeh I'd carry a copy in the car or something)

Thank you friend, I'm going into court tomorrow to finalise in my own mind the exact procedure required of me, fully expecting of course to be diverted at every opportunity away from my desire to be free by the kind fellows doing their jobs at court, but I feel it is the only way to get the necessary info, from the horse's mouth so to speak!!!! :D

As long as I am friendly and polite I think I can get somewhere....and carrying copies with the originals safe is exactly what I intended to do...I think much of this hinges on our own common sense too...thanks for your help...you've pretty much confirmed what I thought!!!:)

I'll let you all know how I get on....

Peace and love to all...

[dharmic one]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

Sorry don`t quite understand, isn`t this law saying that you are exempt from road tax as long as you don`t drive the `vehicle`? Which defeats the object of a freeman. Apologies if I`ve misunderstood this.

Both "drive" and "vehicle" are terms of commerce. I believe that a freeman with all his rights claimed has no need to engage in commerce so has no obligation to pay road tax etc. I intend, before I choose to engage in commerce as a freeman, to have all appropriate protection before I do so. But first I want to claim forever my rights, then be free to trade, exchange and Barter without interference from government. If I do want to engage in commerce then I believe I would have to "redeem" my strawman and become its secure party creditor. I understand very little about this process so I am for now stepping out of the system to first establish my freedom. Then I will consider commerce.

But I think this quote you refer to actually reinforces the freeman claim that if you're not engaging in commerce you are not subject to all of the nonsense rules (license, insurance, registration etc) they try to enforce against you on the highways.

However, I think this becomes difficult if you still use your NI number for other "benefits" in the society. So I am literally only holding my BC safely (for potential access to the security, should I choose to engage in commerce) and claiming the right to revoke consent to all other contracts that I have not knowingly, intentionally and willingly consented to.

Does that make sense???

[wakeupworld]

Yes, many many thanks. Perhaps I should have refered to oghene`s post when he stated that if you don`t want to pay road tax then quote this law of exemption.
This as far as I could tell meant that even if you have not made your claim of rights that the DVLA would still let you drive, which this law does not say.
Yes I`m aware of the terms driver and vehicle not applying to a freeman.
Just quoting this law surely wouldn`t help. Thanks

[number_6]

Both "drive" and "vehicle" are terms of commerce.


Can you clarify this? I was under the impression that the word "vehicle" is derived from the Latin word vehiculum, which translates as "means of transport" Also the word in the Act is "driver", not drive. Are you seriously suggesting that the individual in control of a vehicle is not driving it?

[oghene]

Can you clarify this? I was under the impression that the word "vehicle" is derived from the Latin word vehiculum, which translates as "means of transport" Also the word in the Act is "driver", not drive. Are you seriously suggesting that the individual in control of a vehicle is not driving it?

In my deliberations I have decided to deconstruct the construct that is the sentence which provides a statutory definition of the word ‘Driver’.

“driver”, where a separate person acts as a steersman of a motor vehicle, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and “drive” is to be interpreted accordingly,

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_15#pt7-pb9-l1g192

I have amended the definition, my references are further down.

Where a ‘different’ person ‘steers a ship’ of a motor ‘conveyance that transports people or objects’, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and “drive” is to be interpreted accordingly,

The act doesn’t even define driver, it doesn’t say ‘driver’ means xyz, it alludes to it, but does not specify what it is.

A different/separate person!!! Different/Separate from what and whom? So it is fair to understand that you may need a license to transport people or objects, but you need a licence to just steer. Where is this ship Parliament speaks of?

Anything that is mechanically propelled and transports people/goods is a motor vehicle, to even be accused of being a driver you must be in the process of transporting people or goods. If you do not accept you are a driver, then you are not a driver and they must prove you are a driver.
You see just because something can be used to transport doesn't mean it is infact 'being' used to transport.

A knife has different uses, but it is only deemed an offensive weapon if
a) it is of a certain length
b) being carried in public
c) you have no general reason for carrying it.

If you tell the officer or court, that you know the knife is infact dangerous, but you were infact looking for a police officer or the nearest station to hand it in. It is no longer an offensive weapon is it?


What if a person is not infact acting as steersman. A man doesn’t act or perform, because to act or perform implies adopting a persona. A man is a man is a man. He does not need to act.

You see based on what parliament alludes a ‘driver’ to be, you or anyone else cannot lawfully be a driver if you are not infact transporting people or goods.

This is my interpretation. Anyone can disagree. :-)

References:
----------------------------------------------------------------
separate
3: mark as different; "We distinguish several kinds of maple
http://dictionary.die.net/separate
steersman
n : the person who steers a ship [syn: helmsman, steerer]
steerer
n 1: the person who steers a ship
http://dictionary.die.net/steersman
http://dictionary.die.net/steerer
Act
perform an action;

http://dictionary.die.net/act

Vehicle \Ve"hi*cle\, n. [L. vehiculum, fr. vehere to carry; akin
to E. way, wain. See Way, n., and cf. Convex, Inveigh,
Veil, Vex.]
1. That in or on which any person or thing is, or may be,
carried, as a coach, carriage, wagon, cart, car, sleigh,
bicycle, etc.; a means of conveyance; specifically, a
means of conveyance upon land.

vehicle
n 1: a conveyance that transports people or objects

http://dictionary.die.net/vehicle

[oghene]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

Sorry don`t quite understand, isn`t this law saying that you are exempt from road tax as long as you don`t drive the `vehicle`? Which defeats the object of a freeman. Apologies if I`ve misunderstood this.


Carriage :- The act or process of transporting or carrying.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/carriage

If it is not used for carrying a driver or passenger then it is exempt. See my interpretation of 'driver'.
If you accept you are a driver then you are liable, if you do not, based on your best interpretation, then is this not lawful excuse that your vehicle is infact exempt

[wakeupworld]

Thanks oghene and number 6 for your general contributions to this thread.
Yes I do not accept I am the driver although I know number 6 may not go along with that.
For now, ok I/We don`t accept we are a driver but want to quote this law 3 as well. Is this where the NUICOR comes in?

[yozhik]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

Sorry don`t quite understand, isn`t this law saying that you are exempt from road tax as long as you don`t drive the `vehicle`? Which defeats the object of a freeman. Apologies if I`ve misunderstood this.

what it is saying is that if the vehicle is not used for the "carriage" of a driver (commercial terminology) or passenger (commercial terminology), it is exempt.

Bus driver. Train driver.
They are employed (paid) to carry (carriage) fare paying passengers (commerce)

A man or woman (traveller) who travels upon the highways and roads, accompanied by their guests; are exempt.

[yozhik]

Can you clarify this? I was under the impression that the word "vehicle" is derived from the Latin word vehiculum, which translates as "means of transport" Also the word in the Act is "driver", not drive. Are you seriously suggesting that the individual in control of a vehicle is not driving it?

In plain English, he is driving.
In legalese, unless he is involved in commerce, he could be controlling.

Yes - that is the "serious suggestion."

[wakeupworld]

Thanks yozhik:)

[number_6]

Carriage :- The act or process of transporting or carrying.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/carriage

If it is not used for carrying a driver or passenger then it is exempt. See my interpretation of 'driver'.
If you accept you are a driver then you are liable, if you do not, based on your best interpretation, then is this not lawful excuse that your vehicle is infact exempt

I see where you're coming from, oghene, but I do see pitfalls. The act describes a "steersman of a motor vehicle" In your interpretation you have kept the word "motor", and substituted a definition for "vehicle" that certainly seems to support the freeman theory. However the Act clearly states the definition of "motor vehicle" as :
“motor vehicle” means, subject to section 20 of the [1970 c. 44.] Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which makes special provision about invalid carriages, within the meaning of that Act), a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads

[oghene]

I see where you're coming from, oghene, but I do see pitfalls. The act describes a "steersman of a motor vehicle" In your interpretation you have kept the word "motor", and substituted a definition for "vehicle" that certainly seems to support the freeman theory. However the Act clearly states the definition of "motor vehicle" as :
“motor vehicle” means, subject to section 20 of the [1970 c. 44.] Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which makes special provision about invalid carriages, within the meaning of that Act), a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads

Number 6 I see your point, that reason I kept motor and defined vehicle was that the definition of “motor vehicle” relates to a mechanically propelled vehicle. So I had to define vehicle. I could easily removed motor and just define vehicle.
Either way, the onus is on the person who accuses you of driving a vehicle to prove 2 things.
1.You were the driver, they should provide a legally sustainable definition, as the act doesn't thoroughly define it. If they don't you can interprete it accordingly
2.They must prove that you are infact using it to transport people and objects.

So I will correct it and you may see how absurd the whole notion of a driver is:

Where a ‘different’ person ‘steers a ship’ of a ‘conveyance that transports people or objects’, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and “drive” is to be interpreted accordingly,

p.s keep pointing out pitfalls, its good to get the brain ticking over.

Also what is your view on this, do you think you in fact 'drive' a 'vehicle'.

[Ian2day]

Just fill the form out exporting from the UK plc. To the nearest piece of Urban Common Land. It may not be eas to find as Local Authoritys have probably sold it off or hidden it in boundry changes.

[number_6]

Also what is your view on this, do you think you in fact 'drive' a 'vehicle'.

Good god, sir, I leave that to the chauffeur! :D

Joking apart, I am going to have a re-think on this.

[yozhik]

Good god, sir, I leave that to the chauffeur! :D

Joking apart, I am going to have a re-think on this.

I think your throw away humour was actually incredibly salient.
A chauffeur, as a paid operator of a motor vehicle, is indeed, a driver. :)

http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/images/smilies/hide.gif

[smoky]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

I have tried to point the latter part of this act out to the DVLA, this is the response they sent me.

It appears that you are confusing the act. As your vehicle is for normal every day use it does require a valid vehicle tax disc. You are the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle carries you.
Section 3 of the act you refer to is in place for vehicles such as forklift vehicles or remotely used vehicles that are not designed for the carriage of goods, passengers or day to day normal use as you use your vehicle for.

[yozhik]

3 A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the carriage of a driver or passenger is an exempt vehicle.

I have tried to point the latter part of this act out to the DVLA, this is the response they sent me.

It appears that you are confusing the act. As your vehicle is for normal every day use it does require a valid vehicle tax disc. You are the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle carries you.
Section 3 of the act you refer to is in place for vehicles such as forklift vehicles or remotely used vehicles that are not designed for the carriage of goods, passengers or day to day normal use as you use your vehicle for.

Challenge it.
Ask for proof of claim that you are a "driver".
This is the premise that their entire reply is based on.

Of course if you have a driver's licence; this path is not an option.
It would mean you have begged them to be recorded as a driver, which is how most are ensnared.

If you beg (apply) for a licence to drive, then by your own actions, you have willingly entered into a contract as a driver of a motor vehicle.
No point then arguing that you are not a driver of a motor vehicle; shit - you even PAY them for the privilege.

What a truly incredible system ... a beautiful web of deception ... you have to stand back and admire it for the amazing piece of work it is.

[smoky]

I have replied to them informing them to stop referring to me as a driver as I am not using the roads and highways to engage in commerce but only to travel. I am therefore a traveller and not a driver.

[sindakit]

Challenge it.
Ask for proof of claim that you are a "driver".
This is the premise that their entire reply is based on.

Of course if you have a driver's licence; this path is not an option.
It would mean you have begged them to be recorded as a driver, which is how most are ensnared.

If you beg (apply) for a licence to drive, then by your own actions, you have willingly entered into a contract as a driver of a motor vehicle.No point then arguing that you are not a driver of a motor vehicle; shit - you even PAY them for the privilege.

What a truly incredible system ... a beautiful web of deception ... you have to stand back and admire it for the amazing piece of work it is.

how can you declaring yourself to be a freeman and travel in an automobile if you currently hold a licence? I understand it can be placed in a nouicor or a notice to the DVLA seperating yourself from your person but how could you word it so as to be sufficient enough that the can't prove you are a 'driver' because of this seperation?

[oghene]

how can you declaring yourself to be a freeman and travel in an automobile if you currently hold a licence? I understand it can be placed in a nouicor or a notice to the DVLA seperating yourself from your person but how could you word it so as to be sufficient enough that the can't prove you are a 'driver' because of this seperation?

The same way something was bound, is the same way it can be unbound.
Send the license back with a

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RESCIND.

There are 2 parties to this agreement called a licence, yourself and the DVLA. If you do not follow the terms, they can ban you (suspension), they can even ask for it back. As you are party to it, you can also make those decisions..

If they cannot provide lawful reasons as to why you cannot rescind the contract, then it is rescinded.

Rescission is the name given to a process whereby an existing contract is brought to an end and the effects of its existence are cancelled or terminated
http://www.lawofcontract.co.uk/discharge/986.php

[girlgye]

Dharmic one.
Thank you for your helpful posts on this subject and for enlightening me on what a secured party creditor is!

[smoky]

I sent an email to the dvla informing them to stop referring to me as a DRIVER as I do not use the public roads for commerce, only for travelling. This is their reply -

Thank you for your email received on 11/6/09. Your email reference number is *****.

Irrespective of how you wish to refer to yourself (traveller/driver), a BMW 525 that is kept or used on the road must have, and display a current/valid tax disc. The legislation that you have previously quoted does not relate to this type of vehicle, as you have been previously informed.

DVLA cannot assist you further with this enquiry.


LOL