DVLA - failure to relicense

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Jampot

I would steer clear of any allegations that the postal service cannot be relied upon as per your 3rd paragraph as this opens you up to a claim for libel by the Post office - who are not very nice to deal with legally. Otherwise it looks fine.

I am suprised that other people on the forum didn't point out that you cannot libel the royal mail.

Dani

[gwc1000]

I think you have a point there, about a temporary keeper. As a car dealer I don't register vehicles to myself. If a car I buy is taxed and the tax expires whilst still in my ownership I am not required to SORN it, in fact I cannot as only the person whose name appears on the V5 can, even though they are technically no longer the registered keeper. They would have sent off the notification of sale to the motor trade with my name and adress on when they sold it to me, but DVLA will not accept a SORN from me for that vehicle they say only the registered keeper may declare SORN, even though they no longer own it. I would have to register the vehicle to myself to declare SORN.

[jampot]

For anyone who is interested, I've copied to here the full text of my reply to the DVLA. I've cobbled together some other information from this forum regarding the UPU (although I admit I haven't verified it, despite a good search on google) - but the piece about document SERVICE (rather than ownership) is certainly true. Thanks to Danny K for the template letter, too - as you see, I've alluded to it, but have admittedly glossed over it... but hopefully it should be enough.

I've also just remembered - I never got the V5C for the car I bought when I part-exchanged - I had to pay the scammers £25 to issue a replacement, so yet again a good example of things getting 'lost' in the post from the DVLA. They'll have that on record, too...

Here's the letter:


Continuous Registration Centre 16th January 2008
2nd Floor, Bourne Gate
25 Bourne Valley Road
Poole
BH12 1DY


Your Ref # blah blah blah
Dear Sir / Madam,
Yesterday, I received your correspondence (reference as above) regarding the alleged ‘Failure to Relicense’ the vehicle XXyyXXX.
As I stated on the form I returned prior to your response, not only did I post the relevant paperwork to you, I had already posted paperwork to you in relation to the same vehicle in order to retain my personalised registration mark which had previously been assigned to that vehicle, so there is clear evidence of my intent.

To summarise, I purchased (brand new in 2004) the blue Audi S4, with the initial registration XXyyXXX. Shortly afterwards, I applied to assign my retained registration mark, XyyXXX, to the vehicle. The vehicle was registered thus until July 2007. At this time, as I was part exchanging the vehicle, I applied to retain the XyyXXX registration mark, and the vehicle was duly issued with a new V5C, and I was correctly issued a retention certificate for XyyXXX. Following this, I returned the correct section from this ‘new’ V5C, providing details of the new Registered Keeper which were, for the record:

Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah

The transaction to part-exchange the vehicle took place on 28th June 2007, and this is the effective date when I ceased to be the owner / keeper, although clearly I was still listed as the registered keeper at the start of July, whilst transfer of the registration mark, and subsequent re-issue of the ‘new’ V5C were completed.

I am not in a position to comment on whether the department did (or didn’t) receive notification – but I am certain that the documentation was posted to the department according to the instructions on the V5C. Your response suggests that I should then wait up to 4 weeks to receive an acknowledgement letter. What your department has either failed to appreciate, or perhaps unfairly relies upon, is that a keeper who has sent the V5C off to the DVLA, and/or handed the remainder to the buyer, no longer has that document to refer to.

I was extremely disappointed to receive your response as, even considering these circumstances, you still believe that I am liable for the ‘penalty’. As clearly we have both been let down by Royal Mail, and as there is clear evidence that I correctly returned the previous V5C in order to retain my registration mark, I would have expected you to take no further action on this. In particular, given the fact that the vehicle was immediately disposed of (and I can provide as much proof of this as is necessary) there was no possibility of any financial gain for me, and absolutely no motive for me to fail to notify you of a change of keeper.
Clearly, as your department feels unable to simply let this matter drop, I have investigated the situation further with respect to the legal ability for the DVLA to issue a ‘late licensing penalty’, and I have been rather shocked with what my investigations have turned up. There appears to be clear contradiction between the DVLA acting as ‘judge and jury’, without a proper appeals process, and both Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 – the former of which allows me a ‘right to a fair trial’, by way of an independent and impartial tribunal, and the latter expressly disallows the process of issuing a ‘fine’ (as your ‘penalty’ purports to be).

The DVLA method of ‘trial’ is by way of a computer database and the postal system. Because of this, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right. I am more than willing to expand on these points if necessary, but I trust that this won’t be necessary. As I understand it, there has already been at least one case at County Court (May 2007 in Mansfield) in which the DVLA (Secretary of State) were similarly unsuccessful. Whilst perhaps not a binding precedent, I would imagine that a reasonable Judge would, when considering all relevant factors in this case, rule once again against your department.

If that weren’t enough, I trust the DVLA is aware of Royal Mail’s requirement to operate a Universal Postal Service and that, unlike many other countries, in the UK a letter becomes the property of the recipient upon posting, rather than upon receipt. There is a clear assumption that, when using Royal Mail’s services, documents (even official ones) can be considered ‘served’ purely by posting. Indeed, a quick check on other Government websites concludes that:

“A document may be served by leaving it at the appropriate address for service under this rule or by sending it to that address by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post.”

In addition, I understand that the V5C contains no reference to posting via an alternative (and possibly more ‘secure’) service such as Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery, so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper. That you either didn’t receive this notification, or failed to update your records accordingly, is unfortunate – but I contend that it is unreasonable to expect me to chase up your failure to acknowledge the service of this document, especially given that you expect me to ‘wait’ for a period of at least 4 weeks before doing so.
I would have thought that the DVLA was well aware that the postal service cannot be wholly relied upon, given that your department was recently forced to admit that it had ‘lost’ the details of 7000 motorists, which I understand went missing from a sorting office in Coventry whilst on the way to your Swansea offices. Furthermore, the DVLA also managed to send 100 questionnaires (out of 1,215) to the wrong addresses – clearly showing that there is the potential for lapses of process within the agency. Taking these 2 events into consideration, is it any wonder that the document I sent to you has been ‘lost’?

Irrespective of the wording of the V5C, I consulted the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As the vehicle was sold to a Motor Trader, section 23 applies:

*******

Change of keeper: obligations of registered keeper where vehicle registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper a vehicle trader
23. - (1) Subject to regulation 24, this regulation applies where -
(a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle;
(b) the person disposing of the vehicle is the registered keeper;
(c) a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and
(d) the new keeper is a vehicle trader.
(2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following -
(a) the name and address of the vehicle trader;
(b) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;
(c) a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and
(d) a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).
(3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

*******

There is nothing contained within section 23 which requires me to follow up after 4 weeks if I have not received acknowledgement of the notification. Having read the remainder of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, I am unable to find any general provision which could bestow that requirement – and in the absence of the V5C document (as obviously someone in my position would be) I would reasonably expect to see the requirement to pursue this letter properly documented within the legislation.

Interestingly, your letter dated 10/01/08 also refers to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended). I had a brief look at this legislation too. Section 30 deals with the ‘Additional liability for keeper of unlicensed vehicle’, but when determining the ‘Relevant period for purposes of section 30’, Section 31 part 5 states:

*******

(5) Where the person convicted proves—
(a) that throughout any month or part of a month in the relevant period the vehicle was not kept by him, or
(b) that he has paid the duty due (or an amount equal to the duty due) in respect of the vehicle for any such month or part of a month,
any amount which the person is ordered to pay under section 30 is to be calculated as if that month or part of a month were not in the relevant period.

*******

So, for the purposes of pursuing the duty owed for the period, the DVLA must not count the month(s) for which the person convicted can prove that the vehicle was not kept by him. In short, there is clear provision for the Secretary of State to accept that a vehicle is not kept by a person, without receiving and/or acknowledging notification of a change of registered keeper. As I disposed of the vehicle in June, clearly it was not being kept by me in October, November or December (or, indeed, January). With proof of this being readily available, the DVLA cannot pursue the alleged owed duty for the entire period – and having correctly notified you of the change of keeper (by serving the document via first class post, in the prescribed manner) you are seeking to punish unfairly for something which lies utterly outside of my control.

As the DVLA has authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt, should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234.

Please also note, the best address to correspond with me is:

Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah
Blah Blah

I moved from the Blah Road address you are writing to, during August, into temporary accommodation, then (during September) into the address above. I obviously arranged for my Driving License and V5Cs for subsequent vehicle(s) to be changed / issued to my new address, but had no need to notify you of a change of address for a vehicle which I hadn’t owned or kept for several months.

I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has now been dropped.

Yours faithfully,


Blah Blah

[Conniff]

I am not in a position to comment on whether the department did (or didn’t) receive notification – but I am certain that the documentation was posted

Not sure I like that word, it imparts some doubt.

I like the rest though, and I think this is your strongest point:

so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper.

[jampot]

Its funny, as I intended (and read) the opposite. Certain = no doubt.

I take your point though, but I don't think the letter-opening monkey at the DVLA will care...

Just checking the wordfile original, and actually the line says:

"I am not in a position to comment on... but I am certain that the documentation was posted..."

So what I've sent to them has bold text, just not on the word you highlighted, and I think I've done it in such a way as to underline my certainty rather than undermine it.

[JonCris]

Great letter - Trouble is it'll be put in front of some Muppet at the DVLA who won't have a clue how to respond intelligently & will simply return to their demands for payment.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by jampot

The transaction to part-exchange the vehicle took place on 28th June 2007, and this is the effective date when I ceased to be the owner / keeper, although clearly I was still listed as the registered keeper at the start of July, whilst transfer of the registration mark, and subsequent re-issue of the ‘new’ V5C were completed.

Take this out.

One of the requirements of a transfer or retention is that you may not dispose of the donor vehicle until you recive a V5 with its replacement VRM. You have actually declared that you will not do so when you signed the form.

I know that this stipulation is more honoured in the breach, but it does give them ammunition to come back at you; and raises doubt as to the actual dates of RK responsibility.

[jampot]

I got a rather lengthy (4 page) letter back - obviously not standard issue, the crux of which tells me I'm still liable for the £40 'penalty'.

I need to go through it in detail and find if there's any common ground, or any points I can pick up on - but they've certainly gone to town on a response - I just need to decide whether I can be bothered to take this all the way for the sake of £40. I know that's exactly what they are hoping (that I will bow down) but do I make a stand and end up paying through the nose?

Hmmm...

I think my strongest case is that they're still trying to tell me that BY LAW, I haven't notified them of a change of keeper UNTIL I RECEIVE THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. That's not how I read the actual Act itself, regardless of what it says on the V5C.

[jampot]

Hmmmm...

According to my latest letter, when talking about the acknowledgement letter which they send out...

"You remain legally responsible for your vehicle right up until you receive this letter."

Ummm. WTF? NO I DO NOT!

If the vehicle is involved in a crime (speeding, red light violation etc) and I haven't yet received a reply from the DVLA, when the police come knocking, I can fill out the necessary (police) paperwork documenting when the vehicle was sold and to whom. This absolves me from any further action, irrespective of what the DVLA think.

So... that begs the question, if all the facts point to a disposal on a given date, and the DVLA simply didn't receive the paperwork, why can't that be a statutory defence under the Continuous Registration scheme? If both parties agree that transfer of the vehicle took place on a certain day, this should be acceptable to the DVLA and I cannot see the system being 'fair' whilst documents can get lost in the post, mislaid in an office, or simply filed incorrectly.

[jampot]

Next question...

Their letter states that if I still fail to make payment, they have 2 courses of action available to them. The first is an action in Civil Court, the 2nd is to refer the case to a DCA.

Being as a dispute the basis for the penalty, is not a DCA obliged to pass the file back? Or is there a special law which allows for a DCA to act on this matter as if it had already been to court?

I certainly hope the latter isn't true, as I would certainly be denied a right to an 'independent' hearing if that were the case, and the DVLA could act as judge/jury and simply farm collection out to whoever was nasty enough to chase for money...

[scousepie]

I received a letter from Moorecroft asking for the £80.00 fine or they will start legal action in court, I phoned them today and gave them some stick on the phone, they hung up on me...funny that.

My wife had a smash in August last year and the car was a total loss, sent the docs off and low and behold a fine was sent out months later, anyway I wrote to them and explained and they have ignored all letters and passed it to a DCA.

Rip off Britain.


scummmm.

[mjltigger]

has anyone managed to get a positive response regarding this yet? Only because I find myself in the same position now, I part exchanged a vehicle in November, and received the failure to relicense vehicle notice last week while away on holiday. They say I have until 03/05/08 to pay the reduced amount of £40. I will send it back now saying that I notified them etc. but I don't have a copy of the letter from them if I ever received it. Obviously as I sent off the yellow slip as soon as I exchanged the vehicle I didn't have anything in my possession that told me to contact them 4 weeks later so didn't....

[scousepie]

My Wife received this responce Saturday from the goons at DVLA

I have not had chance to digest it so coments and advice welcome.




page 2

[Conniff]

There's no need for you to digest it, I will tell you what it says:

Get stuffed and give us the money.

Irrespective of the word count in the letter, they all say the same thing.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Hi Jampot

I would steer clear of any allegations that the postal service cannot be relied upon as per your 3rd paragraph as this opens you up to a claim for libel by the Post office - who are not very nice to deal with legally. Otherwise it looks fine.

I am suprised that other people on the forum didn't point out that you cannot libel the royal mail.

Dani

If anyone claims that the PO cannot be relied on then that is not libel it's a statement of fact as by their own admission they lose millions of letters & packages each year