DVLA asking for £80 Sorn fine-Please help?

[bankhater10]

Hi, 2 weeks ago i recieved a letter from those lovely people at the Dvla informing me that i owe them £80 because, apparently, they hadn't recieved my Sorn form for a car i had scrapped a few months earlier. I repled telling them that i had infact sent them the Sorn form, today i recieved another letter maintaining that i owed them £80 and that 'It is a matter for you to pursue the letter' when i simply sent them the letter through the post and not recorded delivery-who does? They go on to say that if i can provide an acknowldgement letter that was issued prior to the Late Licensing penalty then no further action will be taken', what can i do???

[bankhater10]

Hi, 2 weeks ago i recieved a letter from those lovely people at the Dvla informing me that i owe them £80 because, apparently, they hadn't recieved my Sorn form for a car i had scrapped a few months earlier. I repled telling them that i had infact sent them the Sorn form, today i recieved another letter maintaining that i owed them £80 and that 'It is a matter for you to pursue the letter' when i simply sent them the letter through the post and not recorded delivery-who does? They go on to say that if i can provide an acknowldgement letter that was issued prior to the Late Licensing penalty then no further action will be taken', what can i do???

[crem]

I wish we all had the luxury of being able to fine people when we can claim we didn''t receive the mail they sent us.

I know the Royal Mail do loose a number of letters (OK but they do handle a great quantity so it is a minicule number) but it just amazes me that from this tiny number, most of them seem to be addressed to the DVLA!! I wonder why!

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says:

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

DVLA has not been able to prove to the contrary so their threats of action and fines without that proof is vexatious. Unless anyone knows better, there is nothing in DVLA legislation that has repeealed the Interpretation Act.

[patdavies]

However, you are not serving a document under an Act (the requirement to send in the V5 is by regulation from the SoS and not from the Act - the Act only requires the SoS to keep a record and is silent on how this is to be done), so use of the Interpretation Act does not fly.

You do, however, stand a better chance with the Postal Acts that make it clear that a letter belongs to the recipient at the point it is posted.

The argument being that as long as you can prove you posted it, then failure to deliver is matter between the recipient and the recipient's postal agent (Royal Mail),

The truth, of course, is that all these items are not lost in the post - they are simply not acknowledged by the DVLA (and so doing makes them money)

Thanks Pat, I was hoping you would shed light on DVLA and the Interpretation Act. If the DVLA simply says they didn't receive a letter, can a sender contend he has properly effected his obligation by properly addressing, paying and handing a document to a postmaster for delivery by ordinary course of post by asking for a certificate of posting?

If it's truth the DVLA is claiming not to receive a document when a prescribed regulation requires a motorist to fulfil an obligation involving the sending of a document to DVLA, then could the motorist claim this is a fraud in the meaning of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 because DVLA is making a false representation to make a gain?

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by BURP

Thanks Pat, I was hoping you would shed light on DVLA and the Interpretation Act. If the DVLA simply says they didn't receive a letter, can a sender contend he has properly effected his obligation by properly addressing, paying and handing a document to a postmaster for delivery by ordinary course of post by asking for a certificate of posting?

IMO. yes. Of course, proof of posting always helps! It should be noted that the requirement placed on the individual to follow up if no reply is received within 4 weeks is

1) not based in statute or regulation - but simply a DVLA procedure;
2) so badly written as to be meaningless;
3) IMO, automatically unfair as the instruction and requisite telephone number are on the document to be surrendered.

If it's truth the DVLA is claiming not to receive a document when a prescribed regulation requires a motorist to fulfil an obligation involving the sending of a document to DVLA, then could the motorist claim this is a fraud in the meaning of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 because DVLA is making a false representation to make a gain?

An interesting line of thought, but would probably fall at the first hurdle of getting the Police involved (as it is a criminal matter).

[bankhater10]

Thankyou all for your advice...but what shall i do? What can i say to them? Has anyone got an idea how to phrase my letter? Im crap with them...

[bankhater10]

Thankyou all for your advice...but what shall i do? What can i say to them? Has anyone got an idea how to phrase my letter? Im crap with them...

No guarantees - you are probably in uncharted water. Send a copy to your MP & let us know what happens.

Name of DVLA office
Address 1
Address 2
Address 3
Postcode

DATE

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Fine for non declarartion of SORN registration [ABC 123]

I write as the owner of the aforementioned vehicle which you have sent me a letter telling me to pay am £80 fine for failure to declare SORN and you have responded to my original letter saying It is a matter for you to pursue the letter.

In seeking further advice Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 legislates I have fulfilled my legal obligation by sending the DVLA the SORN declaration by ordinary course of post. It has not been repealed by any DVLA legislation and you have not shown proof to the contrary the letter was incorrectly addressed or insufficient postage paid. This means there is no entitlement for the DVLA to demand money for its failure to receive a document that delivered by ordinary course of post.

I now respectfully ask that you stop sending demands for money in this way. If you have an appeals procedure then please initiate it now. If I receive a further demand of money in this matter from you whether intended or as an automation letter I will automatically ask that you pay me compensation of £4999 for attempting to rebuke an Act of Parliament namely Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 with having lawful provision to do so.

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.


Yours Sincerely


YOUR NAME
Cc [NAME OF] Member of Parliament

[Josie8]

Originally Posted by patdavies

IMO. yes. Of course, proof of posting always helps! It should be noted that the requirement placed on the individual to follow up if no reply is received within 4 weeks is

1) not based in statute or regulation - but simply a DVLA procedure;
2) so badly written as to be meaningless;
3) IMO, automatically unfair as the instruction and requisite telephone number are on the document to be surrendered.

An interesting line of thought, but would probably fall at the first hurdle of getting the Police involved (as it is a criminal matter).

There is no requirement for you to notify DVLA if no reply received within 4 weeks if the vehicle is scrapped - only that you notify them. If you read the relevant section carefully you will see that. I had a similar problem with DVLA and I responded accordingly inviting them to show me where it stipulated that requirement if vehicle scrapped and they closed the file.

[sickpup]

Ask for a copy of the ORIGINAL penalty notice. I can be pretty certain it wasn't compliant with the law.

Oh and read this

[craigten]

Hi Sickpup and a MASSIVE thankyou to you!!!
Ok, i shall write and ask them for the original penalty notice, is there anything else i should mention in the letter? ie-the reason i am asking for this? My main concern is that my case is different to yours- i sent my sorn back and they didn't recieve it whereas with you it seems that they did recieve it but recieved it too late?

[sickpup]

Ok my attack on SORN is all about how they serve the initial penalty and nothing else.

Tell them you have never received the initial copy of the LLP and would like one, I did this by phone.

Chances are it is non-compliant, they all seem to be then you can point it out to them and tie them up for a few months while this mess is sorted.

They don't comply with the following...

Section 9a of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations states the following…

(3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40.

[craigten]

Thankyou again, was that this number?- 0870 241 9034

[MARTIN3030]

Agree.It will usually end up with enforcement section.
They have discretion to reduce the 80 quid to 40-but will require this in 28 days.

[rambo]

I had a similar situation, I ignored them in the end and heard no more.

[bankhater10]

Hi again, my 'copy of the LLP' has now arrived (sickpup told me to ask for this), What is my next course of action please?

[sickpup]

Whats the date on the copy LLP?
Whats the date to pay the reduced amount by?

[bankhater10]

Hi, the date on the letter is 21/08/2008 and says 'Pay a penalty of £80.00 by 16/10/08 reduced to £40.00 if paid by 18/09/2008', does this help?