DVLA - SORN fine

[b3cky]

Im in the process of having a similar problem with the DVLA. i sold my car in august to a friend, it had 2 months tax on it, 2 months later i started to get letters through reminding me to get mroe tax eventhough id sold the car, i rang them up, confirmed that i didnt sell the car and the letters stopped, then they started again and i got a letter fromt he debt recovery service, issuing me a bigger fine of £80, which i am not willing to pay as it is not my car. ive complaine all the way through the dvla, and still they say i have to pay as it took 6 months for THEM to change the details on THEIR system!!!!
So it appears it does matter if any documents are dated when you send them in, they'll bypass it, leave it a few months and fine you for it. so far i have no luck.
any ideas?

[The GodMother]

if they have updated the system now then i would advise them you are not going to pay and if they dont like it to sue u.

[buzby]

Firstly, did you send the slip from the V5C form informing the DVLA of the change of registered keeper? You would have to get the signature of the new keeper. If you DIDN'T do this, then you are at risk for all fines regarding Roat Tax and you remain liable for the vehicle, irrespective of who the owner is.

[RugbyPete]

Not heard anything since I ignored them.

I got the sorn renewal last month, and told them it was scrapped. End of story.

Write some letters, by that point its gone to an official, if he doesnt chase it up you wont hear anything else. 12 months on, your cars scrapped or re-taxed by someone else, confirmed by the renewal

[Wig]

Rugbypete,

It is a debt, to be collected as a debt. They will first have to take you to court to get an order for you to pay, after which they could instruct Bailiffs. If they don't do this they may pass it on to debt colectors who will try to bully you into paying the alledged debt - it is alledged until proven in court. So you don't have to pay it until it is proven in court.

When you scrapped the vehicle you essentially sold it to a motor trader, that trader is not required to scrap it, so it could still be around. You should check the current status of the vehicle here
(Stoopid forum won't allow me to post a link) Google these words
"vehicle enquiry" and select the first result.

If the vehicle cannot be found it is because it has been scrapped. Unfortunaltely you did not do this check 8 months ago.

You replied to the SORN expiry and told them it was scrapped,
This sounds odd for two reasons, what evidence did you give them that the vehicle was scrapped, they would require evidence. Secondly, what do you mean the vehicle was SORN previously, how could the vehicle be SORN if you said in OP they did not recieve SORN notification?

Also going back to your OP you said you sent in SORN a few weeks ago, but scrapped the vehicle over a month ago. Why did you try to SORN an apparently non existant vehicle? That would have been the wrong thing to do. When you sold the car what was it's VED/SORN status?

It was your responsibility to inform the DVLA of the transfer of ownership by returning part 9 of the V5. You cannot use the defence that you were relying on the trader to this for you. If a dismantler dismantles a vehicle they have a duty to inform DVLA, but there is no requirement for them to dismantle the vehicle. And even if they do and do not tell DVLA this would not have any bearing on your responsibility to inform DVLA of vehicle transfer.

As regards the debt they alledge you owe (and it sounds like you do) that is recoverable for up to 6 years from the date you first had an non continuous registration issue with your car. So you can relax in just under 6 years time.

Also

Originally Posted by Rugbypete

I got the sorn renewal last month, and told them it was scrapped. End of story.

No, not end of story, have you recieved a letter from them acknowledging the new status (scrapped) until you do you could be charged again for failure to renew SORN.

[RugbyPete]

I guess then I will see them in court... but the debt collection letter that came through have chased me for much older, higher value debts and got nowhere.

At the end of the day they have to prove I didnt send it in as much as I need to prove I did, they can't prove I didn't (unless they log every mail they get!) but I can prove I did, and have copies of the original forms.

Also, new user with ONE post, sure you don;t work for the DVLA?

I guess I'll be seeing YOU in court (For £80, it would cost more to organise the court date!)

Also, MP informed, I want the DVLA sacked and investigated further on behalf of everyone.

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by RugbyPete

At the end of the day they have to prove I didnt send it in as much as I need to prove I did, they can't prove I didn't (unless they log every mail they get!) but I can prove I did, and have copies of the original forms.

But do you have a delivery slip from Royal Mail with the dvla receivers signature on it?

[reidy1982]

Hi everyone,
well im basically in the same situation last february while in hospital my car tax was due to run out so i got my partner to bring me the relevent forms so the car could be sorn i sent the information. Now being my first car i wasnt sure how it worked so when i heard nothing i just assumed things had been done. 6 weeks letter i recieved a letter saying i had been given 40 fine. I called them and had no such luck they said they had not recieved my decleration and did i have any proof i sent it the original form off. I told them no as it was post by normal post and i was in hospital at the time. He got very lippy with me saying how could i send it if i was in hospital i explained i had filled the forms in and my partner sent them. He shurgged off anything i said and basically called me incompetant and liar in so many words and put the phone down on me. I tried calling again and again no-one would entertain me apart from one women who listen to what i had to say but unfortunetly said she could not help. By this time the £40 had expired. I refused to pay it and wrote to dvla as thats what the lady told me to do. I heard nothing back from that particular letter and then not long after another letter saying i was now with a £80 by this time i was back in hospital so i never got round to it even though i felt why should i pay for there incompetance i did what i had to do just because they lost the forms it wasn't my problem. I was so sick at the time and i could not be bothered with it so i had the car scrapped in the end. I recieved the paperwork to say my car had been scrapped weeks later. But nothing on the fine which i had actually forgot about until recently when someone enquired to me about whatever did happen did i pay it. Now im not sure how this all works with the fine system for somthing like this will there be a warrant for my arrest ?? i never recieved anything about the fine there after the letter to say my fine had went from 40 to 80. Now that had been nearly a year im still at same address i was i did try to contact dvla recently but they wouldnt entertain me. Any ideas or advice what i should do as i dont want it hanging over me as my healths not great these days. I felt like i was being conned into paying for somthing i had allready dealt with originally but no-one would take any notice to anything i said.

[Conniff]

You could do exactly as they have done and deny ever receiving it, you can also ask them if they have proof of delivery and give them the same reply they have given you.

This isn't a 'fine' it is a 'penalty' charge with no appeal. Only courts can fine you.

basically called me incompetant and liar

And they would know all about that, they invented the words.

[reidy1982]

Thank you see i wasn't sure how there whole system worked. Ive never recieved any court letter or anything in regards to it so it has been playing on my mind since my friend brought it up.

My friend did say the same as yourself deny any knowledgment but since i called them on various occasions last year with no luck i wasnt sure if they recorded there calls or anything like that. So if i was to deny it if it ever did come up i didnt wanna be caught in a lie if it did end up in court. Then shes suggested maybe just sending dvla a cheques for the amount even a year on and hope for best they would deal with it but i said after there last attempts with there postal service i wasnt going to chance it just incase. I just dont really know what to do about it now.

[Wig]

Originally Posted by RugbyPete

but I can prove I did, and have copies of the original forms.

You would need to prove they received it, as that is your responsibility in law.

Also, new user with ONE post, sure you don;t work for the DVLA?

Now you're paranoid aswell
I was going to put a link to me on another forum, but this stoopid forum won't let me.

[Wig]

Originally Posted by reidy1982

My friend did say the same as yourself deny any knowledgment but since i called them on various occasions last year with no luck i wasnt sure if they recorded there calls or anything like that. So if i was to deny it if it ever did come up i didnt wanna be caught in a lie if it did end up in court. Then shes suggested maybe just sending dvla a cheques for the amount even a year on and hope for best they would deal with it but i said after there last attempts with there postal service i wasnt going to chance it just incase. I just dont really know what to do about it now.

Like you said you could not deny receiving it as they will have logged your calls. But they don't chase many on these charges, as you have found out. How long has it been over a year?

My advice is to forget about it.

But remember in future to always check you recieve a confirmation letter from them when you SORN or sell a vehicle, and if you don't you must phone them within 5 - 6 weeks.

[patdavies]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RugbyPete
but I can prove I did, and have copies of the original forms.

You would need to prove they received it, as that is your responsibility in law.

Nope. In law, proof of posting is sufficiently; almost uniquely amongst western countries, our law defines mail as the property of the recipient at the instant it is committed to the postal system.

But remember in future to always check you recieve a confirmation letter from them when you SORN or sell a vehicle, and if you don't you must phone them within 5 - 6 weeks.

4 weeks actually.

But still unfair as this term (and its timescale) as well as the telephone number are all on the form that you have already sent.

In truth, the quickest and easiest way for the future is to declare SORN on-line. You get a near instant email receipt.

[The GodMother]

yep you could always send it special/recorded delivery with the photographic evidence of u putting the papers in the envelope and the tracking number

[Wig]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Nope. In law, proof of posting is sufficiently; almost uniquely amongst western countries, our law defines mail as the property of the recipient at the instant it is committed to the postal system.

Even if that were true, and it is not in all cases, but even if it were (for DVLA documents), your responsibility is to inform the DVLA of the changes. If they do not recieve the notice they have not been informed and you have not completed your duty to them. All you have argued is that the letter you sent them now belongs to them, which is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether or not they have been informed.

If you think your argument would stand up in court, it is either only your humble opinion and will remain so until case law proves your position, OR you are already aware of such case law which you will cite for me, and which if it existed would largely negate the need to use recorded delivery for all sorts of situations of returning items and important documents to all sorts of organisations.

4 weeks actually.

Yes it's 4 weeks

But still unfair as this term (and its timescale) as well as the telephone number are all on the form that you have already sent.

Not unfair because everyone is given INS160 "guidance notes" booklet with every V5 sent. And even this is supplementary advice not required by law, and the lack or loss of it would not absolve you from your responsibility under law to inform the DVLA of changes. Ignorance of law is never an excuse.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Wig

Even if that were true, and it is not in all cases, but even if it were (for DVLA documents), your responsibility is to inform the DVLA of the changes. If they do not recieve the notice they have not been informed and you have not completed your duty to them. All you have argued is that the letter you sent them now belongs to them, which is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether or not they have been informed.

I refer you to Art. 5 of the UPU Act - to which GB has been a signatory since 1875.

Article 5
Ownership of postal items. Withdrawal from the post. Alteration or correction of address. Redirection. Return to sender of undeliverable items
1 A postal item shall remain the property of the sender until it is delivered to the rightful owner, except when the item has been seized in pursuance of the legislation of the country of origin or destination and, in case of application of article 15.2.1.1 or 15.3, in accordance with the legislation of the country of transit.
2 The sender of a postal item may have it withdrawn from the post or
have its address altered or corrected. The charges and other conditions are laid down in the Regulations.
3 Member countries shall provide for the redirection of postal items,
if an addressee has changed his address, and for the return to sender of
undeliverable items. The charges and other conditions are laid down in the
Regulations.

Prot Article I

Ownership of postal items. Withdrawal from the post. Alteration or correction of address

1 The provisions in article 5.1 and 2 shall not apply to Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Hongkong, China, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom, Grenada, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania (United Rep.), Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu and Zambia.

If you think your argument would stand up in court, it is either only your humble opinion and will remain so until case law proves your position, OR you are already aware of such case law which you will cite for me, and which if it existed would largely negate the need to use recorded delivery for all sorts of situations of returning items and important documents to all sorts of organisations.

What part of an international treaty us unlikely to stand up in Court?

Under this treaty/Act, in the UK mail becomes the property of the recipient at the moment it is committed to the postal system provided by a Universal Postal Provider (usually Royal Mail). Thus a proof of posting is sufficient proof.

The Criminal Procedures Rules Part 4.10 - which despite not being applicable here, remain persuasive - state that an item is deemed served on the second business day after posting by first class mail. It would therefore be for the DVLA to prove non-recipt; alleging it is insufficient.

Not unfair because everyone is given INS160 "guidance notes" booklet with every V5 sent. And even this is supplementary advice not required by law, and the lack or loss of it would not absolve you from your responsibility under law to inform the DVLA of changes. Ignorance of law is never an excuse.

You are muddling the issue here.

I have never said that it is not the responsibility of the RK to notify the DVLA of changes. As you correctly state, that is law. Although, as an aside, there is no requirement for the V5 address to be either the residence of the RK or the address at which the vehicle is kept.

What I object to is the insistence of the DVLA that the individual remains responsible for ensuring that the DVLA does it job properly and how it attempts to place an unlawful burden on the individual.

VERA 1994 S.22(1)(d) is the legislation that place the obligation on the individual; there is no reference to the individual needing to 'follow-up such notification.

'Guidance' is, by definition, not law.