In either case, you don't owe the money unless a Court says you do because DVLA have no power whatsoever to determine guilt in a criminal matter, nor to create a debt to the Crown or anyone else. Until (read, unless )a magistrate or CC judge find in their favour it is an alleged offence or an alleged debt, both dependent on whether or not you did what you had to (ie: sent the notice to them). They have no power whatsoever to decide (in a legal sense) whether or not you did - only to shout "we don't believe you, now pay up". A bit like the big guy at school who always wanted your* lunch money. The reason they use DCAs is because they determined it was "more effective" than taking people to court - most people, even if they're in the right, cave in and pay when the threatening letters start arriving every few days. If you tell DVLA, clearly and simply, that you don't agree there's a debt and will not pay anything without a court first saying there is, then they're acting unlawfully if they keep harassing for payment without a court order in their favor. * well, mine, anyway

Hi AHC, Was quite surprised to see this one pop up in my inbox after all this time! It's now over 3 years since they promised to "forward my case for prosecution" and I've never heard another word from them. In that time there have been at least a couple of court cases where judges have upheld the "if you posted it you've done what you need" argument. Unfortunately they've been in County Courts so haven't set precedent but they can still persuasive. Some more info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/09/sorn.html Note that DVLA don't seem to have changed their stance in the light of the losses - presumably they're still banking on people caving in before court. But make it clear - firmly, politely and concisely - that you won't entertain paying until they obtain a judgment, that you know and understand the argument you'll be using, and that you know that argument has been applied successfully in the past, and there's a very good chance indeed that it'll never get that far

Fixed penalty only (no points unless you're caught using it - same as now) but re-read the relevant part of the Act again. Carefully, and think "SORN fpn cos DVLA lost the form / Interpretation Act". Only, you don't need to think "Interpretation Act" because they've actually repeated the relevant part of that Act into the new legislation! Of course, sending cash through the post unregistered isn't normally recommended........ Pretty unenforceable IMHO. At least the first time you're caught - note that they only "may" offer an FPN in lieu of prosecution, so making a habit of having bundles of tenners lost might not go down well.

Ok, I've had a quicl look at the photos and the only things that really jumps out are that (1) the quality is appalling as supposed evidence (2) There is no time or date stamp (3) Given the above, the photo showing a clamp appears to have been taken at a different time to the others - note the strong "back" sloping shadow from the car in front when, in the first shoto, the shadows are (if anything) sloping forwards. Don't think it would be possible to tell for sure with such poor quality photos (presumably they have better versions for themselves???) but I would have thought there's enough there to raise reasonable doubt if used properly. Note that, as Buzby says, "properly" using details like that will need a solicitor. My personal opinion, though, is that there's certainly enough grounds for doubt in those phgotos (along with all the other poor procedure by them) to consult one and pay the cost of an initial consultation if needed. If it turns out to be fraudulent by them you can always sue to get your money back edited to add: Is it ok with you if I post the photos in question (with the numbers blanked) so others here can comment?

A cynical observer might, but a pragmatic one should also see that there may be factors beyond guilt or innocence to affect your decision in an imperfect system where the innocent are sometimes convicted and the guilty sometimes walk free.

All very true, Buzby. Only, by the time a judge re-schedules, the OP is already committed to defending a court case and any risks that might carry because to get to that stage he has to reject the out-of-court offer they've made. To make that decision it can help him if he has some idea whether or not a defence might be successful and what sort of evidence might help if he decides to go to court. Regardless of whether they work by intent or incompetence (personally I favour the latter) they do seem to have policies in place that don't give much time to consider that initial question. It would be nice to think that everyone who is wrongly accused by people like DVLA could go to court, win, and gradually build up enough cases to force the Agency to sort itself out. Unfortunately, in many cases, there are very real reasons why that might be a bad decision for the individual concerned. That appears to be the question the OP is trying to clarify at this point.

Agreed, Buzby, if he decides to defend. The problem he seems to have at the moment is whether it's worth even considering that. I've highlighted a few reasons that it might be, from the info he's given, which (to me at least) would make it worthwhile contacting a solicitor. Defending yourself in a situation like this might make sense IF the outcome wasn't going to have major repercussions AND you already had an interest and some knowledge of what would be involved. Trying to do so from a standing start, and where the outcome could seriously screw you life up, would be foolish. So, if he does defend, he needs representation. But deciding whether or not to try and defend in the first place seems to be where he's at right now. Unfortunately the DVLA don't exactly give a reasonable timescale for that sort of initial decision! If I was a cynic I'd suspect that was a deliberate ploy by them but surely no Govt department would stoop so low?

Are the photos you have in digital form, or can you scan them into your computer? A look at them if possible might give a better idea of how likely they are to be challengeable as evidence.

First off, I wouldn't be so sure that a conviction for this would count as "moral turpitude" but that's something you'd have to confirm with whoever is dealing with your visa etc. Next, if this happened in April and they didn't contact you till November then you'd have a pretty good (read - almost certain with good representation) case for it being thrown out. For example, in cases of speeding you MUST be served a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days give or take a little leeway by the court). 6 months is, frankly, way too long to give you any reasonable chance of gathering evidence in your defence. For example, if you went to court and had the clamper there to question he can hide behind "I can't remember back then but this was my report. so that must be how it was." - you have no real chance of picking holes in his evidence. I'll have a dig tomorrow and see if I can find any rules or guidance for time in this specific case but 6 months sounds far too long to be reasonable since they supposedly had their evidence (the photos) way back in April. You can go to court and defend yourself, and you can do it successfully. But it takes a lot of preparation and, if you haven't done it before, an awful lot of research which you may well not have time for. A solicitor has already done an awful lot of the basic groundwork as part of qualifying so can put an effective defence together in a fraction of the time you'd need by fitting the facts you give into stuff they already know. Hence Busby's sensible recommendation to be represented. Further fines are difficult because there may be none or they may dig out everything they can. Potentially that would include back VED for the entire time the car's been on SORN and (theoretically) criminal fraud proceedings for a false SORN declaration. That is NOT likely to happen, but they could if you're unlucky and they decide to make an example of you! You mention that the VIN is partially visible in the photo of the tax disk - does the part that is visible match that part of the VIN for your car? If it does match then it's not proof that it is your car (it could just be a very close VIN) but if it doesn't match then it's pretty clear proof that it isn't yours! By match, I don't just mean matching numbers - if the photo is clear enough to show things like the quality of stamping, position of rivets compared to the edge of the plate, any damage (scratches etc) that's on the one in the photo but not on yours, and so on then these things should also match what's on your car.

Given your natural concern about a "conviction" the first thing you need to do is establish without a doubt what they're taking you to court for. If it's a criminal matter then there should have been mention of the word "PROSECUTION" in the paperwork - criminal cases are prosecuted, civil cases are not. They should also have told you exactly what they'll be taking you to court for. It's likely to be "Using an unlicenced vehicle" contrary to S29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Because this is an offence created by an Act of Parliament it is a criminal charge and would lead to a criminal conviction (but no CCJ) if you went to court and lost. Because it's a criminal charge the standard of proof required to convict you is (in theory) "beyond reasonable doubt". If the photographic evidence they have cannot clearly establish that it's your car (or potentially a clone of your car) on a public road while it's un-taxed, and you maintain that it can't have been, then it's basically your word against the DVLA clamping contractor which, given the documented history of them not playing by the rules, should raise reasonable doubt. There are plenty of factors that could be used in your favour - not least the unreasonable delay in providing you with the photos, leaving you with no time to consider before accepting their "out of court settlement" offer. You don't seem to mention when the alleged offence happened either? If it was some time ago there may also be Human Rights implications in terms of unreasonable delays for what should be a slam-dunk case on their behalf. The problem with that is that magistrates are NOT generally legally trained in any way and many do seem to be unable to grasp the subtleties of this sort of thing. Can you not check (urgently) with whoever makes decisions about your emmigration whether a conviction for this would really be a problem? A brief explanation that you didn't do it, you have evidence to back that, but risk being found guilty if you don't accept the "out-of-court settlement" might reassure you that it really wouldn't be that much of an issue. If not then the only safe advice is to either: 1) bite the bullet and pay up (you won't be the first or last!) or 2) contact a solicitor urgently for an opinion - many will give one through a free introductory interview or you may have a local Law Centre which can help. If you do try to get legal advice then make sure you have as much information and evidence as possible to help them make a fair assessment! Sorry I can't be more positive but no court case is ever guaranteed (even for the innocent) and it sounds like you're pretty sure a conviction would be a disaster for you. So it comes down to whether or not the £169 is worth the risk. If you DO pay then make sure that payment is made without admitting liability - send the payment by recorded delivery and include a covering letter stating clearly that, even though it was not your car, you are paying because you can't risk a criminal conviction and the delays by them make it impossible for you to mount an effective defence. Copy that letter to your MP, since they're already involved, and keep a copy yourself. That will give you some protection against further penalties (false declaration of SORN, back VED etc) if they try to say that you admitted guilt by paying.

Not only do they not publish statistics, about 18 months ago I attempted to get information out of them using an FOI request concerning (a) how many cases they took to court each year and (b) how many of those were successful. They refused the request on the basis that providing the information would "prejudice the collection of taxes" (in the form of road tax) and, on appeal, the Information Commissioner accepted their refusal. The only sensible conclusion from that is that the answers to my questions were "some" and "a lot less than some". If they were routinely successful in the cases they took to court then making that success public would surely improve the collection rates?

Assuming from the start that you're absolutely sure that any photos they have are not of your car, the first thing to do is write, stating clearly that it can't be your car and request copies of the photographs. Do this in writing, and keep a copy of your letter in case they don't reply. The fact that they "seem confident" of the photos doesn't actually mean a thing - they're hardly likely to admit to you at this stage that "we've got some photos but we don't think they're very good" are they? As for a CCJ - don't worry about that at this stage. Even if it goes to court and the court rules in your favour, you do NOT get a CCJ recorded against you for that. That only happens if you still don't pay after the court tells you to. As far as a court hearing is concerned (again, if it goes that far), all that happens is the judge hears the evidence and decides who's most likely telling the truth. If he thinks that's you, he tells them to take a walk. If he thinks it's them then he tells you to pay up. The whole idea in a civil case is simply for someone from "outside" the dispurte to look at the available facts and decide what they mean when the two people involved can't agree about them. There's no come-back for sticking to your guns when someone SAYS you owe them money and you don't think you do. The only come-back comes if the JUDGE decides you owe it and you still don't pay! Otherwise I could be filing court cases left right and centre and getting people to pay me for fear of getting a black mark for going to court! People like DVLA rely on that fear in a lot of their letters but the courts simply don't work like that.

Finally got a response to this. After two pages of explaining and justifying their position, they say: So seems like, as a "goodwill gesture", they agree with my analysis of the situation

Ok, two letters have now been sent (recorded delivery) and I'm awaiting a response. In the spirit of sharing, this is what's been said. First, to the debt collectors, which should be a pretty cut & dried way to get them off step-daughter's back: The insurers have been sent a copy of that, for info, and the following basis for disputing the charges. Note that even the cancellation fee might be challengeable but she's willing to pay that as a goodwill gesture at the moment: I'll keep the forum up-to-date as soon as I get a response

Surely, even if the policy allows the short-rate conversion, it amounts to an unfair term under the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999? S.6 of the Regulations proivides that "...the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract..." In this case, the service was insurance specifically applicable to a provisional licence holder, where it is reasonable to expect that many such people will cease to be covered during the term of a policy. All the circumstances include (a) the policy is no longer applicable due to a foreseable (by the insurer) event and (b) there has been no claim, so the period on cover has a factual, established, risk of zero. This is entirely different to taking a short-term policy where the rates are higher to reflect an increased risk. From the (inexhaustive) list of terms that may be unfair at Schedule 2 to the Act, the following would seem to closely approximate the imposition of this "conversion": (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; Fairly self-explanatory (l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded; This term allows the insurer to vary the price of the service already provided to "short term rates", without any way for the consumer to know what those rates are, and (obviously) without an option for the consumer to cancel the contract when the revised rates are applied And (possibly): (f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract; Although I need to get the contract itself off her to check that it includes the normal right of the insurer to cancel mid-term.