Jump to content

nehpets

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. As I've said on a number of occasions, talking through your defence with party who is taking you to court isn't always a wise course of action!
  2. Very nice work Bill. All the best, N.
  3. Sounds like another case of a Debt Collection Agent acting well beyond what's allowed. One trick to take the 'sting' out of an aggressive DCA is to ask for the name of the person who you are talking to. They'll most likely hang up especially if they have already show any kind of aggression since they will not want you naming them in any potential complaint. Also ask for the name and address of their regulator. The DCA cannot offer legal advice on what represents a 'valid defence'. All they need to know is that you are contesting the DVLA's penalty - this should mean that they pass the matter back to the DVLA, the DCA should not be pursuing a contested 'debt' when there is no court ruling. Of course this isn't what the DCA wants to do so they'll probably just keep chasing you regardless of what they are supposed to do. Don't worry about the DCA, they have absolutely zero powers in terms of what they can do to to you. If they contact you again then just toy with them and waste their time. The bad news is that the DVLA have no formal appeals process which carries any judicial power. With that in mind there is next to no use in entering into prolonged discussions with them. Most of the time they'll ignore the real points which you make in your letters because the law doesn't suit their position on the matter. If I was you I would send one letter explaining the facts. Offer to let them take the matter to court if required. You have clearly notified them and that is where your legal obligation ends. There is nothing in law which requires you to follow the matter up. There are plenty of people on this board who will help you. Hope this helps. N.
  4. You haven't answered the question! Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? Which section of the V5 did you send to the DVLA?
  5. Basically you need to be 100% certain of the dates involved. Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? If so then you would appear to be in the clear. It could be that the DVLA are claiming a period of non tax (or SORN) between the date that the tax expired and the date that you informed them that the vehicle had been scrapped. It seems odd that the DVLA have acknowledged the scrapping of the car but then sent a LLP.
  6. That letter from the DCA appears to be illegal. They keep saying that you "must pay" but that isn't technically true since there is no judgement against you and, as a result, there are several other avenues available to you besides paying them. Of course they don't make mention of these other avenues because they know that this may result in them not getting paid! The threats made regarding clamping are completely untrue and I would suggest that they have no legal right to clamp the vehicle at this stage of proceedings - this appears to be a fairly clear breach of industry guidelines. You may find this document useful.... http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/debt-letters.pdf You'll see that the DCA appears to have broken quite a few of the rules and as such I suggest that an official complaint is in order to their regulator or to the OFT. One also has to ask why a Government body such as the DVLA is in bed with such an organisation. With regard to your case... If the DVLA listen (and put matters right) then all well and good. My advice is not to get into a long winded series of letters between you and them, you are only wasting your time (as well has highlighting your potential defence if the matter did come to court.) If your explanation to them doesn't do the trick then let them proceed to court where you will be able to make them look like complete fools. Simply write to the DVLA stating that you informed them of the change of Keeper at the correct time and therefore you consider that you are not liable for a LLP on a vehicle which was no longer yours. N.
  7. If it was me then I'd be claiming for the entire fee (£169) as there is a clear breach on contract on the part of the driving school or instructor. You'd need to look carefully at who your contract was with as this is very important in terms of the law. To whom was the money actually paid and what was written on the receipt? When you buy goods or services you are allowed to have a reasonable expectation as to the quality that you are expecting. In this case it is clear that the level of service has not met even the most basic standard. The fact that he has taken you for a number of lessons makes no difference since you paid for service as a whole, the actual lessons only make up part of the complete service. If you are still interested in learning to drive then it may well be worth contacting the driving school with your gripe first. Tell them about your concerns. Say that you feel badly let down. I suggest that you ask them for a new 10 part course but with a different and more reliable instructor. Write down any exchanges which you have with the driving school since the courts always look more favourably on cases where the plaintiff has made a clear and reasonable effort to resolve matters before taking any court action - record times and dates etc. Also, ask the driving school if they are a member of any professional body and what their complaints procedure is. Once they realise that you are serious about pushing the matter further I would expect the driving school to satisfy your demands. N.
  8. It sounds very much like the court have found against you in your absence. You should establish with the court exactly what has occured thus far and then work from there. If what you say is true, and you can show that you updated the DVLA records correctly, then you should be able to get things overturned.
  9. Sorry, been away sunning myself for a couple of weeks! Number6, you need to fight fire with when you get a Judge like the one you got! Remember that he said that he would only be looking at the actual wording contained in the Act itself? Well, the act itself doesn't mention the DVLA. Instead it talks about the 'Secretary Of State'. So far as I am aware, the Secretary of State (For Transport) is an actual person and not an organisation. On that basis you could give any Judge a fairly serious problem if they persevered with their stance on what the term ‘deliver’ actually meant. If they were unmoved on what the term meant then you could insist that each and every term or sentence contained within the Act should be interpreted in exactly the same literal and inflexible manner. In the same way that the term ‘service by post’ is not mentioned directly within the Act, you could claim that the DVLA are not directly mentioned either. The Judge would have to apply his finding to the whole sentence (where the Act states that ‘you must deliver the document to the Secretary Of State’), he couldn’t simply apply it to the terms or words which suited him best whilst completely ignoring others. I imagine that this would create a fairly serious problem for any Judge since he would be angling toward an outcome (judgement) which would basically require people to physically place documentation into the hand of the Secretary Of State himself – taking it to a DVLA office would not be enough since the DVLA are not mentioned in the Act and therefore giving it to the DVLA does not fulfil the exact obligation which the Act itself lays out.
  10. But in my case the DVLA informed a Debt Collection Agent that I owed them £80. The implication being that a judgement on the matter had already been reached when that was not the case since I had refused to accept the LLP. Under your interpretation 'the cart is before the horse' in so much as the debt occurs before the court hearing. Therefore the DVLA's position in court is one where they are seeking what amounts to, in legal terms, as ratification. This almost makes it seem like you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise and allows the DVLA to take the higher legal ground based purely on the fact that 'you are guilty because our perfectly maintained database says you are.' You say that VERA gives the DVLA right to create the debt and then claim it. I would disagree with that. You then state that "this is not a judgement" on the part of the DVLA. I would then question you on the following... What is the pivotal moment at which the debt occurs? How do they 'create the debt' if they have no judicial powers? A debt has legal significance and this significance is being overlooked / ignored by the DVLA which is to the detriment of the accused. The fact is that there is a point in time in any LLP situation where the DVLA decide / judge / consider / conclude that the £80 penalty / fine is due for what amounts to a failing on the part of the vehicle keeper. Before that moment occurs no debt exists. After that moment a debt is deemed to exist. The problem is that due process has not been followed. Every defendant has the right to a fair hearing before the fine / penalty / debt is bestowed. In my opinion, whilst the DVLA might be within their right to issue an LLP the defendant has every right to refute the LLP. Since neither party has a judicial power neither party can prevail over the other without a judicial hearing of some kind. Therefore, the legal status quo remains exactly as it was before the LLP was issued and as such no fine or penalty can be deemed to exist since, if a fine did now exist, one party would have an unfair advantage over the other.
  11. Sorry, been away for a few days. This is certainly an interesting debate. I respect your views but, in my opinion, you seem reliant on the fact that the DVLA have the judicial power to find someone ‘guilty’ for the offence of ‘not procuring a vehicle licence’ (ie neither taxing or SORNing a vehicle at the correct time) or words to that effect. In my particular case they sent me an LLP a couple of months after the previous SORN had run out. I’d sent the new SORN declaration by post around three weeks before the old SORN was due to run out. They still issued me with a LLP even though technically (according to the DVLA) I had neither valid tax nor SORN on the vehicle at that particular period of time. It was the LLP dropping through the letterbox which alerted me to the fact that something was wrong. SORN on that particular vehicle was only re-established when I wrote to the DVLA specifying that I had already made a SORN declaration which they seemed not to have acted on. Needless to say, I refused to pay the £80 fine. The DVLA used that particular letter as ‘SORN notification’ and issued me with the new SORN certificate. However, they maintained that I still owed the fine since I didn’t check with them after four weeks. So my point is this; whatever way you dress it up, the DVLA, in effect, use whatever information they have at their disposal to spot when an alleged offence (breach of regulations) has taken place. Obviously, in doing this, they are assuming that their information is 100% correct and up to date at all times. Having spotted the alleged offence they instantaneously pronounce their ‘judgement’ on the matter and issue the LLP. In other words, the DVLA have, at that precise moment, turned an 'allegation’ into a ‘conviction’ (or words to that effect) and a fine / penalty is now due. I’m sure by now that you’re starting to understand my point. In order to turn an allegation into such a conviction you would need to have judicial powers. The DVLA are not afforded these powers, they are simply a government body like any other. Therefore, any fine or penalty issued by them cannot be deemed to be binding since they have not gone through due legal process in order to claim that a debt now exists.
  12. But my point is being missed. It doesn't really matter whether it is Magistrates Court or County Court, your rights remain the same (ie those afforded under 'English Bill of Rights'.) What does it say on the Summons Document with regard to the allegation against you? It's generally 'failure to ensure Continuous Registration'? As opposed to 'Failure to pay a Late Licensing Penalty'. In other words, they're not taking you to court to 'recover a debt' as you are implying? Instead they're taking people to court to answer the allegation which lead to the LLP being dished out in the first place. That's the critical point. And this is why the LLP is nothing more than an offer of out-of-court settlement. I understand the point which you are making but you seem to be overlooking the rights which the accused has to a fair trial.
  13. If you read through the various threads then you'll see that most of the cases reported go to a Magistrates Court (at least in the first instance). This shows that the case against the motorist is unproven at that specific moment in time. I don't think that a Magistrate can force you to pay the LLP, all he can do is find you guilty of not ensuring CR. The Magistrate will then issue you with a fine. Due legal process has now occurred and this fine is now technically a debt. Under the Code of English Law you have the right to appear in court without the financial burden (aka the penalty / fine ) attached to you. In other words, you cannot be deemed to owe the money until the case has been heard and the verdict delivered. Obviously it gets complicated but, if an LLP was indeed a financial penalty placed against you prior to a judicial hearing then your rights under the English Bill of Rights would have been fairly clearly violated. We know that in any such situation you are always afforded the right to a court hearing. Therefore, based on that fact we also know that any fine or penalty issued before that point cannot be binding and as such an LLP, at the moment of issue by the DVLA, cannot be considered a debt. For them to suggest that it is is a clear case of Ultra Vires.
  14. Stan, Your best bet would be to start your own thread where you can outline the individual aspects of your case so that others can pick up on things and offer advice. I've had personal dealings with Inter Credit International (ICI) and I also found them to be very rude. All they seemed interested in was processing my payment. When I said that I wouldn't be paying them they turned quite hostile. However, once I raised issues regarding their processes (I asked how they had double checked that the alleged debt existed) their stance changed a little. I specified to them that I didn't believe any such debt existed and as such them sending me a letter stating that a debt did exist was an illegal act on their part. They promptly said that they'd be returning the matter to the DVLA. When I asked ICI for the contact details for their regulator they hung-up. Job done and ICI never contacted me again. The DVLA should be able to provide you with some specifics regarding your case. If it's a SORN issue then it should be very straight forward - that they have recorded a gap of some kind in the Continuous Registration of the stated vehicle. Most of the time this gap appears to be down to the DVLA's inability to process the paperwork correctly. If you sent the DVLA the correct paperwork then it is down to the DVLA to prove that you didn't. Of course, as we all know, the DVLA will try and see things the other way, that it is your job to prove that you sent the paperwork. However, the law is on our side and ultimately the DVLA will have a mountain to climb to prove any of these cases. The bottom line is that you don't need to be qualified to beat the DVLA, you simply need to establish exactly what your defence is against their allegations.
  15. I don't disgaree that the LLP is a civil debt but only when you (the accused) accept the terms of the out-of-court settlement contained within the LLP notice. This is the aspect that the DVLA / DCA's try so hard to disguise. Until acceptance has occurred the LLP is purely an offer of out-of-court settlement. At that point no debt exists. It's no different to the situation contained within a Fixed Penalty Notice which the police might dish out for speeding, again a FPN is an 'offer' of out-of-court settlement for the alleged offence. You may accept, reject or ignore the 'offer' as you see fit. In this instance the person in question has stated that she ignored the initial LLP so we can be 100% sure that she hasn't accepted the offer of out-of-court settlement. The fact is this, if the DVLA wanted to issue legally enforceable fines / penalties (debts) against people then they would need judicial powers in order to do so. Clearly they do not have those powers otherwise there would be no need to take people to Court on the grounds of 'Failing to maintain continuous registration', instead they'd take people to Court for an enforcement order to recover an already existing debt.
×
×
  • Create New...