Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Hi
My story is the same as everyone else, SORN'd car by post, letter from DVLA stating it hadn't been SORN'd, replied with return slip stating where SORN sent, letter back stating I had to prove posting & they still intend to fine.
Has anyone got a letter template to reply to these idiots, something along the line of - was not informed had to send by recorded / registered post, was not informed they had not received it, the Court System accepts the use of regular post & deems 2 days later as delivered but they don't
Anyone got a proper worded letter template for this?
No template, per se - but they do waive these if you put a strong enough case that you have SORNed before with no problems, and your response to them not confirming your vehicle was on a SORN, is to state that you were unaware the letter had not been received, but they could just have easily contacted you to state that since you do not have a tax disc OR SORN declared, they could have easily sent a you reminder. (To allow a repeat declaration be made).
A similar comment to one I just made in tax disc not displayed.
There is no getting away from it, all official departments are under orders to make as much money as they can. however they can.
You can also bet your life this came right from the shackle gob of Mr Bloodsucker Brown.
Here you go, please adjust the wording for your own circumstances:
The DVLA has issued me with a “penalty” for allegedly not registering my vehicle as SORN.
By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:
Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that -
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
in that:
The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom –
which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -
have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.
In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) –
which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,
Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides -
that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to
give preliminary rulings concerning -
(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the
institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an
act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal
of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling
thereon.
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before
a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decis-
ions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court
or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.
"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."
I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-
"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"
I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. 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.
I want to take on DVLA, anyone help?
Reply With Quote
