Vehicle Registration Mark: ######
Dear Sir/Madam,
I received your letter dated 12 May 2009 and the contents of this letter have been noted. Having read the letter thoroughly and then taken the opportunity to read through the relevant statutory instruments I believe I still have a defence based in law which I shall explain.
You have stated that you have not received a disposal notice as per the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and specifically quoting regulations 22 - 24. Therefore the £80 fine which was passed onto Inter Credit for collection stands.
I have included below the appropriate section you quoted from Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002:
Change of keeper: registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper not a vehicle trader
22. - (1) This regulation applies where -
(a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle;
(b) a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and
(c) the new keeper is not a vehicle trader.
(2) The registered keeper of the vehicle -
(a) if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, shall deliver to the new keeper that part of the document marked as the part which is to be given to the new keeper; and
(b) shall forthwith deliver the remainder of the registration document to the Secretary of State, duly completed to include the following -
(i) the name and address of the new keeper;
(ii) the date on which the vehicle was sold or transferred to the new keeper;
(iii) a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and
(iv) a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.
You stated that the Agency issues an acknowledgement letter on receipt of disposal notifications and SORN declarations. However, this is not covered under statutory law and therefore, in my opinion, is open to abuse and incompetence. I believe if the requirement on your part to send out an acknowledgement, confirming the disposal of vehicles, was part of statute law then you would not have the thousands of disputes each year for loss of documentation.
Therefore as I stated in my previous letter I notified the DVLA under s.24 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and under that Act that is where my responsibility ends. There is nothing in statute which obliges me to do anything else. Therefore the responsibility of disposal rests upon the DVLA to manage their records and databases properly.
You also wrote in the letter that you had sent a letter stating that the late licensing penalty was to be paid by a specified date. On what date was this letter sent exactly? I moved house to 24 Sunflower Drive in August 2008 and all of my correspondence details with the DVLA were kept up to date including my driving licence.
Therefore it stands to reason that any correspondence you claim you issued in respect of this vehicle would not have reached me in any case for me to defend at that time. This puts me at a perceivable disadvantage but one which would also make up part of a defence as you seem to be indicating that I have ignored my responsibilities; this cannot be true because I notified the DVLA of my new addresses for both road fund and licensing purposes. Therefore it would have been entirely adequate for the DVLA to have contacted me at my new address when they noticed a discrepancy. If you dispute this I would point you out that under Vehicle Excise and Duty Regulations;
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b) notice may be given to a person by—
(a) delivering it to him,
(b) leaving it at his proper address, or
(c) sending it to him by post;
and for the purposes of this subsection, and of section 7 of the [1978 c. 30.] Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this subsection, the proper address of a person is his latest address as known to the Secretary of State.”
In immediately fining me I believe you are in contravention of the Bill of Rights 1689 which states:
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”
The Bill of Rights 1689 assigns protection from civil authorities in imposing fines without the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore your ability to fine me must be made directly from the courts in question as I am allowed the right to a fair trial to put forward my case. You have stated that my submission does not constitute a defence. I disagree and my defence to you is as follows.
I let DVLA know by post that the vehicle had been sold. Having given the letter containing the notification to the post office by law it is considered delivered. You yourselves post out penalty notices by second class post knowing this to be the case.
The penalty notice therefore is fining me for not spotting the fact that DVLA had lost/ not processed or incorrectly processed my notification. I should not be held responsible for the incompetence of DVLA. The only notification I received that the processing was not handled correctly was within the letter from the
debt collection
company you assigned. I do not accept that it is lawful or correct to prosecute me for not spotting the failings of DVLA.
The DVLA has issued me with a “penalty” for allegedly not informing you of a change of keeper. 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.”
This means that the requirement of ‘fairness’ is fundamental. There must be an equal and reasonable opportunity for all parties to present a case. There should be equality of arms i.e. one party should not be placed at a procedural disadvantage over the other
:
“An independent and impartial tribunal
Judges or tribunal members must be free from outside pressures, and should be independent of the executive and of the parties. Impartiality is another important element of ‘fairness’. The decision-makers therefore need to show that they are free of any prejudice or bias.
These are wide ranging and highly developed rights which cover all criminal and civil cases as well as cases heard by tribunals and some internal hearings or regulatory procedures.
Anyone who has his civil rights determined or is facing a criminal charge is entitled to these rights."
Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense."
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 decisions 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 established 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 1689 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 recognize the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines and nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle license. 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.
Therefore I do have a defence and if you pursue court action I shall make a counter claim as per the Bill of Rights 1689 stating that you have imposed a fine on me, as a person, without a fair trial. On that basis I shall seek compensation as per Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. It is clear to see there has been an administrative error on the part of the DVLA and I trust that this will be remedied with immediate effect.
As a final note I noticed that on my current V5 document for my car it states the following;
“DVLA will issue an acknowledgement letter after 4 weeks to confirm you are no longer the registered keeper. If the acknowledgement is not received then please contact DVLA on 0870 240 0010″
Therefore there is no time limit, statutory or otherwise, on the paperwork you said you have processed this fine in the instance of which compels any person in the land to contact you within any specified time limit. I suggest that there is a failing within the administrative arm of the DVLA and this has been highlighted on the BBC TV programme “Watchdog” on multiple occasions. Indeed the legislation put in place is to stop unlicensed vehicles from being used on the roads and not for raising revenue by virtue of your administrative errors.
I expect a letter in due course stating that you have resolved the administrative errors within your database and that no further action is required from me.
Yours sincerely,
Vaughan Jones
DVLA have fined me... nice
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by crem
