DVLA - a fine mess

[hungrybear]

Thought I'd contibute my little bit. I'm still beside myself with rage on this one.

 

Here's the story:

Sept 2008 give my old car to a friend who exports it to spain. I fill in section 11 of v5c and post off (with his name and address) end of story? Not quite Last week I get a late licensing penalty notice. Now, I'm pretty au fait with consumer stuff having seen off several DCA's etc. But this is DVLA an executive Government agency and they quite clearly tell me that if I cannot prove it then I have to pay and if I dont have an acknowledgement letter I have to pay.

 

So I swear a bit and write back saying there must be some confusion but to make it go away I'll pay the £40 before 21 November - like a muppet I didn't realise that would mean paying the back tax as well.

 

The next day, having posted that I see a section on CAG called DVLA that I've never noticed before. I have a look at a few threads and by this time I am shaking with anger. So I send this to DVLA:

 

THIS MATTER IS FULLY DISPUTED

I have now reviewed your allegations in detail and taken legal advice. Your letter of October 2009 represents a blatant attempt at coercion and misrepresentation, something which I will be taking up with the Home Office and my MP in the very near future. Indeed you have deliberately attempted to dupe and bully me into paying a ‘fine’ that is not lawful. If you doubt this then kindly enlighten me as to the legal basis of your repeated statement ‘you must provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter otherwise you will remain liable for the penalty’. In fact this statement has NO BASIS IN ENGLISH LAW and is a deliberate attempt to dupe and coerce and, I believe, give the impression that DVLA are issuing a statement of summary offence. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE, LEGAL NOR LAWFUL and I would even go so far as to say that, in my opinion, it is morally corrupt. In fact I would strongly suggest that you fully review the legality of your letter since it would appear that DVLA may be committing the offences of using a false instrument and obtaining property by deception contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

This is a situation that I refuse to tolerate, hence this letter SUPERCEEDS any previous correspondence on this matter.

The facts relating to vehicle licensing in this matter are as follows:

1) You were informed in September 2008, using section 11 of V5C that the vehicle was exported from the UK on a permanent basis. This is the proper section of the correct document;

2) The postal service using section 11 of the V5C is the only method of notification of export that DVLA recognise. And I refer you to the Interpretations Act 1978 if your require clarification on this point;

3) Once a vehicle is outside Great Britain it is without the jurisdiction of English Law. Consequently DVLA has no lawful or legal right to issue any fines in relation to this vehicle because it is without the jurisdiction of any statutory powers upon which DVLA would seek to rely;

4) It is not lawful or necessary or possible to tax or declare SORN on a vehicle permanently without the UK borders;

5) No SORN reminder was received in June/July – a clear indication that you had changed the vehicle status to exported.

6) There is no requirement in law for me to have received an acknowledgment from DVLA for the notice of export to be legally correct. If you doubt this then see Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

7) Upon permanent export of the vehicle the owner / keeper of the vehicle is of no legal or lawful concern to DVLA or any other UK Government (executive) agency. Permanent exportation in and of itself is a clear statement that the vehicle is NO LONGER REGISTERED IN THE UK. However my husband assures me that a ‘change of keeper to a person with a non UK address’ notation was in fact included with the V5C(4) in September 2008. To my knowledge, DVLA did not acknowledge this but I must again refer you to Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

8) For the avoidance of doubt my Husband, prepared all the paperwork for me to sign in September 2008 and it will be his assertions, under oath, in relation to items 1 and 7 above that will be relied upon in court, together with the absolute statutory defence afforded me within the Interpretation Act 1978

In summary you were told that the vehicle was permanently exported from the UK and who by, which concludes my statutory obligations to you in this matter. There can be no failure to licence a vehicle which is without the borders of the UK. Consequently I will not be paying your unlawful fine. If you are in possession of any evidence which you feel would materially alter my position in this matter please forward it to me at the above address. Please note that, contrary to your very official sounding assertions, it is for you to prove that an offence has been committed in this matter. Furthermore I suggest to you that you cannot prove that ANY offence has been committed, because I have committed no offence in this matter and have discharged my statutory obligations fully in this matter.

Kindly note that it is for DVLA to provide me with definitive legally enforceable proof that there is a matter to discuss. Any replies which rely on a ‘you must pay because we say so’ basis will not be acknowledged. I require definitive legal proof of an offence backed up by relevant statutory extracts and case law precedents as necessary. I also remind you that it is not lawful for you to pass this matter to a third party, such as a debt collector, whilst it is in dispute.

Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt, you should be aware that any attempt at legal action in this matter will be vigorously defended. It is my contention that statements by myself and OH under oath in a court of law, together with the provisions of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 constitute a absolute defence in this matter.

I trust my position in this matter is now clear.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Can you just feel the rage in that letter?:x:x

 

ANYWAY. Today I get the 'puppy dog' letter from preston appologising blah blah blah. :lol::lol:

 

How the hell can the Government get away with doing this? And yes I will be following this up. Their letters are totally illegal.

 

 

So, in summary thanks to CAG and the DVLA threads you saved me about 80 quid minimum and YES A DONATION WILL BE ON ITS WAY AT THE END OF THE MONTH.

 

Hope there are a few lines of my 'bulldog' letter of use to others and I'll let you know where I get in trying to get DVLA to change the letters to at least include the words 'may still be liable'.

 

An angry but now smiling hungrybear

[crem]

Bet you feel better after writing that hungrybear.

[JimmySpangle]

Why would you offer to pay anything at all? You have complied with the law by sending the wppropriate portion of teh V5c to DVLA on disposing of the car. End of story.

 

Let them take you to court where you simply swear to the magistrate that you sent the V5c and that is that - you can also claim costs for your time of work to attend court and you WILL win.

 

EDIT: Oh, I mis-read. I see you have already won. Good.

[roundhilljon]

My Daughter has just received the same thing, I posted the V5 myself so know that it went off to them.

I have quoted the Interpretations Act thanks to your input, I have also read another V5 which states that the DVLA will send out confirmation AFTER 4 weeks, and on the notes it states that if you have not had a reply after 4 weeks please contact the DVLA, I have pointed out that this appears to contradict itself, and does not state at what point AFTER you have to make contact surely 2 months or a year is still after, so I have pointed out that I am contacting them AFTER 4 weeks therefore no offence has been commited !!! Surely they should state that an offence will be commited on the V5 if you fail to contact them, and also ask for registered post so that any proof can be established. Thanks for the direction, will see what happens.

[crem]

Surely they should state that an offence will be commited on the V5 if you fail to contact them,

 

well they could, but their statement would be even more untrue without the support of a law, and no such law exists.

[roundhilljon]

Does this also apply to SORN documents, had one of those before and just paid it !!!