Speaking for myself - no developments that have been worth reporting on ... My dispute revolved around DVLA (Poole)'s claim that I didn't send DVLA (Swansea) a SORN, and my attempt to email them via their website, which was ignored. The last communication I had from Poole was to the effect that a search of their email database had failed to show any communication from me - and could I confirm the email address which I had used ? But I had used the pro-forma on their webpage - which does not (or did not) have any place to insert an email address or other contact information (it might have since changed) ... How on earth could I reply to that ? What would I say to someone claiming to be 'The Manager' - "that you, sweetheart, are so incompetent that you don't even know what the content of your own webpage consists of" ? Even I couldn't be that rude - so I chose not to reply. Throughout, I have adopted the 'well, take me to court then' approach (thanks in part to the encouragement received here), but 12 months on I have heard nothing further from them, and am assuming that the matter is now dead. Sorry that none of this relates to dates etc., and is therefore presumably of no help.

This was very much my thinking .... I've gained (rightly or wrongly) the impression that the guys who fought the unfair bank charges issue did so by collaborating with each other and presenting a united front. In contrast, it appears that folk who are challenging the legitimacy of SORN fixed-penalty notices are doing so individually, in front of magistrates who are assessing the issue freshly each time as a one-off case, and may not be aware of the numbers actually involved. Magistrates are human and as such are fallible, and one may dismiss an appeal identical to that which another magistrate has thrown out of court. As a start towards creating a unified front, I think it would be extremely useful if SORN appeal court case results could be cross-referenced, and legal opinion sought with a view to fighting this issue with a cast-iron legal argument which could be presented at each appeal.

Great news ! As we know the legal process tends to operate on case precedent (dunno if this is always true of magistrate's courts ?) - so I was wondering if you would be willing to publish sufficient information to enable others to cite your appeal ? Methinks it would be a brave magistrate who would rule against a judgement already made about an identical situation.

In order to mount a defence against the DVLA's claimed non-receipt of a SORN, I asked to have returned to me a copy of the original fixed penalty notice (the one in which a statement is made, then returned to them). On the bottom of the page, two authorities are given for their issuance of a fixed penalty notice: 1. Section 31A Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. 2. Section 7A Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and Regulation 9A Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. A copy of the 1994 Act can be downloaded from Public Acts of the UK Parliament 1994 , and the 2002 Regulations from: UK Statutory Instruments 2002 (2742) Now, starting with section 7A of the 1994 Act .... There is NO section 7A !! There is however a Section 7(1) which reads: Every person applying for a vehicle license shall- (a) make such a declaration, and (b) furnish such particulars (whether or not with respect to the vehicle for which the licence is to be taken out) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. But this applies to someone APPLYING for a vehicle license - which I hadn't done - I had declared SORN (which is being claimed wasn't received), which is different. And if we look at regulation 9A .... again, there is NO regulation 9A !! There is a regulation 9(1) and 9(2) which are concerned with applications for the surrendering of licences, but nothing whatsoever to do with a date applicable to a fixed penalty notice, as the DVLA are claiming. Moving on then to Section 31A of the 1994 Act. Yet again there is NO Section 31A (this is getting silly ...), but there is a Section 31(1) which is concerned with defining the period from which an offence is deemed to have commenced, and refers back to Section 30, which is concerned with the back-duty payable, which further refers back to Section 29 which states: 29 - (1) If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence. So - there is no reference whatsoever in the authorities cited which relate to SORN, or a fixed-penalty notice served in respect of same. I simply cannot believe that a government department would make such a fundamental error - so can anyone throw any light on this ? It would be nice to think that all the SORN fixed-penalty notices which have been issued have been fatally flawed (million of pounds in refunds .. !!) - but right now all I'm looking for is a reality-check.

You're absolutely right. But today's events are showing this SORN confirmation to be particularly significant, for: Yesterday I received the letter from DVLA Swansea thanking me for SORN-ing the vehicle. This morning I received a letter from the enforcement dept in Poole dated 5 days after the Swansea letter, alleging that they have no SORN record for the vehicle, and also, that my secondary mode of communication to the DVLA (feedback email from their site) is not an acceptable form of declaration. But - I have used only two modes of SORN declaration - their form (by post), and their website feedback facility. Quite clearly DVLA Swansea have accepted one of these: either the original postal SORN has finally surfaced, or the DVLA have accepted a notification via their website feedback facility. I am left to conclude therefore that DVLA (Poole) are either being untruthful, or are incompetent.

Thanks again for the words of wisdom. Update - this morning I received a letter from DVLA (Swansea), thanking me for a SORN on the disputed vehicle, but dated from 29 January. Wonderful (!) - nothing like a bit of confusion to add to the existing mess. So - has the original SORN now finally surfaced ? Or has this letter been issued in response to my email posted from the DVLA on-line site ? Or is it in response to my threat to refer this matter to my MP ? Indeed, has the threat of prosecution now been dropped or not ? Who knows - after you with the crystal ball. So many questions - what a way to run a government department ...

Spunkymonkey - have you any thoughts on the "4 weeks" issue ? As I see it it's one thing for the DVLA to place the onus for pursuing SORN non-receipt on the public, but this '4 week' stuff doesn't feature at all in the legislation: The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 The terminology is "shall deliver to the Secretary of State the required declaration and the required particulars in relation to the vehicle"and "in any other case, not later than that day." (being the day following the expired period). I wonder if it could be argued that as the 4 week period does not feature in the legislation, the DVLA are operating outside of the law ? I'm also focussing on "shall deliver" - how exactly does one "deliver" ? But - I think there's been quite a few words spoken on this forum regarding this already .... Regards

Thanks for those links. They make for interesting reading - I'll need to print 'em out so I can study them carefully. The reason I asked whether the fixed-penalty notices themselves were legal, is that there appears to be 'something' missing .... When comparing these demands for money with other forms of penalty - such as parking offences - it can be observed that when a person is given a parking ticket, the ticket contains evidence of proof of the offence (location, date, duration etc), and also contains the authority of the issuing body (contrary to such-and-such an Act, section and paragraph etc). The same might be true of speeding tickets, but I've never had one so can't comment - maybe someone else can confirm this. Now I can't be sure about the first letter the DVLA sent me, as it was a form to be completed and returned, but certainly neither of the last two letters, nor the INF51 form contain details of the DVLA's authority to issue penalty notices. I guess the question I'm asking is, "is it a legal requirement that a fixed penalty notice must display the authority of the issuing body to demand payment ?" For if it is, then the DVLA's demand notices then have the legal status of begging letters. I'm also a little concerned about the DVLA's use of the word 'Offence' in their correspondence, rather than using the term 'alleged offence', as the former suggests that there is no requirement for any burden of proof, a concept which underpins the whole of our legal system.

Well, here's yet another person who has joined the swelling ranks of those on the DVLA's SORN Christmas Card list .... I have several concerns about the way in which the DVLA is conducting itself and, in no particular order: a) is the issuing of £40/80 fixed penalty notices itself legal ? In the INF51 document (which the DVLA keeps sending me, and thus appears to using as a reference document) there is no mention of such penalties - only of fines of up to £1000 *under certain circumstances* (undefined) following prosecution. b) what exactly is the offence I am alleged to have committed ? Although the DVLA's blurb makes reference to the offence of keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road (an offence of which I have no dispute with), is it actually a punishable offence not to notify the DVLA of a vehicle being kept off-road ? And in the event of notification not being received (for this is what I am being accused of) where does the burden of proof lie ? Indeed, can the DVLA prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did NOT receive my SORN notification ? c) Until I discovered your site, I had assumed that my dispute with the DVLA was a one-in-a-million case of 'lost in the post' - but it would appear that this sort of thing is happening far too often. That the DVLA makes money in the event of SORN non-receipt presents an obvious conflict of interest. In my own case, I posted the SORN within a week or so of the tax expiry, and as someone has already commented here I have more important things to do with my life that tick off days on some DVLA calendar - just in case I do not receive a confirmation letter from them - and it was only when in conversation with someone later (some 8 weeks after the SORN was sent) that I was reminded that I hadn't heard from the DVLA. I then tried to SORN (again) the vehicle on-line without success, and finally emailed them from their site, quoting the vehicle refs. So far I have receive 2 automated letters from them, and am still awaiting a personal response. I am adopting the 'MP first and then take me to court' approach, and will keep you informed.