Jump to content

sorndisease

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About sorndisease

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. NO I AM NOT A DVLA PLANT!!!! I cannot remember the name of the judge. The Court hearing was at Buxton County Court on 26th January 2010 at 1200. I am fully aware you can get peculiar rulings from small claims courts, it is as you say a lottery. Unfortunately I was forced to take this risk, as this was the particular method the DVLA chose to employ. I firmly believe that by getting the judge to accept that the SORN IS the sole responsibility of the RK, you are the RK and therefore you are responsible (regardless of anything else) is their standard tactic. I was happy to agree wi
  2. They normally try and recover using a debt collection agency first. You can stop this by insisting to the DVLA that the LLP (penalty) is disputed and therefore an unproven debt. They then normally get you into County Court to recover "a statutory debt" You are more likely to lose than win. The DVLA line will be you are the rk at the time of the crime, therefore it is you who pays regardless of anything else. Before the Court case you should be offered arbitration. The DVLA line will be "pay us £80 and we will forget about it" If at the moment they already say you owe them £80 you may a
  3. EXACTLY IF YOU ARE FULLY LIABLE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE YOUR OWN LOGIN AND PASSWORD. Just one problem with this scheme though. What motivation do you have for getting it wrong? You will be costing yourself money as opposed to raising revenue!! I should imagine the government would rather the TASK be left to the DVLA, and the RESPONSIBILITY with the R.K. This allows for the current situation which is NO MATTER WHOM HAS MADE WHICH MISTAKE/ERROR , the DVLA continue along unchecked as does the revenue from the RK. Seriously though this dire situation is not
  4. The DVLA have tried various tactics to secure revenue with SORN and seemed to have settled on this one, as by virtue of the process it is likely to more succesful than not. In your case I suspect the DVLA will present "evidence" that they did not receive your SORN. This "evidence" is the fact that an LLP was issused. As far as the DVLA are concerened there is a statutory debt due, that can only be due by the registered keeper. (ie it does not matter if they lost it, post office lost it, they have not keyed the data in correctly etc) because YOU ARE THE R K AND AS THE RESPONSIABILITY LIES
  5. Neither would I. Unfortunately on the day neither your, mine or Paddington Bear's opinion matters, just the judges. When I questioned whether this Act would be taken into account the judge was quite happy to inform me that as it is the County Court they listen to any evidence offered and make a decision as to whether it applies to your particular case. Quite simply if they dont think that it does they wont apply it to your case. In other words any evidence they choose to deem irrelavent at the time is just that. It gets worse, if there is no evidence of an offence, you will be asked
  6. Sorry to here about this see my post under SORN LLP County Court Action. They may leave you alone if you dispute it, however I very much doubt it. I contested my case on what I believed was right and fair, certainly not on a financial basis. The letter battle you will have to endure will cost you best part of £20. The stress that you will suffer as you realize they are not interested in anything but recovering the money that they have decided you owe will frustrate you beyond any financial pain you are more likely than not to incur. Penalty plus costs another £130 ish. Continuous Registration
  7. Interpretations Act 1978 did not work for me in Court. See full post under DVLA "Sorn LLP County Court Action"
  8. O.K Here is all you need to know. If you have had an LLP you have two choices. You either pay it or dispute it. If you pay it quickly, it will cost you £40. If you do not, you take what in my opinion, is a high risk gamble which may cost you upwards of £130 or more if you lose. TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THIS EVENT IN PRACTICE RATHER THAN THEORY. DO NOT be concerned about what you think about the rights/wrongs/fairness of the issues are at the time, as unfortunately, this is more likely to sway you into a dispute,which in my experiance, is unlikely to mak
  9. Even less of a reason for them to do it then. NO VALUE FOR THEM
  10. If they only have 6 months to do you and people have been waiting 5 months and nothing has happened. I agree that action is unlikely. Lets hope the metaphorical hyena slinks back into the undergrowth with an empty greedy belly and its tail well and truly beneath its legs
  11. It may only be your opinion, but a very informative and accurate one I think!! Like Mr Sornappeal I have been keeping an eye on your activities within this thread as regards the DVLA. You obviously both have had personal experience of this problem as well as both being equipped to deal with these people in the appropiate manner. WELL DONE YOU SIRS!! Thanx for the advice, after weeks of frustration I now know how to proceed!!
  12. Actually NO They have not stated that in writing. They have merely said "that there is no record of a SORN having been delivered to DVLA at the appropiate time, as required in ledgislation." What a stupid thing to say! Of course there is no record, (otherwise why else would they be trying to do me) either because it got lost in the post or they lost it or processed it incorrectly Regardless of all that, it now seems obvious to me this is completely irrelavent to the Interpretation Act. As i understand it (the Interpretation Act) your duties are discharged within a strict time limit (either 2 d
  13. I have mentioned the postal act and the Interpertation Act 1978 however they claim this is irrelavent and i should just pay them anyway!!
×
×
  • Create New...