well, its been over a month since the last letter was sent to me.

Diskmandave this isnt Malvern Hills District Council, it is Malvern Hills Conservators. Putting the details of the ticket into MHDC website shows it as being an unrecognised ticket number.

I have a letter from them. This relates to PENALTY NOTICE No. XXXXXX and Invoice No. XXXXXX If I do not pay in 7 days the matter will be passed to their solicitors. Now to me this sounds like the non-payment of an invoice. I have rescanned and attached the 3 documents I have got so far .MHCletter1.PDF MHCParkingticket1.PDF MHCInvoice1.PDF

That was my thought too, even the yellow and black checked envelope was marked up "Parking Charge Notice" and the PPC's little ticket does say "As driver of this vehicle you are liable to pay......" I'm just the registered keeper!

A ticket was placed on my car when parked in Malvern. Although it looks like a Parking Charge Notice which I'd ignore, it does talk about contravention of Byelaw 9 of the Malvern Hills Conservators. Shall I be safe to ignore this? I received a further letter requesting payment in 14 days, together with an invoice attached to it - which i have attached here. So am I safe to continue ignoring this one?

Show me the law that says that a car needs to be insured to be parked on a public road, I've never found one. Its obviously a criminal offence to drive without insurance, but where does the law say that a car has to be insured to be parked on a public road?

If the car is taxed it can be kept on the public road. Insurance is only relevent if driven as is MOT. The DVLA cannot do anyone for no insurance, insurance is not a DVLA matter.

Lonerider, I think its just a game, which I hope more people will get involved in. Don't pay this penalty, just make sure you hassle them until they give up and look for an easier mark! A couple of things I included in my letters to the Compliance Officer. In the letters from both him and also the Enforcement Officers, they give statements which appear to be providing legal advice such as "If you do not do this, YOU will have NO DEFENCE!" I think those types of statements constitute legal advice, and I asked "Can you provide me with the legal qualifications of Mrs XXXXXXXXXX and Mr XXXXXXXXXX in your response" Of course I never got a response! I am going to write back to the DVLA and query their letter that states that they are dropping action against me due to my exceptional mitigating circumstances, asking them to tell me what those exceptional mitigating circumstances are, as there arent any - unless of course you include the law as being an exceptional mitigating circumstance!!

Best bet would be to get rid of SORN altogether. It is so flawed and is unecessary. With the PNC in place, and reg number recognition, and the DVLA maintaining a database of VED, insurance and MOT, it is far easier now to identify vehicles which are being driven without proper documentation. SORN creates no end of problems due to the fact that it is not possible to even park a vehicle on the public road without VED. Look up and down any street these days and you can see that there is not enough private ground for the number of vehicles owned. It would be nice to think that all cars could fit on peoples driveways, but they can't. You can park a car on a public road without MOT, and without insurance, but not without VED. I have a vehicle parked on the public road, which I can't drive as the MOT ran out, but I bought VED prior to it running out, so its legally parked on the road for the next 12 months! So what does SORN actually achieve? Apart from revenue generation from late penalties, and reomving cars from the road that havent moved for years?

Well I got the letter this morning from the DVLA, they've dropped the case against me. BUT, I'm not really in the mood to accept this, they've said that due to my individual circumstances (which are no different to anyone esles circumstances regards SORN or Failure to notify disposal) they accept my mitigation I have provided, Ha! I didnt provide any mitigation, I didnt ask for any mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration. So, I'm not going to accept this.

My understanding is that they recieve bulk mail, and sign for all recorded post in one lot, they don't individually sign for letters. It will at least give you sa receipt to prove you sent it. However, the DVLA seem to be saying "we don't care if you can prove you sent it, unless you recieve an acknowledgement letter, you can't prove that we recieved it!" There have been tales of people handing these over in person at the DVLA yet still the DVLA say they havent recieved it! They don't send anything to you recorded delivery, so why bother sending to them recorded delivery?? Just keep copies of every correspondence between you and the DVLA.

Don't believe what the DVLA tell you, all they want to do is make you pay. They'll bully you, and they'll make you think that because they are the DVLA, they are the law. They're not! They'll make it up as they go along, the more you read, the funnier it gets. Hold your ground, you'reright, they're wrong.

Read through as many other posts on here as you can, understand the arguments, understand what the defence is. There is no legal requirement for you, or anybody, to contact the DVLA. Any acknowledgement letter sent by them is purely advisory, and when they send is is ambiguous, with different documents saying WITHIN 4 weeks, and AFTER 4 weeks. Detail what you did in terms of selling the car, sending off the V5C, and use one of the templates on here in the posts that suits. Understand the Interpretation Law, and how it means that your letter is deemed as served when yo post it, so long as it is properly pre-paid. Don't get angry, just write it all down, be nice, and send it to them, and wait. Acknowledge the letters you recieve from them. If they start talking about debt collection, or that you owe them a debt, advise them that this is a payment, and it a disputed payment, and they therefore they cannot instruct a debt collection agency. If they do, calmly write to the DCA advising them that this is a payment in dispute and that they should refer it back to their client. Most important, stay cool, and read loads of posts to get an understanding that all they are trying to do is make you believe that it is your fault, and then they try to bully you into paying them money.

This goes to show that, if you're going to go to court, you've got to have a good defence, one which you understand and that you can argue. The judge can be questioned directly, and so can the DVLA. If the DVLA were to read out what they say is the requirement of the RK, then even if this was indeed law, it would be totally ambiguous. On my V5C it clearly states that the DVLA send out a letter AFTER 4 weeks, not within 4 weeks but AFTER 4 weeks. It doesn't say when after 4 weeks, it could be 2 months, or a year. Yet in the letters I've got from the enforcement officers it state WITHIN 4 weeks. So the whole thing is amibiguous. Furthermore, the Enforcement Officer writes that if I don't recieve the acknlowedgement letter, that I have no defence against the fine (yes its called a fine!). Well excuse me but, I'll leave that for a judge to decide, not an unqualified Enforcement Officer.

Exactly They make a rod for their own back, poor devils!!

The DVLA seem to have stopped corresponding with me ! No acknowledgement of the emails sent in the last week at all. Good innit?

Thats why I was thinking of a seperate website and forum, just for this particular subject. I think it should go into a sperate thread really, so people can keep themselves up to date as to what cases have been won, what evidence should be used, how a defence should be put together etc.

You can merge the two. Informational website with facts about the DVLA and how they bully and harrass people, and an open forum which wuold get all the hits (and increase the page rank!). Anything that gets this lot in the public eye is needed

Because I can't find one despite loads of googling Most are posts on more generic forums such as this one. If you know of one

Yep, it is a very effective practice, and cloaking your letters with official looking terminology, emboldening words like Failure to Pay, Demand, Enforcement Action etc. means that most people will do the easiest thing to get it off their back - pay, and justify it by feeling that they've saved themselves the extra £40! I've made my decision on this one, I'm not paying what I don't owe, I have no debt with the DVLA. I'm thinking that this is worth setting up a seperate website and forum, so I'm going to try and put something together tonight.

I agree with Buzby, its going to be extremely difficult to turn back time on this one. Isn't it amazing though how the DVLA get so many people to pay their "discounted" invoice, an invoice for a payment that is in many cases totally unwarranted! They invoice you to pay for their mistakes and offer an early payment 50% discount

A man who appears to be extremely non-compliant. I like the link ideas, all emails now contain links I am also propogating motoring forums. I have just read one of the V5c's I have for one of my vehicles, and the more I read it the less clear it becomes. This bit about them sending an acknowledgment letter AFTER four weeks, yet they say if you havent recieved an acknowledgment letter WITHIN four weeks then you should contact them. But that just doesnt make any sense at all, it is utter gibberish! You WON'T have recieved the letter within four weeks as they don't send it out till AFTER four weeks. But how long after four weeks? It doesnt say!

One thing I have noticed from writing letters back and forth to the DVLA is that the erroneous statements they make in their replies simply help the final cause, should it come to court. I am reading a letter from the Head of Compliance at the moment, and in response to my concerns re Interpretations Act, it reads "It is the Agency's position that it is not sufficient for a person issued with a Late Licencing Penalty, who is the registered keeper, to simply advise that a disposal notification has been posted to the DVLA." I'm sorry but the law states that that is exactly what is sufficient. There is no requirement to do any more than to advise that a disposal notification has been posted to the DVLA! All the DVLA require is that the notification is completed and posted via post.

It wasnt Noel Shanahan, it wasn't the Chief Executive, it was the ACTING Chief Executive Simon Tse. Shanahan appears to have been moved sideways indefinitely to a role within the Department of Transport. I don't think he made an arse of himself either, he didnt have much to defend, after all, the stories presented by Watchdog were mainly about the woman who's car was towed away and sold by a Local Authority, which for some reason Anne robinson kept harping on about. The real story was Duncan Pecks story, which unfortunately was glossed over by Watchdog. He proved that the DVLA lies to innocent people, and is prepared to lie to them up to the point that it goes to court. And whatsmore, the independent complaints procedure actually is a totally dependent complaints procedure (if a procedure at all) whereby the Chief Executive decides the outcome! I hope my dispute with the DVLA does go to court, they deserve every lost case they get!

Agreed, they got away scot free on that one. A pathetic interview which was easy for Tse to work his way around. This was a serious issue affecting maybe tens of thousands of innocent people, yet it was left to a washed up old journo to ask simple questions, and not even follow up on the answers given, which were woolly (Pat Woolley) at best. Why didnt she ask why the DVLA treats innocent people like criminals? Or why the DVLA considers itself to be the law? Or why they say they do not lose any post, yet the FOI reply shows that in truth they do not actually know what the percentage of lost post is? Or how about Why don't the DVLA accept documented proof such as photocopied originals, yet the courts do? I liked it when Tse was talking about the tiny percentage of people who complain about SORN reminders etc. Well thats because the DVLA have been able to bully and harangue people into believing that their process is not only lawful, but it is indeed the law! "You MUST pay a fine of £80.00 or else we will send debt collectors round to recover your DEBT!!!" Thats why people just pay up, it sounds quite threatening and official. Well Mr Tse, lets hope that the level of complaints rises significantly now, and that a proper investigation into the DVLA takes place, by someone far more proficient in investigative reporting than Anne Robinson!!