Template letter for SORN fines

[danny_kiernan]

Hi All,

 

I wanted to include my template letter, for all those people who have received fines from the DVLA, please feel free to adjust the Template for your own circumstances:

 

The DVLA has issued me with a “penalty” for allegedly not registering my vehicle as SORN.

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."

 

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which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -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;
   
  © 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 decis-
  ions 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 confirmed 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 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 recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. 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

[Renta Mouth]

Do let us know if this works.

 

I do know that Article 6 (and Articles 7 – committal to prison and 12 – depriving a parent the right of a family life by imposing a financial penalty) of ECHR was rebuked by the Child Support Agency citing that an act of parliament namely the Child Support Act 1994 can rebuke another Act namely the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

This made extortion legal in the UK - and uniquely to the UK that its authorities can threaten its subjects in this way to obtain money regardless on whether or not the subject debt is legitimate.

 

It is a principle reason why so many working child-support expatriates leave the Britain for the protection of Middle-Eastern jurisdictions (e.g. Dubai and Qatar) which prohibits extortion with a death penalty. They are the unspoken British asylum seekers.

 

Until reading your post, I wasn’t aware that DVLA were doing the same, but on a lesser extent local councils have been known to pronounce a debt and enforce them with an Liability Order - which cannot be defended in a criminal court - and therefore contradicts Article 6.

 

It'll be interesting what DVLA will say about A6 without being a court entity.

[danny_kiernan]

Well, it has worked for me personally and other people who have used it. Most of them have sent in the template as soon as they have received the fine through the post. I used it at county court myself and I won.

 

I did read up on the CSA and their extortion tactics as you have mentioned (didn't know about people moving to the Middle East though ).

 

There is however a difference between the CSA and the DVLA, in that the CSA has a clearly defined appeals process ( I've never had any experience of it,personally - so couldn't say if it was fair or not), but the DVLA has no appeal process in SORN related cases.

 

The LA's (Local Authorities) pronouncing civil penalties on parking , do have a defined appeals process, via NPAS or PATA (intermediary agencies) - but as soon as you mention Article 6 and the BoR, they tend to buckle (not in all cases though, I hasten to add).

[Renta Mouth]

My guess is that DVLA might introduce an appeals procedure in its SORN policy to satisfy A6 counter claims.

 

On a side note, the governments War on Motorists took another step today with an extra 2p a litre making the UK the cheapest place to buy petrol in Europe - but the most heavily taxed petrol in Europe.

 

Anything that moves is taxed & it's nothing to do with co2 and the environment. We have been exhaling co2 since the beginning of time - so its official - a visit to the gym or riding your bike adds to climate change.

[danny_kiernan]

I hope they do, I wouldn't have taken such offence at the DVLA if they did have an appeals procedure (a fair one I hope).

[Rob 321]

I've had similar problems to many others. In my case I part exchanged my car and sent the documentation for the sale of my old car and purchase of the new one to DVLA. I got the log book back for the new car, but a couple of months later also got a fine as the tax on the car I'd exchanged had run out since I'd exchanged it. I appealed, but the DVLA have dismissed it saying that it was my responsibility to pursue them when I didn't receieve written notification that ownership of my old car had been transferred.

There seems no way round this as they've set themselves up as judge and jury with no independant appeals process. I think you're right in that the whole system is incompatible with Article 6 of the HRA. I'm suprised no-one has already applied for a judicial review of this. My guess is that people would rather pay the £40 than go through a lot of hassle, and I'm tempted to put it down to experience myself. The fact that you've suceeded gives me hope though. Could you post details of the court and date in which your case was heard? A precedent will help me and anyone else thinking of fighting through the courts

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Rob,

 

Sorry to hear that you have had the same problems. They don't have a recognised appeals procedure, so they are in breach of Article 6.

 

I actually had 2 county court hearings, one in february and one on May 16th at Mansfield County Court, Beech House, Mansfield, Notts - where the judge ruled against the DVLA, I can post the scans of the documentation (with personal details blacked out, of course) over the weekend - really busy working at mo.

 

It was Secretary of State V Danny Kiernan and was held at 12:15

 

Hope that helps, will get round to scans as soon as I can.

 

Dani

[scousepie]

Hi Rob,

 

Sorry to hear that you have had the same problems. They don't have a recognised appeals procedure, so they are in breach of Article 6.

 

I actually had 2 county court hearings, one in february and one on May 16th at Mansfield County Court, Beech House, Mansfield, Notts - where the judge ruled against the DVLA, I can post the scans of the documentation (with personal details blacked out, of course) over the weekend - really busy working at mo.

 

It was Secretary of State V Danny Kiernan and was held at 12:15

 

Hope that helps, will get round to scans as soon as I can.

 

Dani

 

 

Hi Dani Did you manage to scann the docs?

 

cheers

[Conniff]

As this thread has been reopened, may I add the words of the DVLA. This is their own statement:

 

Consultations have been held with trade organisations and relevant industry contacts, offering a forum for the expression of views regarding the implementation of measures to increase adherence to VED policy and to reduce vehicle crime. These consultations, one held in 2001 and a subsequent, more detailed proposal in 2003, received confirmed support, recognising that the Agency does not intend to persecute honest motorists, but to crack down on offenders who repeatedly abuse the system.

 

An official appeals procedure has not been established, however, DVLA will treat each case on merit and will view genuine cases with sympathy. Whilst the legislation allows all unlicenced keepers to be pursued, DVLA retains the right to withdraw cases in certain circumstances.

 

So you can see that if you have missed sorn by a couple of weeks and for the first time ever and are then served a demand for payment, this actually goes against their own principles.

I would think that the above would or should be enough for a non repeat ?offender? to have the demand withdrawn.

[scousepie]

As this thread has been reopened, may I add the words of the DVLA. This is their own statement:

 

 

 

So you can see that if you have missed sorn by a couple of weeks and for the first time ever and are then served a demand for payment, this actually goes against their own principles.

I would think that the above would or should be enough for a non repeat ?offender? to have the demand withdrawn.

 

 

Excellent post I like it....just goes to show that the system is unfair.....more amo.

thanks

 

I have fired a letter inviting them to start legal action as they can't win as the process is flawed.....

 

The very fact I have explained the case and tried to resolve this issue but they have ignored my letters and shows they gust want to extort money. I wonder if they will take my wife to court.

 

lets see.

[buzby]

It is taking them up to 4 weeks to respond to appeal letters - the first is usually a rejection, but if you press hte point, the second usually results in enforcement action (assuming it's your first and you're not otherwise flagged as a transgressor).

[pcboffin]

It is taking them up to 4 weeks to respond to appeal letters - the first is usually a rejection, but if you press hte point, the second usually results in enforcement action (assuming it's your first and you're not otherwise flagged as a transgressor).

 

Did you mean NO enforcement action in that last post?

 

I am currently in a letter battle with them, and so far they are refusing to back down even after I used the template letter above (with some additions).

 

I am proceeding to their customer service manager as the next step, but if they continue to be awkward I am thinking of taking it all the way to court as their attitude is annoying me.

 

In brief, my car was written off by the insurance company, and collected by them. Following that I sent off the V5 bit, and separately applied for a Vehicle License Refund, which they received and paid.

 

3 months later I got a letter from them claiming £80 (£40 if I paid up like a good boy) because the vehicle was still registered to me and was unlicensed.

 

Even when I showed them the proof that the vehicle was collected by the insurance company, their view was that because they did not receive the notification of disposal I am liable, even though they accept that I have no legal liability to chase them up if I do not receive a confirmation letter...

 

If anyone has any more information on the case mentioned above, or similar when the DVLA have lost, it would be useful to decide whether I really should take it all the way to court, or give in gracelessly and take the hit

 

Many Thanks

 

Gavin

[buzby]

Yes, sorry for changing the meaning unintentionally! I do recall a situation similar to yours where this matter was actually handled by the Insurers, insofar as they have online access to the database and can supposedly process write-offs via the MIB automatically (or show the classification of write-off.

 

If continuous registration are fining you, then the company didn't do what it was legally supposed to. I'd send them a letter denying all responsibility, and advising the matter has been passed to your insurers for their urgent attention. Then forward the correspondence to them and demand they sort out THEIR error.

[Wig]

Hi All,

 

I wanted to include my template letter, for all those people who have received fines from the DVLA, please feel free to adjust the Template for your own circumstances:

 

The DVLA has issued me with a “penalty” for allegedly not registering my vehicle as SORN.

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."

 

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 -

 

Surely, when you refuse to pay -as is your right- the "independent and impartial tribunal established by law" is the County Court that the DVLA then take you to, to determine if you are liable to pay the supplement or not. So I don't really see how your A6 rights are being witheld.

As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. 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

Which would be ok if the DVLA were accusing you of guilt of a section 31A offence. But as I understand it, the DVLA will probably not be saying you are guilty of ANY offence -none that they care about anyway- they will simply be saying that you are liable to pay a supplement under section 7A (1)(a) for falling foul of 7A (1A)(d).

 

Sometimes the DVLA ask for the supplement (£40/£80) aswell as the whole of the tax that would have been payable since the vehicle was last licensed. I can see that there could be grounds for using your argument against having to pay the back dated tax, as that is not covered by the "supplement" which 7A says you have to pay. But I have not read all of the act and regs so I don't know about this exactly.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Wig

[Conniff]

Only good though if you have some sort of proof of posting when you get to court.

 

There is 'no' appeals system with DVLA.

[Wig]

Only good though if you have some sort of proof of posting when you get to court.

 

Why? Danny believes this defence will work in court, he even won a case, alledgedly using this defence, but has not explained in much detail what his argument was, and why the judge agreed with him.

 

There is 'no' appeals system with DVLA.

There doesn't have to be, the court is the independent tribunal, the appeal service if you like. Perhaps, this is Danny's point, he believes the institution needs to have it's own in-house appeal system established in law, before the county court. But I see nothing to back up that argument.

 

Oh and.... Danny, I have sent you a PM BTW. I am genuinely interested in your views, not trying to attack you in any way, except as Devil's Advocate ISWIM. I am on your side, if the DVLA can be beaten I'm all for it.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Wig

[Conniff]

If that is the case then this needs to be tested in a higher court so a precedent can be set and this whole question of post can be put to bed once and for all.

 

The easy way around this by the DVLA is not to ask anyone for £80 but to make first contact by issuing a summons for non SORN.

In this case they are not being arbitrary and there can be no human rights issue.

 

I mentioned the 'appeals' because the op posted - "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" - there is no appeals service offered by the DVLA.

[Spunkymonkey]

Surely, when you refuse to pay -as is your right- the "independent and impartial tribunal established by law" is the County Court that the DVLA then take you to, to determine if you are liable to pay the supplement or not. So I don't really see how your A6 rights are being witheld.

 

Except that, generally, when you refuse to pay they don't take you to court. They pass the matter to a DCA because (to paraphrase the Secretary of State) "the courts were a poor way of enforcing payment". So instead they farm it to a DCA to (effectively) intimidate the cash from you without having to prove liability. Pretty flagrant abuse as far as I can see.

 

Still waiting to see what happens with mine. I've clearly refuted liability and asked for it to be proved in court so if they still send it to a DCA rather than summons it'll make it pretty clear what their real intentions are re the S6 right....

[Conniff]

it'll make it pretty clear what their real intentions are

 

We already know what their real intentions are and why the continuous registration was really set up for.

[Wig]

I mentioned the 'appeals' because the op posted - "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" - there is no appeals service offered by the DVLA.

 

Right ok,

 

And my contention with the same paragraph of the OP is that I see nothing in Art 6 that would require them to have their own appeals service. Ultimately the County Court is the "appeal service"/"the independant impartial tribunal established by law".

[Conniff]

The thing is though, if they are not legally authorised to issue these 'fines', there is nothing to appeal. and you might just as well ignore it and the dca followup until a summons appears.

[Wig]

Except that, generally, when you refuse to pay they don't take you to court. They pass the matter to a DCA because (to paraphrase the Secretary of State) "the courts were a poor way of enforcing payment". So instead they farm it to a DCA to (effectively) intimidate the cash from you without having to prove liability. Pretty flagrant abuse as far as I can see.

 

They (DVLA) have to take the most cost effective course of action, they don't want the hassle of writing to you lots of times threatening court action, so they farm that business out to a third party. As I'm sure you know, you are not required to pay if you don't want to, not until a court has found you liable. The ones that don't pay, will theoretically eventually be taken to court. Thus satisfying their A6 right to independant ribunal.

 

I suppose you could argue it should be like parking tickets, which have a tick box on the back, where you tick to indicate -right at the start- you wish to challenge the ticket in court at the earliest convienience.

 

Now that aspect might be seen to be quite important, (what aspect? I hear you ask)......

The article 6 right is the right to an independant tribunal "within a reasonable time". I think if they ignore your letters of denial, or letters requesting an independant review (court case), then refer you to a DCA and it does not go to court for months even more than a year in some cases.....*THEN* I think you would have a chance of using A6 as a defense, you were not given an opportunity to defend yourself within a reasonable time.

 

It might also work if you just sit back and wait until the fat lady sings, having not requested a court case, it's possible your A6 right has not been complied with.

[Wig]

The thing is though, if they are not legally authorised to issue these 'fines', there is nothing to appeal. and you might just as well ignore it and the dca followup until a summons appears.

 

Ah, but they are legally authorised to charge a supplemental payment. Authorised by the Secretary of State as per VERA 1994 S.7A. The supplement is payable by you, and you have a right to dispute that, but if you lose you have to pay up. And if the judge thinks your non payment was unreasonable you could have costs on top. Copies of appeal letters to show the judge could help you avoid costs in court - providing your grounds for appeal were reasonable.

[Spunkymonkey]

They (DVLA) have to take the most cost effective course of action, they don't want the hassle of writing to you lots of times threatening court action, so they farm that business out to a third party.

 

They, as a Public body have to repect your HRA rights except in certain circumstances. Cost effectiveness certainly isn't one of those circumstances given the relatively low costs (in terms of public finances and compared to what the LLPs raise) especially since they can claim those costs off you.

 

In fact, it's quite possible that employing a DCA is less cost effective than sending the original notice, one further letter, and a court case with costs claimed back after that.

 

More to the point, they also don't give any indication whatsoever that you have a right to challenge the charge - and the DCAs certainly don't mention that (not that they have to being private companies). That, in and of itself, could well be seen as an attempt to deny your A6 right.

[Wig]

Not exactly, because on the first demand notice they send you they warn that non payment could result in court action. Not exactly the same as saying "you have the right to challenge this in court" I agree, but effectively the same thing.