Template letter for SORN fines

[sornappeal]

Ok here is the reply from DVLA.

 

9 February 2009

Dear Mr XXXXX

Thank you for your recent letter addressed to the driver vehicle Licensing agency’s (DVLA) Continuous Registration (CR) Customer Service Team in Maidstone requesting your complaint be referred to Dame Elizabeth Neville the DVLA’s independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).

I also note that representations on your behalf were made by the Rt Hon Jim Knight MP tothe Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Geoff Hoon. The Department for Transport (DfT) will issue a substantive response to this approach, A copy of this letter will however be sent to DfT in order that they are aware of my latest response to you.

The role of the ICA is to consider the extent to which the staff of the Agency have met their obligations to be fair, even handed and efficient in their relationship with the public; and whether, and if so to what extent, there has been any form of maladministration. The Assessor does not consider the policies, laws and regulations governing the activities of the agency, or any right of appeal a complainant might have in wishing to challenge these policies, laws or regulations I am sorry that you remain of the opinion that you have been treated unjustly by the DVLA, and that previous correspondence issued by the Agency, has not resolved the matters raised. I ask you to accept my assurance that all cases within the Agency’s complaint procedure are handled with absolute impartiality and objectivity, The legislative provision under which the DVLA operate and the specifics of your case in respect of vehicle room shire have already been explained in detail to both you and Mr Knight. Dft have also been advised accordingly. Having reviewed the facts I conclude that DVLA has acted correctly and proportionately in dealing with your case, in advising that a breach of the Continuous Registration (CR) legislation occurred, and in seeking legal redress.

We Have also responded within our published customer service time scales throughout our dealings with you.

Consequently, I do not believe that the ICA would consider sufficient reason to find us guilty of inefficiency in the initiation of the enforcement case against you, and I am therefore refusing your request.

I must advise as the case currently stands, you remain liable for the Late Licensing Penalty (LLP) and I note your conditional offer of pavement of the f 40.00 LLP once referral has been confirmed, I can only apprise however that in order to avoid further enforcement action, pavement of the f 80.00 LLP should be submitted by 12 March 2009 (this reduces to £40.00 if paid by 25 February 2009).

Your contention that there is no right of appeal in respect of this matter is noted. Should the matter be referred to the County Court for action, any attendance would allow the opportunity to have the matter heard before a Judge.

In closing, it remains your prerogative to contact a Member of Parliament (MP) who may refer the matter to the Parliamentary and Health service Ombudsman (PHSO) if they deem appropriate.

I trust I have clarified the situation for you and that you are now able to understand that the Agency’s position in the matter will not change.

Yours sincerely

Noel Shanahan

Chief executive

[sornappeal]

My response, which will likely go no where.

 

Dear Mr Shanahan,

It comes as no surprise to hear that you have failed to forward my complaint to the ICA. I doubt very much that it had anything to do with the merit of my “complaint” but more to do with the fact that it would not be in your department’s best interests to forward any complaints for independent review.

I do however want the following addressed as a matter of urgency.

Please address the wording issue on my copy of the v5c which reads as follows.

“Dvla will issue an acknowledgement letter after 4 weeks to confirm you are no longer the registered keeper. If the acknowledgement is not received then please contact DVLA on 0870 240 0010″

That clearly says that you will not contact me before 4 weeks and that you will do so at some unspecified time after 4 weeks. You did not give a clear time limit to when I should have contacted DVLA to report that you had lost my notification that I had sent. Without a time limit I cannot be found guilty of failing to notifying DVLA that it had not processed my notification correctly, within a time limit that is not clearly stated.

I note that you claim that my complaint has been handled with absolute impartiality and objectivity. I dispute this as an absolute impossibility since it has been handled internally by DVLA. It is simply not possible for any complaint against a department to be handled impartially by the department concerned. To say such a thing is plainly ridiculous.

Also you have failed to address the matter of the procedural disadvantages that I have suffered since being accused by your department of failing to comply with SORN legislation. Chief of these is that the appeals process should be explained in full when you issued the penalty notice. The fact that when specifically asked for information on how to appeal I was sent a document that did not explain how to appeal.

There is also the point that I raised previously of only being given 4 working days to formulate an appeal. These are clearly in breach of the human rights act which states that such procedural disadvantages are illegal.

I believe that the reason such procedural disadvantages exist is simply to maximise revenue collection at the expense of fairness and justice.

It is nice that you noted in your letter the lack of an independent appeals process, but you completely ignored the fact that if you wish to issue fines you are obligated by law to provide this facility. You have also failed to provide any reason as to why you fail to do so.

Lastly being taken to court by yourselves to pursue payment for the fine is not the same as providing an appeals process. The court action would be to enforce a debt not to give me a chance to defend myself, to imply otherwise is quite misleading.

So far I still have not had an adequate explanation as to why DVLA lost my notification in the first place. I have evidence to support the fact that your department does lose notifications, and it would certainly be libellous to blame the post office unless you can prove your department never fails to process notifications correctly. As far as the law is concerned, once I have passed my notification to the post office I have discharged my obligations under law, including the SORN legislation. There is nothing within the SORN legislation to state that you have to issue notifications to the public to inform them that the change of owner has been completed, nor is there anything in the legislation to say that I have to double check to see that it has been processed correctly.

I am disappointed that you have failed to address the points that I raised and that you seem content to brush my concerns aside without adequate explanation. I was particularly concerned with the statement you made at the end of your letter which says simply that the agencies position will not change on this matter. This underlines the fact that your department is not interested in justice or the correct application of the law and so should not be tasked with carrying it out.

In conclusion I strongly believe that I have not been dealt with in an impartial or fair manner. The whole system is more about raising revenue from law abiding members of the public rather than stopping unlicensed vehicles from being used on the roads which is not what the legislation was put in place for.

Yours sincerely

[fwog]

Im on the edge of my seat....what happened next?

 

:D:D:D

 

Fwog

[sornappeal]

I have just had a reply.

 

Very interesting.

 

Chiefly that dvla issue penalties not fines so they don't have to have an appeals process. Also they have finally admitted that I have been charged with not notifying them, no not ringing them after 28 days! This despite their continual insistence to the contrary.

 

The penalty is a "supplement" whatever the hell that means.

 

They have also once again stated that the matter is closed and given me till the 25th to pay up the £40.

 

So far this "penalty" collection has cost the country around £600+ and taken 5 months. Not bad going really.

 

I will post the full reply when I get my scanner working.

 

I will have one more stab at it, basically going along the lines of "I did post it, by law its considered delivered, you have a history of incorrectly processing notifications, and I am appalled by the bull **** that you guys continually spout."

[sornappeal]

My reply so far,

 

Dear Mr Shanahan,

 

Thank you clarifying DVLA’s position. Unfortunately you have ignored once again the legislation in place. The fact that I gave the Post Office the notification of sale to be delivered to DVLA fully discharges my obligations under all relevant legislation. DVLA has record of failing to process notifications of sale correctly. A good friend of mine was recently victim to the bungling of your department and issued a penalty notice. This despite the fact that your office correctly processed the remaining 3 notifications of sale contained in the envelope that your office denied ever receiving. I have the paper work from this particular case in support of my case that your department fails to process notifications correctly.

 

From all of your correspondence, it would appear that you have failed to do a proper investigation and have simply relied on computer evidence to come to the conclusion of guilt. I would expect for you to have at the very least gone through the physical notifications following the sale of the vehicle to check that mine had not been overlooked. I would like confirmation as to the exact extent of your investigation concerning the loss of my paper work. This again will be required for my defence in court.

 

I must also make the point that there is no doubt that your database contains errors; it is not infallible, if even only for the fact that human operators are responsible for entering data into it.

 

This leads me on to my defence (now that you have finally clarified the offence), on the balance of probability it is far more likely that your department is at fault that I am. The reasons for this are the fact that I had absolutely nothing to gain by not informing DVLA of the sale of my motor cycle. It was sold to a registered dealer. Due to the fact that the SORN declaration was due to end shortly after the sale I had a very strong motivation to inform DVLA that the Vehicle had been sold.

 

The Law also supports me that once I have given the post office the notification it is considered delivered. The fact that your department has a history of failing to process notifications correctly supports my case. You have also failed to support your accusations with the results of a proper investigation.

 

There is also the fact that I feel so strongly about the unfair and completely unjust way that I have been treated that I have fought this fine over the past 5 months due entirely to the fact that I am completely innocent of the charges levied against me.

 

As it stands, purely on the balance of probability you must find me not guilty and quash the penalty with immediate effect.

 

With regards to the other points in your letter I find I must take issue with a couple of them that you made.

 

Firstly the claim by yourself that the LLP is not a fine when in fact that the word fine is littered throughout you website in relation to SORN and its penalties, The penalty is also being described as a fine in various publicity campaigns, this leads me to belie that DVLA has a great deal of confusion about what it is in fact doing. It must be nice to be able to accuse people of wrong doing, ignore their appeals and demand money with threats without ever having to be accountable.

 

Secondly I find it very strange indeed that you believe that as a public official you somehow are in a position to unquestionably treat members of the public in a fair and even handed manner. The police are also public officials who are sworn to uphold the law and treat everyone fairly and in a just and even handed manner. Yet it seems this is not actually good enough and we have to go to all the inconvenience of having Magistrates, Judges and Juries to insure Justice is served. I would very much like to see you explain to a Judge that he is not actually needed and that communal garden civil servants are more than up to the job of seeing that justice prevails.

 

In conclusion, if you are not going to quash the fine with immediate effect then I will require a response to this letter, as your response will have a direct bearing on any defence I provide in court. Also as part of my defence I require you to provide me with the results and dates of your last Audit concerning the processing of notifications, including the number of complaints received with regards to your department failing to process notifications correctly. This information should be readily available, since you are so adamant of the infallibility of your department.

 

I would also point out that this matter is officially in dispute. If you hand this matter over to a debt collection agency it will constitute harassment. If you pass any of my details to a third party including anyone acting on your behalf I will hand the matter over to the Information Commissioner's Office for prosecution under the relevant data protection laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Opinions?

[sornappeal]

The next letter will be informing him that all correspondence is in the public domain and has been published on the internet.

[fwog]

Good stuff!

 

I wish more word smiths would convert simple points into legal speak for bureaucratic edification:D

 

I look forward to the reply you receive. Im currently being criminalised for loss of paperwork. I've even re-iterated the cars status (SORN) in a registered letter which has been ignored.

The DVLA needs a grass roots overhaul. Its faceless bureaucracy at its finest.:mad:

 

Fwog

[sornappeal]

Ok I am just posting a little update that might help.

 

I have just had a letter saying that DVLA will be taking me to court soon, the interesting point though is that DVLA do not collect stats on how many people complain that DVLA has lost their notifications.

 

Also, and belive me this is a biggie, DVLA DO NOT CONDUCT INTERNAL AUDITS OF THEIR NOTIFICATION PROCESSING procedures.

 

So basically DVLA are taking me to court based on a database, that is not audited for accuracy, with no idea if their procedures are followed correctly and for which they have no clue as to how accurate it might be!

 

Court should be fun, as long as the judge is fair and impartial.

 

Also since DVLA consider court as part of the appeals process I will ask the judge to consider only awarding DVLA a maximum of the £40 initial fee. No court costs or other wise, simply because DVLA treats the court system as part of its appeals process

[fwog]

Great stuff Sornappeal!

 

It must be a system in disarray judging by the posts on here and my own experience. Let hope this will make a fundamental change to the DVLA procedures once and for all.

 

Good on you.

 

Fwog

[sorndisease]

Hi new to site, cant believe info available Quick question Has anybody been able to defend in court against the "you might have sent the SORN but we never received it (code lost it) and now we are going to do you for it" accusation.

 

Do the courts accept that when you say you have sent it you liabilities have been properly discharged under the Vehicle Exercise and Registration Act/ CR Act.

 

Most interested in sornappeals view as this guy really seems to have a grip of these unrepentant moneygrabbers. Up to the court stage myself now. Day off work £80 plus £80 fine plus court costs £50 . I do not really want to gamble £210 versus £40 but I just cant bring myself to pay £40 for someone elses incompitence!!

 

What are my chances of sucess???

 

Thanks to anyone who replys

[crem]

Hi new to site, cant believe info available Quick question Has anybody been able to defend in court against the "you might have sent the SORN but we never received it (code lost it) and now we are going to do you for it" accusation.

 

Do the courts accept that when you say you have sent it you liabilities have been properly discharged under the Vehicle Exercise and Registration Act/ CR Act.

 

Most interested in sornappeals view as this guy really seems to have a grip of these unrepentant moneygrabbers. Up to the court stage myself now. Day off work £80 plus £80 fine plus court costs £50 . I do not really want to gamble £210 versus £40 but I just cant bring myself to pay £40 for someone elses incompitence!!

 

What are my chances of sucess???

 

Thanks to anyone who replys

 

I'm not aware that anyone has actually got to court with the DVLA when they have steadfastly maintained that the SORN notification had been sent on time and therefore the fine is invalid.

 

The postal act states that if something is correctly addressed and pre-paid correctly (stamped) then it is deemed to have been delivered 2 days later (5 days for second class).

 

DVLA have never been brave enought to challenge this act to my knowledge so you could be a first!

 

As it is a legal court, if you once again swear the SORN was sent correctly I don't see how they can maintain you are guilty. Remember if you lie in court you could be fined 5,000 and/or be jailed!

[sorndisease]

RAPID REPLY CREM THANK YOU

 

I would be grateful for more detail if you are able to elaberate. At the moment I am in receit of a letter from Mr Shanahan himself explaining that despite my assersions that the SORN was posted I am still in breach of CR laws. Consequently the penalty stands and if I dont pay County Court Action is imenent! What does this mean ?

 

What is likely to happen next, procedure wise? Will they not take me to court even though they say they will? Is it really as simple as turning up at court repeating what I have already stated in many letters to them previously. Will a judge with a bit of comman sense finally rid me of these persistant hasslers !! What do you mean "swear again" ? I have never sworn it before, just maintained that the s*****g form was sent when i sent it ie on time!!

 

Thanks for your help

[sorndisease]

I have mentioned the postal act and the Interpertation Act 1978 however they claim this is irrelavent and i should just pay them anyway!!

[crem]

I have mentioned the postal act and the Interpertation Act 1978 however they claim this is irrelavent and i should just pay them anyway!!

 

And you believe them??!! Did they state that in writing? great if they did for when you present it to a court that they think a law is irrelevant. haha

 

The interpretation Act is upheld in law. Their assertions that if they don't acknowledge your SORN then you didn't submit it has no basis in law!

 

Maintain your position. As I said, as far as I know from these forums, DVLA have never gone to court and challenged the Interpretation Act, they always buckle before the court date.

[Spunkymonkey]

I'm afraid that, despite my best efforts, I still can't give a definite on this. Up until about January I was trying very hard to make them take me to court (see this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/171156-dvla-intercredit-again.html#post1887351 )

 

Briefly, they agreed to start legal action in Nov or Dec last year, then passed it to a debt collector without taking me to court (that's probably what they'll do with you btw - it's their standard procedure on "cost effectiveness" grounds).

 

Got that knocked on the head very quickly (see the thread for a suggested way to do that) and they again said they'd be going to court in January. I waited hopefully for a date, nothing came. I waited some more, still nothing. I almost forgot about it, then got an automatic email because of your post on here that reminded me.

 

It's now 5 months since they cancelled the debt collector and told me they were going to prosecute. I don't think they're willing to test it - although they also won't actually say they're dropping it cos that would show that "I posted it" is a valid line to take.

 

As long as they don't admit that, they can keep scaring people into paying by threatening court, then either not following through or backing out at the last minute. Just my personal opinion, of course

[patdavies]

I

It's now 5 months since they cancelled the debt collector and told me they were going to prosecute. I don't think they're willing to test it - although they also won't actually say they're dropping it cos that would show that "I posted it" is a valid line to take.

 

As long as they don't admit that, they can keep scaring people into paying by threatening court, then either not following through or backing out at the last minute. Just my personal opinion, of course

 

As this is a summary offence dealt with at Magistrates' Court, information must be laid before the Court for the issue of a summons within 6 months.

 

So I doubt that they will take the matter to Court

 

Of course, the other (unspoken) issue for DVLA is if they take you to Court and you lose, any fine goes to the Treasury and not DVLA

[sorndisease]

And you believe them??!! Did they state that in writing? great if they did for when you present it to a court that they think a law is irrelevant. haha

 

The interpretation Act is upheld in law. Their assertions that if they don't acknowledge your SORN then you didn't submit it has no basis in law!

 

Maintain your position. As I said, as far as I know from these forums, DVLA have never gone to court and challenged the Interpretation Act, they always buckle before the court date.

 

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 days or 5 days depending on postage class used) from the moment the form leaves your fingertips and enters the postal systom. What happens at the other end is immerterial to the protection the Act. accords you Am i right??

 

I will be maintaining my position, its not the money its the frustation that the DVLA can behave in this way. Trying to "penalty" me and threatning to take me to court for possibly another 3rd partys fault or their own. ITS OUTRAGOUS !!!!!

 

thanx again for reply

[sorndisease]

I'm afraid that, despite my best efforts, I still can't give a definite on this. Up until about January I was trying very hard to make them take me to court (see this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/171156-dvla-intercredit-again.html#post1887351 )

 

Briefly, they agreed to start legal action in Nov or Dec last year, then passed it to a debt collector without taking me to court (that's probably what they'll do with you btw - it's their standard procedure on "cost effectiveness" grounds).

 

Got that knocked on the head very quickly (see the thread for a suggested way to do that) and they again said they'd be going to court in January. I waited hopefully for a date, nothing came. I waited some more, still nothing. I almost forgot about it, then got an automatic email because of your post on here that reminded me.

 

It's now 5 months since they cancelled the debt collector and told me they were going to prosecute. I don't think they're willing to test it - although they also won't actually say they're dropping it cos that would show that "I posted it" is a valid line to take.

 

As long as they don't admit that, they can keep scaring people into paying by threatening court, then either not following through or backing out at the last minute. Just my personal opinion, of course

 

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!!

[sorndisease]

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

[sorndisease]

As this is a summary offence dealt with at Magistrates' Court, information must be laid before the Court for the issue of a summons within 6 months.

 

So I doubt that they will take the matter to Court

 

Of course, the other (unspoken) issue for DVLA is if they take you to Court and you lose, any fine goes to the Treasury and not DVLA

 

Even less of a reason for them to do it then. NO VALUE FOR THEM

[patdavies]

I would be grateful for more detail if you are able to elaberate. At the moment I am in receit of a letter from Mr Shanahan himself explaining that despite my assersions that the SORN was posted I am still in breach of CR laws. Consequently the penalty stands and if I dont pay County Court Action is imenent! What does this mean ?

 

 

If he is actually quoting County Court then he is a complete moron.

 

Any County Court action for the 'debt' (penalty) will immediately fail as the alleged debt arises from an as yet unproven criminal offence.

 

He should be threatening Magistrates' Court, but they won't go there as they will lose.

[sorndisease]

If he is actually quoting County Court then he is a complete moron.

 

Any County Court action for the 'debt' (penalty) will immediately fail as the alleged debt arises from an as yet unproven criminal offence.

 

He should be threatening Magistrates' Court, but they won't go there as they will lose.

 

Thanks put my mind at rest

[Lifesontheup]

If he is actually quoting County Court then he is a complete moron.

 

Any County Court action for the 'debt' (penalty) will immediately fail as the alleged debt arises from an as yet unproven criminal offence.

 

He should be threatening Magistrates' Court, but they won't go there as they will lose.

 

I thought CR was a penalty/debt and as such is a civil offence which can only be dealt with by the County Court.

 

Magistrates Courts deal with criminal offences

[lola407vga]

I live in Scotland - a quick read of posts mention England, Wales & NI - anyone have info/experiences of Scottish legal system regarding this problem - have now recieved final letter from Debt Collectors.

[mrwhite]

I live in Scotland - a quick read of posts mention England, Wales & NI - anyone have info/experiences of Scottish legal system regarding this problem - have now recieved final letter from Debt Collectors.

As far as I'm aware the legal system is the same regardless of where you are in the U.K

 

I got the same Late License Penalty as everyone else here,

i just don't know whether it is worth trying to fight my case or to pay the £80 fine and get it out of the way.

 

Can anyone help?