DVLA wrongly fining me out of court settlement

[ibzyuk]

Hi everyone,

 

I just joined this forum , so big hello first

Now with the annoying DVLA who want me to pay an out of court settlement of £90. I have been accused of that my car was reported to be parked on a public road while being on SORN on the 23/07/2008 at 10:44hrs. Also they say the car was clamped and when the clamping team came back the clamp and the car was gone?? Finally they also have photographic evidence.

 

I don't understand none of their accusation as my car has not moved for the last few months, it is parked in a private parking area not far from the road they are allegedly saying the car was seen. The worst part of this I was away on holiday when car was seen on public road and I had the car keys with me!! When I came back from holiday the car was where I left it no clamp and no movement.

 

I have sent two letters now appealing , sending them photo where my car was parked, flight itinerary of my holiday and have requested to see the photographic evidence.

 

The last letter I have received from the DVLA was to call the office to request to view the photo. I called them and they say they are not allowed to send out the photo and I will have to drive up to Sidcup to see the photo which is over an hour away from where I live and I would have to take at lest half a day of work to do this.

 

I have thought of the possibilities of how I could get such a fine :

 

• If some one stole my car, got it clamped then removed the clamp and returned it back where it was. Which I would say is very unlikely.
  
• Or some one copied my number plate and this is not my car.
  
• Or the wheel clamping team are making a false report, how does someone remove a wheel clamp.
  

Would really appreciate some advice on what to do next , should I just wait until they ask me to go to court or is there anyone I could speak to in the DVLA apart from the payment line. Or should I write to them another letter.

 

Sorry for the long message, thanks in advance ,

 

Ibrahim

[patdavies]

I would write back and make it absolutely clear that you do not wish to settle on their terms, you are convinced of the fatuousness of their claim and look forward to vigorously defending yourself in the criminal court when they take it forward.

 

 

IOW, they have to put up or shut up.

 

When you plead not guilty, they are obliged in law to release to you all the evidence on which they intend to rely on to prosecute the offence.

[Lula]

Absolutely, tell them that you look forward to seeing them in court, obviously you will be entitled to see what evidence they have against you prior to the court date, keep all correspondence and just sit tight

[buzby]

The last time I heard of something similar to this was when they mistook a 6 for an 8. As the car was supplied by the local garage, BOTH owners had the same make and model and they were first registered on the same day. It was the motorist who hadn't removed the clamp got threatened with the fine! (It was later cancelled!).

[ibzyuk]

Thanks guys for the advice. I was wondering can I request to have the photo sent to me, using the dvla FOI request form.

[seftonview]

Thanks guys for the advice. I was wondering can I request to have the photo sent to me, using the dvla Freedom of Information Act request form.

 

A photograph of a number plate would fall outside of the remit of the FoI Act. You would need to make a subject access request.

[The tall one]

Hi All

 

I have had 4 cars parked outside my house clamped by DVLA for not being taxed and parked on the road even if it was only just. The problem as I see it is the road is my land. M

[The tall one]

Sorry dident meen to post the last one just then.

 

Any way the raoad is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine. But DVLA say I must prove to them in black and white that it belongs to me and ont the council and it is up to me to prove my self right and not them to prove me wrong. Funny I always thourght this country was inocent untill proved guilty.

[patdavies]

Sorry dident meen to post the last one just then.

 

Any way the raoad is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine. But DVLA say I must prove to them in black and white that it belongs to me and ont the council and it is up to me to prove my self right and not them to prove me wrong. Funny I always thourght this country was inocent untill proved guilty.

 

Tell them to take you to Court. The burden is then wholly on them to prove that they are right.

 

Once again, I re-iterate. Who owns the land is irrelevant. All that matters is who pays for its maintenance.

[crem]

Any way the road is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine.

 

Once again, I re-iterate. Who owns the land is irrelevant. All that matters is who pays for its maintenance.

 

It would seem The tall one is very clear on that point too pat, so it should be a fairly short court appearance.

[k67]

Firstly, hello! I am new to this forum and this is my first post!!

 

Secondly, I have read your original post with great interest as the exact same thing is happening to me! I have refused to pay the fines as my car is declared off of the road, on private land and has not worked for over a year!

 

I have got everyone from the local citizens advice to the local mp involved, all requesting that the case be dropped but am now due in court tomorrow!!

 

I would be very grateful if you could let me know how your case is going or if you have any advice on what to do and likewise please feel free to ask any questions and I will try to help you out!

 

It's probably a long shot but does this fine come from the Mitcham DVLA depot?

 

Thanks

[ibzyuk]

Firstly, hello! I am new to this forum and this is my first post!!

 

Secondly, I have read your original post with great interest as the exact same thing is happening to me! I have refused to pay the fines as my car is declared off of the road, on private land and has not worked for over a year!

 

I have got everyone from the local citizens advice to the local mp involved, all requesting that the case be dropped but am now due in court tomorrow!!

 

I would be very grateful if you could let me know how your case is going or if you have any advice on what to do and likewise please feel free to ask any questions and I will try to help you out!

 

It's probably a long shot but does this fine come from the Mitcham DVLA depot?

 

Thanks

Sorry K69 I just happened to see your post, as I now have to appear in court next week so was checking back my post.

I don't believe it YES it from Mitcham DVLA depot, the guy who statement is being used as evidence is Jamie B.

It really unbelievable I have sent a few appeal letters, spoke to the prosecutor, legal advice and nothing stopping it from being cancelled.

At the end of the day they have a photo of a Nissan micra car with my number plate with a clamp on it(photo is black and white, so can not tell colour).

The only evidence been used in the court is a statement from this Jamie from Mitcham DVLA. Any advice on what to do on my court date will be very much appreciated. How did your court case go, did you win.

[ibzyuk]

Just saw your own post about your DVLA case. It is exactly the same as mine and I am dealing with the same people. I am glad the DVLA dropped the case . I will give Natalie Bushell a call and explain that I am a victim of the Mitcham Enforcement officer. It happened near the same time as well 23 July 08 mine was.

I would like to join you in taking legal action against the Mitcham NSL. I was really thinking about paying the fine, was told I may incur more costs if I took the case to court.

[Spunkymonkey]

Ibzy,

 

Do you have any evidence of your holiday (ticket stubs / card statements showing transactions while you were away / passpport stamps and so on)? If so, they can help establish that you weren't there. If you can establish that, and state that you hadn't given anyone else permission to use the vehicle (stating that to the court should be enough - you don't have to prove it) then you have a defence in that, even if the "offence" took place then the car was stolen at the time.

 

Normally you'd be expected to provide police reports to support that but, if the thief kindly parked it back where it was, then you couldn't have known about it to report it

 

Does the photo show the car where they say it was? Or is it shown in the private parking area? If the clampers wanted to "boost" tickets then it's most likely they would have clamped and photographed it where it is, then removed the clamp again.

 

If it's not possible to tell where the car is from the photo then ask for it to be thrown out - it proves nothing unless you can see clearly that it's on the road they say.

[ibzyuk]

Thanks for the reply, I do have my passport with it stamped showing I was on holiday at the time. I am sure the car did not move as I have the only copy of the key and it was with me when I was on holiday.

You can't tell exactly where the photo was taken, but I assume it is the same place, DVLA are not using the photo as evidence just the enforcement officer statement.

I was told by a legal advisor, that being on holiday at the time is not enough to be not guilty. Said as I was the owner the vehicle I was responsible if some one moved the car.

Looks like I will have to say in court that the enforcement officer made a false report and is a liar...

[buzby]

Nooo - you cannot say that. As far as you are concerned he may well have seen a car that approximated yours with the same registration... but did he check the VIN...?

 

There are more than enough cloned cars out there - especially within the M25 area where it is common knowledge that the use of cloned plates makes live just the little bit easier.

 

At the end of the day, it will be decided on the balance of probabilities, but if you swear on oath that your viehicle was and remained ff road whilst you were on holiday, and all keys to operate it were under oyur control, your only explanation is that someone, somewhere is using false plates.

 

I would think that the DVLA guy's evidence could be chllenged easily by telling the court that as a licencing professional, he of all people would be aware that a registration number alone is not enough to prove that the vehicle he saw was the vehicle on your land. If you have a neighbour who can also corroborate your car never moved, will blow them out of the water!

[Spunkymonkey]

I was told by a legal advisor, that being on holiday at the time is not enough to be not guilty. Said as I was the owner the vehicle I was responsible if some one moved the car.

 

Not strictly true. The DVLA will claim this and quote VERA 1994 about it (Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994). Section 29 creates an offence of using, or keeping, an unlicensed vehicle, to which there was no Statutory defence (ie: the Act does not explain what might be used to show you're not guilty). Under that, being the keeper is enough whether or not someone else actually left it there.

 

However, the keeper of the vehicle at any one time is not neccesarily the registered keeper. Both terms are used in legislation at various points and they have subtly different meanings.

 

The registered keeper is simply the person who's name is on the DVLA database for that vehicle.

 

The keeper may be someone else entirely, who happens to have control of the vehicle on a temporary basis.

 

For example, if you lend your car to your brother for a week then, as far as any legislation referring to the keeper is concerned, your brother would be the keeper for the period he has control of it. Similarly, if your car is taken without your consent, the thief is the keeper (although not the registered keeper) at that time.

 

In your case, you could not possibly have been the keeper of the car if it was used while you were out of the country

[Spunkymonkey]

One other point. They're not introducing the photograph as evidence but, if you have a copy, there's no reason why you shouuldn't. If the photo they took (to act as evidence) doesn't clearly show where the car is parked and clamped then that really begs the question why doesn't it????. You may not be able to accuse them of lying (as Buzby rightly points out), but you're free to ask them about the phot and leave the judge to make his own mind up. If that was the only photo they took then it should show the location. If it's one of a few and "the others show the road" then why haven't they presented them as evidence???.

 

That's assuming anyone turns up for them, of course.....

[ibzyuk]

Thanks buzby and spunkymonkey for advice you made some good points. Regarding the photo, I do not have a copy, but I have spoken to DVLA and have asked them to compare a photo I have sent to them and the one they have. The have said the photo they have shows registration with a clamp, but can not tell where the car is located. Also can not be sure that it is my car as photo is black & white. Assume that's why they are not using it as evidence.

[Spunkymonkey]

Thanks buzby and spunkymonkey for advice you made some good points. Regarding the photo, I do not have a copy, but I have spoken to DVLA and have asked them to compare a photo I have sent to them and the one they have. The have said the photo they have shows registration with a clamp, but can not tell where the car is located. Also can not be sure that it is my car as photo is black & white. Assume that's why they are not using it as evidence.

 

 

In that case, ask them for a copy so you can judge it yourself. They don't have to give you a copy if they're not using it, but it's worth trying. If you don't get one, you can still ask them in court why they haven't submitted any photo evidence - which is their normal procedure in these cases - in your case. Something along the lines of "isn't it normal for you to enter photographic evidence of the offence in these cases?..... Why have you decided not to produce the photograph that was taken of my car?" Again, then leave the judge to make his own mind up

[patdavies]

In that case, ask them for a copy so you can judge it yourself. They don't have to give you a copy if they're not using it, but it's worth trying.

 

Oh yes they do, under disclosure rules - but you have to ask for it

[Spunkymonkey]

Oh yes they do, under disclosure rules - but you have to ask for it

 

Only if they're using as evidence - in which case, a copy should have been included with the summons. If they've decided not to take the photo near court, or refer to it in any way, then they don't have to disclose. But that really begs the question of why isn't it used?.

 

It's normal practice for the clampers to take photos as evidence of an offence because, otherwise, it's their word against yours if you just cut the clamp off and drive away.

 

Because the offence under VERA 1994 is an offence rather than a criminal matter, they have to prove it happened "beyond reasonable doubt". If the photo showed an offence, they would use it.

 

No photo = no evidence of the offence even though the (presumably professional) clamper was in a perfect position to secure that evidence if any offence was committed.

 

On the other hand, Ibzy can provide evidence that he was out of the country - which means he was in no position to commit the (supposed) offence.

 

So, an offence that can't be proved apart from the word of the clamper, and an accused with documentary proof that he was out of the country when this alleged offence took place. You be the judge and decide if there's "reasonable doubt"........

[ibzyuk]

I have asked the DVLA to send me the photo and asked why its not included in the summons as evidence. The DVLA told me the photo is not being used as evidence as its not needed, and when I asked them about car being clamped and then the clamp supposedly being stolen and car moved. They told me you not being charged with stealing a clamp, you are being charged with having a your car on a public road when you declared sorn.

The only evidence they are using is a ticket filled by the clamper, so my word against his. By the way shouldn't the clamper have left a ticket on my car?

So in court I will ask them to produce the photo of the car being on public road, which I am sure it will not show.. and I will produce my passport with stamp in it that shows I was out of the country when the offense happened.

[Spunkymonkey]

I have asked the DVLA to send me the photo and asked why its not included in the summons as evidence. The DVLA told me the photo is not being used as evidence as its not needed, and when I asked them about car being clamped and then the clamp supposedly being stolen and car moved. They told me you not being charged with stealing a clamp, you are being charged with having a your car on a public road when you declared sorn.

The only evidence they are using is a ticket filled by the clamper, so my word against his. By the way shouldn't the clamper have left a ticket on my car?

So in court I will ask them to produce the photo of the car being on public road, which I am sure it will not show.. and I will produce my passport with stamp in it that shows I was out of the country when the offense happened.

 

(my bold) That's pretty arrogant of the, when you think about it - They're effectively claiming "we say you did it, and that's all we need". Not sure a judge would agree with that!

 

Your last bit is exactly the line I'd take - maybe push the photo (or lack of it) a little more ("Why do you take photos if they're not needed?" "Why do you feel the photo evidence isn't needed in this case?" "How exactly did the photograph prove that an offence had been committed at all?").

 

And remember: you were out of the country when the ALLEGED offence took place. They can't prove any offence without the photo - it's just the clamper's word against yours. By always calling it an "alleged" offence makes it clear that you don't accept any offence actually took place. It's the closest you can get to calling them liars, and any judge will see the implications

[ibzyuk]

Great thanks spunkymonkey , really like the "alleged offence part" will use that for sure