DVLA wrongly fining me out of court settlement

[buzby]

With a partial VIN showing, it will fall on your defence strategy or solicitor to throw doubt on the evidence provided. This is not something to be undertaken lightly or without professional assistance. There are times when you must arrange professional representation. This is one of them.

[Spunkymonkey]

Agreed, Buzby, if he decides to defend. The problem he seems to have at the moment is whether it's worth even considering that. I've highlighted a few reasons that it might be, from the info he's given, which (to me at least) would make it worthwhile contacting a solicitor.

 

Defending yourself in a situation like this might make sense IF the outcome wasn't going to have major repercussions AND you already had an interest and some knowledge of what would be involved. Trying to do so from a standing start, and where the outcome could seriously screw you life up, would be foolish. So, if he does defend, he needs representation. But deciding whether or not to try and defend in the first place seems to be where he's at right now. Unfortunately the DVLA don't exactly give a reasonable timescale for that sort of initial decision!

 

If I was a cynic I'd suspect that was a deliberate ploy by them but surely no Govt department would stoop so low?

[babybear39]

Agreed, Buzby, if he decides to defend. The problem he seems to have at the moment is whether it's worth even considering that. I've highlighted a few reasons that it might be, from the info he's given, which (to me at least) would make it worthwhile contacting a solicitor.

 

Defending yourself in a situation like this might make sense IF the outcome wasn't going to have major repercussions AND you already had an interest and some knowledge of what would be involved. Trying to do so from a standing start, and where the outcome could seriously screw you life up, would be foolish. So, if he does defend, he needs representation. But deciding whether or not to try and defend in the first place seems to be where he's at right now. Unfortunately the DVLA don't exactly give a reasonable timescale for that sort of initial decision!

 

If I was a cynic I'd suspect that was a deliberate ploy by them but surely no Govt department would stoop so low?

 

Wouldn't they???

[Tony P]

but surely no Govt department would stoop so low?

as babybear says....

 

And the DVLA are probably fully aware of the OP's prediament personal dilemma and concerns as it looks like the OP has used their reference number for him in his name "victim number*****". I would bet someone within the DVLA is following this thread with glee at the prospect of grabbing his money without legal justifiation and another 'win' statistic to show how good they are for when the next review comes around.

 

PS. 'Moral turpitude' is an expression I have only ever seen on US Immigration forms. It was eplained to me once by a US Immigration Offiial as "a now out of date reference to homosexual acts"!

I doubt that US would consider the present topic to be within that definition!

[buzby]

Just how clairvoyant do you think DVLA are? Personal experience and postings from CAGgers appears to show that for the post part they lurch from one disaster to another, often leaving it ote locum solicitor on the day to proceed, deal or waive. It is comforting (to some) to think they have a game plan and are put to get you, but that does require intelligence and forward planning, and there hasn't been much evidence of any of this in the past!

 

Whether any action involves the DVLA, TVLRO or a PPC, the point remains, all will be emplying solicitors to make their case. Therefore the defender to is expecting to resolve the issue simply becasue 'he's innocent and the courts will find him so', is on a hiding to nothing. You only get once chance to defend, otherwise the outcome is pretty much assured unless you have the wherewithall to see the lie of the land and the administrative tricks and proceedural issues that will derail an otherwise straightforward issue.

 

No judge will let the case proceed if the defender complains he had no opportunity to prepare an effective defence, and will re schedule. However, by not having effective representation, and the defender is lost - the opportunity to rectify any error is gone for good. If your reputation is on the line, you don't count the pennies first as to do so tips the balance towards the prosecutor. Insurance for such issues is available, and these days, is on a par with household, vehicle and other policies.

[Spunkymonkey]

No judge will let the case proceed if the defender complains he had no opportunity to prepare an effective defence, and will re schedule. However, by not having effective representation, and the defender is lost - the opportunity to rectify any error is gone for good. If your reputation is on the line, you don't count the pennies first as to do so tips the balance towards the prosecutor. Insurance for such issues is available, and these days, is on a par with household, vehicle and other policies.

 

All very true, Buzby. Only, by the time a judge re-schedules, the OP is already committed to defending a court case and any risks that might carry because to get to that stage he has to reject the out-of-court offer they've made. To make that decision it can help him if he has some idea whether or not a defence might be successful and what sort of evidence might help if he decides to go to court.

 

Regardless of whether they work by intent or incompetence (personally I favour the latter) they do seem to have policies in place that don't give much time to consider that initial question. It would be nice to think that everyone who is wrongly accused by people like DVLA could go to court, win, and gradually build up enough cases to force the Agency to sort itself out. Unfortunately, in many cases, there are very real reasons why that might be a bad decision for the individual concerned. That appears to be the question the OP is trying to clarify at this point.

[buzby]

It's not really an issue. If you committed the crime, then you plead guilty and move on. If you didn't then you don't. The issue of working out the pragmatics of the end game and cost effectiveness is brinkmanship and folly. Of course, it might work out with no sneaky gotchas - but there's no guarantee. A solicitor will defend you on the basis you did not commit the crime as charged. Simply playing it as a game of least consequences would lead a dispassionate observer to believe a complainant was indeed guilty because of the lack of indignation and fight for justice.

[Spunkymonkey]

A cynical observer might, but a pragmatic one should also see that there may be factors beyond guilt or innocence to affect your decision in an imperfect system where the innocent are sometimes convicted and the guilty sometimes walk free.

[Tony P]

I'm not sure if Busby's post at 21.07 was directed towards me or the OP.

 

If me fair enough - but lets not spent time cluttering the thread with that.

 

I am mindful of the 3rd Sticky on the Parking/Traffic Offenes forums.

But maybe the Departent is not watching but a warped minded individual could well be!

 

Not for personal reasons but I hope his post was directed at the OP who in turn takes note ... and ACTS!

[babybear39]

It's not really an issue. If you committed the crime, then you plead guilty and move on. If you didn't then you don't. The issue of working out the pragmatics of the end game and cost effectiveness is brinkmanship and folly. Of course, it might work out with no sneaky gotchas - but there's no guarantee. A solicitor will defend you on the basis you did not commit the crime as charged. Simply playing it as a game of least consequences would lead a dispassionate observer to believe a complainant was indeed guilty because of the lack of indignation and fight for justice.

 

I commited no crime (being in a coma and not being able to move the vehicle was a little bit difficult) and the DVLA acepted that. What's happened beyond that is a complete farce, gross mis use of tax payer's money and an anal viewpoint that 'the DVLA can do no wrong'...

[DVLA Victim9541556125484]

I've written down some numbers of some motoring law solicitors - I'll do some calling around on Monday and hear what they have to say. Then Tuesday is really the crunch time - pay it or risk ruining my life. I am a gambler but I don't want to risk ruining my life over this. Crime of Moral Turpitude is a very much current way of describing any crime that discredits being able to be considered as having Good Moral Character in the US, and you'd be surprised nearly every crime short of a speeding ticket falls under that umbrella, to the best of my understanding this offence will be seen as that. Even immigration attorneys have trouble classifying CMTs but it hasn't been to do with homosexuality in over 100 years.

 

My questions right now, that I understand nobody can answer definitively, but I'd like to hear what you think to the best of your ability:

 

1) It's been stated that just holding up two sets of photos saying one isn't mine and the other is, is not simply going to be enough to have the case thrown out. What compelling case, based on what we know so far, would be enough? Do we think that DVLA would win based on so far?

 

2) If I do pay it and that's my 'admission', what more can I expect if any? If they have the intention to prosecute me anyway for another offence then this is just games. Can I certainly expect a fine for using a vehicle while SORN in place and unpaid VE back to when it was SORN declared?

 

Thanks

[Spunkymonkey]

Ok, I've had a quicl look at the photos and the only things that really jumps out are that

 

(1) the quality is appalling as supposed evidence

 

(2) There is no time or date stamp

 

(3) Given the above, the photo showing a clamp appears to have been taken at a different time to the others - note the strong "back" sloping shadow from the car in front when, in the first shoto, the shadows are (if anything) sloping forwards.

 

Don't think it would be possible to tell for sure with such poor quality photos (presumably they have better versions for themselves???) but I would have thought there's enough there to raise reasonable doubt if used properly. Note that, as Buzby says, "properly" using details like that will need a solicitor. My personal opinion, though, is that there's certainly enough grounds for doubt in those phgotos (along with all the other poor procedure by them) to consult one and pay the cost of an initial consultation if needed.

 

If it turns out to be fraudulent by them you can always sue to get your money back

 

 

edited to add: Is it ok with you if I post the photos in question (with the numbers blanked) so others here can comment?

[DVLA Victim9541556125484]

I made a SORN declaration extra early this year for obvious reasons. I noticed on the acknowledgement letter it said that if the car is used or kept on the public road while SORN in place then I could be fined up to £5000 or even sent to prison.

 

Does anybody know what the normal thing for people to receive who have been found to breach SORN?

[middenmess]

fo

I made a SORN declaration extra early this year for obvious reasons. I noticed on the acknowledgement letter it said that if the car is used or kept on the public road while SORN in place then I could be fined up to £5000 or even sent to prison.

 

Does anybody know what the normal thing for people to receive who have been found to breach SORN?

 

Cost me a £25 fine for parking in my driveway whilst waiting for the garage to collect, repair and MOT my car.

[crem]

fo

 

Cost me a £25 fine for parking in my driveway whilst waiting for the garage to collect, repair and MOT my car.

 

why would you get fined for parking in your driveway?

[middenmess]

why would you get fined for parking in your driveway?

 

Road tax had run out so parked in drive but didn't have a SORN!

 

Statutory Off Road Notification

[DVLA Victim9541556125484]

^^^That's for failing to declare SORN. I asked about using or keeping a car on the public road while SORN - is there a single case where somebody has been sent to prison for this? What's the usual penalty?

[buzby]

Prison? Heck, very few get that sanction when it is actually warranted! I was only aware of a custodial sentence (in one instance) as part of a slew of other transgressions, so it certainly wasn't prompted by the possibility of the 'maximum' penalty available to the judge. From memory, his 'basket' of cases resulted in 6 months custodial (3 months served).

[DVLA Victim9541556125484]

So what do most people see?