DVLA asking for £80 Sorn fine-Please help?

[bankhater10]

Hi, 2 weeks ago i recieved a letter from those lovely people at the Dvla informing me that i owe them £80 because, apparently, they hadn't recieved my Sorn form for a car i had scrapped a few months earlier. I repled telling them that i had infact sent them the Sorn form, today i recieved another letter maintaining that i owed them £80 and that 'It is a matter for you to pursue the letter' when i simply sent them the letter through the post and not recorded delivery-who does? They go on to say that if i can provide an acknowldgement letter that was issued prior to the Late Licensing penalty then no further action will be taken', what can i do???

[bankhater10]

Hi, 2 weeks ago i recieved a letter from those lovely people at the Dvla informing me that i owe them £80 because, apparently, they hadn't recieved my Sorn form for a car i had scrapped a few months earlier. I repled telling them that i had infact sent them the Sorn form, today i recieved another letter maintaining that i owed them £80 and that 'It is a matter for you to pursue the letter' when i simply sent them the letter through the post and not recorded delivery-who does? They go on to say that if i can provide an acknowldgement letter that was issued prior to the Late Licensing penalty then no further action will be taken', what can i do???

[crem]

I wish we all had the luxury of being able to fine people when we can claim we didn''t receive the mail they sent us.

 

I know the Royal Mail do loose a number of letters (OK but they do handle a great quantity so it is a minicule number) but it just amazes me that from this tiny number, most of them seem to be addressed to the DVLA!! I wonder why!

[Guest BURP]

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

DVLA has not been able to prove to the contrary so their threats of action and fines without that proof is vexatious. Unless anyone knows better, there is nothing in DVLA legislation that has repeealed the Interpretation Act.

[patdavies]

However, you are not serving a document under an Act (the requirement to send in the V5 is by regulation from the SoS and not from the Act - the Act only requires the SoS to keep a record and is silent on how this is to be done), so use of the Interpretation Act does not fly.

 

You do, however, stand a better chance with the Postal Acts that make it clear that a letter belongs to the recipient at the point it is posted.

 

The argument being that as long as you can prove you posted it, then failure to deliver is matter between the recipient and the recipient's postal agent (Royal Mail),

 

The truth, of course, is that all these items are not lost in the post - they are simply not acknowledged by the DVLA (and so doing makes them money)

[Guest BURP]

Thanks Pat, I was hoping you would shed light on DVLA and the Interpretation Act. If the DVLA simply says they didn't receive a letter, can a sender contend he has properly effected his obligation by properly addressing, paying and handing a document to a postmaster for delivery by ordinary course of post by asking for a certificate of posting?

 

If it's truth the DVLA is claiming not to receive a document when a prescribed regulation requires a motorist to fulfil an obligation involving the sending of a document to DVLA, then could the motorist claim this is a fraud in the meaning of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 because DVLA is making a false representation to make a gain?

[patdavies]

Thanks Pat, I was hoping you would shed light on DVLA and the Interpretation Act. If the DVLA simply says they didn't receive a letter, can a sender contend he has properly effected his obligation by properly addressing, paying and handing a document to a postmaster for delivery by ordinary course of post by asking for a certificate of posting?

 

IMO. yes. Of course, proof of posting always helps! It should be noted that the requirement placed on the individual to follow up if no reply is received within 4 weeks is

 

1) not based in statute or regulation - but simply a DVLA procedure;

2) so badly written as to be meaningless;

3) IMO, automatically unfair as the instruction and requisite telephone number are on the document to be surrendered.

 

If it's truth the DVLA is claiming not to receive a document when a prescribed regulation requires a motorist to fulfil an obligation involving the sending of a document to DVLA, then could the motorist claim this is a fraud in the meaning of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 because DVLA is making a false representation to make a gain?

An interesting line of thought, but would probably fall at the first hurdle of getting the Police involved (as it is a criminal matter).

[bankhater10]

Thankyou all for your advice...but what shall i do? What can i say to them? Has anyone got an idea how to phrase my letter? Im crap with them...

[bankhater10]

Thankyou all for your advice...but what shall i do? What can i say to them? Has anyone got an idea how to phrase my letter? Im crap with them...

[Guest BURP]

No guarantees - you are probably in uncharted water. Send a copy to your MP & let us know what happens.

 

Name of DVLA office

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Fine for non declarartion of SORN registration [ABC 123]

 

I write as the owner of the aforementioned vehicle which you have sent me a letter telling me to pay am £80 fine for failure to declare SORN and you have responded to my original letter saying It is a matter for you to pursue the letter.

 

In seeking further advice Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 legislates I have fulfilled my legal obligation by sending the DVLA the SORN declaration by ordinary course of post. It has not been repealed by any DVLA legislation and you have not shown proof to the contrary the letter was incorrectly addressed or insufficient postage paid. This means there is no entitlement for the DVLA to demand money for its failure to receive a document that delivered by ordinary course of post.

 

I now respectfully ask that you stop sending demands for money in this way. If you have an appeals procedure then please initiate it now. If I receive a further demand of money in this matter from you whether intended or as an automation letter I will automatically ask that you pay me compensation of £4999 for attempting to rebuke an Act of Parliament namely Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 with having lawful provision to do so.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

YOUR NAME

Cc [NAME OF] Member of Parliament

[Josie8]

IMO. yes. Of course, proof of posting always helps! It should be noted that the requirement placed on the individual to follow up if no reply is received within 4 weeks is

 

1) not based in statute or regulation - but simply a DVLA procedure;

2) so badly written as to be meaningless;

3) IMO, automatically unfair as the instruction and requisite telephone number are on the document to be surrendered.

 

An interesting line of thought, but would probably fall at the first hurdle of getting the Police involved (as it is a criminal matter).

 

 

There is no requirement for you to notify DVLA if no reply received within 4 weeks if the vehicle is scrapped - only that you notify them. If you read the relevant section carefully you will see that. I had a similar problem with DVLA and I responded accordingly inviting them to show me where it stipulated that requirement if vehicle scrapped and they closed the file.

[sickpup]

Ask for a copy of the ORIGINAL penalty notice. I can be pretty certain it wasn't compliant with the law.

 

Oh and read this

[craigten]

Hi Sickpup and a MASSIVE thankyou to you!!!

Ok, i shall write and ask them for the original penalty notice, is there anything else i should mention in the letter? ie-the reason i am asking for this? My main concern is that my case is different to yours- i sent my sorn back and they didn't recieve it whereas with you it seems that they did recieve it but recieved it too late?

[sickpup]

Ok my attack on SORN is all about how they serve the initial penalty and nothing else.

 

Tell them you have never received the initial copy of the LLP and would like one, I did this by phone.

 

Chances are it is non-compliant, they all seem to be then you can point it out to them and tie them up for a few months while this mess is sorted.

 

They don't comply with the following...

 

Section 9a of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations states the following…

 

(3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40.

[craigten]

Thankyou again, was that this number?- 0870 241 9034

[MARTIN3030]

Agree.It will usually end up with enforcement section.

They have discretion to reduce the 80 quid to 40-but will require this in 28 days.

[rambo]

I had a similar situation, I ignored them in the end and heard no more.

[bankhater10]

Hi again, my 'copy of the LLP' has now arrived (sickpup told me to ask for this), What is my next course of action please?

[sickpup]

Whats the date on the copy LLP?

Whats the date to pay the reduced amount by?

[bankhater10]

Hi, the date on the letter is 21/08/2008 and says 'Pay a penalty of £80.00 by 16/10/08 reduced to £40.00 if paid by 18/09/2008', does this help?

[bankhater10]

Hi, the date on the letter is 21/08/2008 and says 'Pay a penalty of £80.00 by 16/10/08 reduced to £40.00 if paid by 18/09/2008', does this help?

[sickpup]

So the date to pay the reduced amount on the letter is 28 days from the date of the letter not the date you received it/ were notified?

 

Law states...

 

Section 9a of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations states the following…

 

(3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40.

 

So I would write to the DCA pointing this out, that DVLA have failed to comply with the law when requsting the penalty and that as such the DCA have no legal standing in requesting the full penalty or indeed requesting any penalty and should refer this back to the DVLA. In particular it should be refered back to David Hancock, head of enforcement to explain why DVLA have interpreted the law that states '28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified' to mean 28 days from the date we print the letter, not even post it let alone you receive it.

 

Keep in mind that although I am right DVLA will most likely ignore the letter and tell you to pay up, they don't seem at all interested when they fail to comply with the law just when you do but that will give you the right to appeal all the way up the line and then to pass it on to your MP.

Edited December 17, 2008 by sickpup

[bankhater10]

Hi again, im so sorry for this but can i be stupid and ask who the 'DCA' is? Oh and how do i find out who my local MP is please?

[Spunkymonkey]

Nothing stupid about it, bankhater. DCA is an abbreviation for debt collection agency - could be one of several that the DVLA like to trun to instead of the courts.

 

My impression (backed up by comments by the Secretary of State and hopefully the result of an Freedom of Information Act request I'm waiting on) is that they know they're on a sticky wicket with these cases and wouuld rather intimidate / harrass / scare you into paying using a privae agency than actually test them in court. Of course, I may just be old and cynical

 

You can find your MP by entering your postcode at

 

WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

 

I'm in a very similar situation at the moment, having had an LLP notice in August for a car I gave away in December 2007. I've effectively invited them to take me to court for it and received a letter from them saying they're "forwarding it for prosecution" just before Christmas. I'm currently studying computing and law with the OU and some of the students with LLBs are using it as a little "recreational" case-study

 

So far, the consensus is that the Administration Act 1978 is sufficient to have it thrown out of court, even without proof of posting. I'll be keeping the forum up to date when anything develops.

 

 

Will keep the forum up-to-date with any developments

[Spunkymonkey]

However, you are not serving a document under an Act (the requirement to send in the V5 is by regulation from the SoS and not from the Act - the Act only requires the SoS to keep a record and is silent on how this is to be done), so use of the Interpretation Act does not fly.

 

 

Beg to differ, Pat. The introduction to the Interpretation Act describes it as

 

An Act to consolidate the Interpretation Act 1889 and certain other enactments relating to the construction and operation of Acts of Parliament and other instruments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

 

and Section 23 of the Act states:

 

23 Application to other instruments

 

(1)The provisions of this Act, except sections 1 to 3 and 4(b), apply, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, to subordinate legislation made after the commencement of this Act and, to the extent specified in Part II of Schedule 2, to subordinate legislation made before the commencement of this Act, as they apply to Acts.

 

 

(2)In the application of this Act to Acts passed or subordinate legislation made after the commencement of this Act, all references to an enactment include an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation whenever made, and references to the passing or repeal of an enactment are to be construed accordingly.

 

 

(3)Sections 9 and 19(1) also apply to deeds and other instruments and documents as they apply to Acts and subordinate legislation; and in the application of section 17(2)(a) to Acts passed or subordinate legislation made after the commencement of this Act, the reference to any other enactment includes any deed or other instrument or document.

 

 

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to Orders in Council made under section 5 of the M1Statutory Instruments Act 1946, section 1(3) of the M2Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 or Schedule 1 to the M3Northern Ireland Act 1974.

 

 

So it specifically applies to subordinate legislation, including regulations made by the Secretary of State, such as the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002(as amended), where the requirement for the RK to notify in writing is made. The regulations contain nothing to indicate that anything contrary to the Interpretation Act applies, so it doesn't.

 

DVLA's assertion that you need proof of posting / receipts and are obliged to chase them up (using a premium rate phoneline) when they screw up is purely an internal decision by them and has no basis in law that I can find. They even admit that there's no case law to support them, which makes the research a little easier

Edited January 4, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
edditid for speeling