Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

DVLA /Intercredit again


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2864 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it were me, I would encourage the DCA to continue chasing me. The more time and money they waste the better.

 

:D TBH, I haven't got a huge problem with DCAs when they're being used legitimately and following the rules themselves. My big problem is with government departments that try to use them rather than proving a case as you or I would be expected to.

 

There's a small update today on one of the Freedom of Information Act requests I put in to the DVLA (sort of a sideline to the main case, just to make them work some :p )

 

 

 

Breifly, I'd submitted the following Freedom of Information Act request:

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

1) Please explain what the official Appeal Procedure is for someone

served a late Licencing Penalty, under The Road Vehicle

(Registration and Licensing)Regulation 2002 (as amended), who

contests liability for the penalty.

 

2) If there is no official and published appeal procedure to an

independent body please explain on what basis you consider, without

any hearing by a legally constituted Court or Tribunal,

 

(a)the imposition of these penalties.

 

(b)the corresponding (and accompanying) threat of seizure of the

vehicle concerned.

 

to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998; specifically:

 

(a)the Article 6 Right to a fair trial.

 

(b)the Protocol 1 right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Spiunkymonkey

Their reply is much as expected. They have no official appeal procedure but, ultimately, the A6 right is honoured by the chance of a court hearing. We'll leave aside, for the moment, the question of the hearing being in a "reasonable time" given that they try everything possible to get you to pay without a hearing first - including going through the whole private DCA procedure.

 

They also refused to supply the grounds on which they consider representations internally:

.......Information concerning the

guidelines employed when assessing mitigating circumstances in CR

enforcement cases is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in

Section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA.

 

We recognise the public interest in providing this information in order

to demonstrate that DVLA deal with all enforcement cases with a

consistent, even-handed and fair approach. However, there are

corresponding and outweighing public interest considerations in favour

of protecting this information. We consider that disclosing information

relating to mitigating circumstance guidelines utilised in respect of

such cases would, or would be likely to, prejudice the collection of

Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) as knowledge of what may constitute mitigating

circumstances (and hence when supplement liability is unlikely to be

pursued) would be likely to lead to an increase in late, or possibly

non, payment of duty.

 

This exemption can only be relied upon where, in all circumstances of

the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the

public interest in disclosing the information. Having considered the

public interest, I have decided to withhold the information for the

reasons provided in Annex A.

Personally, I don't consider that they're right in applying an FOIA exemption to their (currently secret) internal procedures. Their usual practice appears to be to reject such appeals out of hand, then only withdraw penalties if the accused continues to "make a fuss" for long enough. In fact, the cynical part of me wonders if those are their criteria for considering representations.....

 

I've requested an internal review of the refusal on the following grounds:

 

 

please reconsider the decision to withhold your criteria for

mitigation under Section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA. The paramount

consideration in this matter is that the public can have confidence

that legislative powers are being used consistently and fairly.

 

The DVLA goes to great lengths, including the contracting of

private Debt Collection Agencies, to avoid LLP cases being heard in

court. This could be seen as a clear and deliberate attempt to

subvert the S6 HRA rights of people accused of these alleged

contraventions and to collect on debts which have not been proved.

 

As such, it is vital that the entire internal procedure leading up

to such subversion, including the criteria on which representations

are accepted is open to full scrutiny.

 

In this case, the guidelines for accepting representations are no

more a matter for Section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA than the appeals

process for other motoring penalties, such as parking offences,

which are all clearly established and available for public

scrutiny.

 

Yours sincerely etc

 

When they reject the review (as they will) it'll become a complaint to the Information Commissioner :cool:

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd paid one a few years back, letshelp, because they lost a form and I believed their statement that "I should have chased them". It was only when they did exactly the same again last year that I began to wonder about it.

 

If it can be established that they're wrong (especially if they're intentionally wrong) then I may even try and claim the old one back off them as having been claimed fraudulently ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once bitten twice shy, it'll be a cold day in hell before they ever get money out of me that easy again.

Enjoying how much discomfort you are causing these people.

best of luck

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Thought I'd risk a quick update on this one after nearly 3 months since I last wrote to them

 

 

0018 30032009

Sirs, at the time and date stated there is nothing to report

 

 

Basically, three months since promising me a court case, there's been nothing more from DVLA on my LLP. I'm really starting to believe that they don't want it tested in court against someone who's clearly going to stick their ground and not be intimidated into caving in :p

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Now five months and still nothing - really beginning to think I've scared them away :D

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another update and possibly useful info. Still nothing more about my penalty but I've finally had a reply to my FOI request about grounds for having the penalties cancelled.

 

They initially refused on the grounds that the information would impair their ability to collect taxes. I appealed to the Information Commissioner on the grounds that:

 

(a) because DVLA impose these penalties without any formal right of appeal, transparency in their operation is essential.

 

(b) The LLP is not, of itself, taxation and therefore not covered by the exception.

 

Th ICO suggested a compromise where DVLA would release those grounds for which they could require evidence, but not the ones for which no evidence is needed. Both DVLA and I agreed to this. The information arrived yesterday and I've just looked through it.

 

The list of reasons they've given - for which they can require evidence - are:

 

The vehicle is abroad

The Subject is bankrupt

The Keeper is abroad

The Keeper is a leasing / finance company who have never owned the vehicle

The Keeper is a Government Department or Crown Body (although surely they should know that before issuing the penalty???)

The Keeper is in prison

The vehicle has been scrapped

 

Note that none of the above bear any resemblance to "the Keeper had sent notice which hasn't been acted on". To my mind, that raises two possibilities. Either:

 

They do require evidence in the case of a notice that's been posted but not recorded by them and have therefore failed to release the complete information that the ICO asked them for

 

or

 

They do not require evidence of a notice that's been sent but not acted on, despite the fact that they will harrass, threaten and pursue you using private DCAs on the repeated assertion that you must provide evidence in these cases but won't start court proceedings if you stick your ground because they can't afford to lose.

 

Any thoughts?

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you Spunky, any news yet from DVLA?

 

I'm in the same situation early stages though, have no idea what to do?

Inter-Credit have sent 2 letters so far, I've had nothing from the DVLA and they will not give any information regarding the fine, they said i need to contact Inter-Credit.

 

Can anyone tell me which is the best way to go?

Pay the £80 fine and get it out of the way or try and fight my case (if i have a case against them?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I find that I am in a similar situation to others on this board through no fault of my own.

Back in October 2008 my SORN was due to run out on a BMW which I have stored. Initially I tried to reSORN the car online using the reminder document but was told that my intruction could not be processed. As a result of this I simply filled in the reminder document and sent it to the DVLA via Royal Mail. That I assumed would be the SORN sorted for another 12 months.

NOT SO!

After a couple of months I got a letter from the DVLA demanding £80 (reducted to £40 if I paid within a few days) on the grounds that I was the owner of an unlicensed vehicle. Of course I didnt pay it - Why should I have to pay for the DVLA's mistakes.

Last weekend I received a letter from Inter Credit International Ltd (ICIL) demading that I accept their 'out of court settlement' of £80 to put end to the matter. Of course I am just going to ignore the letter.

What I find rather suspect is that ICIL titled their letter to me as a 'Debt Recovery Notice'. This to me is obviously meant as a scare tactic. As others have mentioned technically no debt exists yet as the matter has not been proved. It would be interesting to find out the exact position of the law with regard to this type of notice. I do have a certain amout of legal knowledge and experience. I know for example that it is against the law to send someone (by post) an invoice for goods or services which they have not previously agreed to buy. Along the same lines there must be similar laws in place with regard to the sending of things like "Debt Notices". In this instance the firm appear to manipulate the receiver into paying by implying that a debt actually exists even before the matter has been proven - that to my mind falls very close to the sending of an invoice prior to a contract of sale?

If anyone has any further thoughts or ideas on this one then it would be most useful.

To my mind the DVLA are going to have a problem proving any case where the client states they sent in the correct documents. In the comfort of their own offices the DVLA clearly take the line that the client is guilty unless proved otherwise - this will change in a court of law and the DVLA will have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that clients did not send in the disputed documents. If they cannot prove this then the client walks free and the DVLA would be left to foot any legal costs. Surely the DVLA don't pay any member of staff enough money to risk a claim of Perjury - in order to prove guilt the DVLA would have to claim that their systems of processing were 100% full proof in nature and that errors never occured.

It almost seems to me that these letters from the DVLA and the Debt Collecting Agents should be ignored up until the moment that a court summons is issued. There are several reasons why I suggest this. Firstly, if you have reason to speak with or write to the DVLA regarding the matter then you risk providing the DVLA with information which relates to the method of defence which you will be using in the court case (if it occurs) - ask any lawyer and they'll tell you that this is never a good plan! Keep your gunpower dry by saying nothing. Remember that you have no obligation to declare anything to them apart from the status of your vehicle. Notice also how the DVLA doesnt have an official appeals process yet provides you with a sheet of paper so that you can send in a 'statement' relating to the matter - they place you at a legal disadvantge without advising you as such.

Secondly, the DVLA (or any other body) cannot use the fact that you failed to enter into dialogue with them as a reason for them bringing a case to court. For example, in court they my try to claim that they contacted you several times in an attempt to find out why you weren't paying the fine (or the offer of out of court settlement). They may try to imply that this is evidence of guilt but it is not so. Instead it is desperation on their part as you have given them no clue as to your defence. They will find it much harder to prove you guilty of the offence if you wait until after the charge is read out before revealing your defence. Because of the way a court works they must make their accusation before you need to reply to it.

Hope some of this helps

nehpets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hi everyone, thanks for the great info and here's my letter going today.... by post ironically!!

Dear Sir/ Madam

Thank you for your letter ref: 336 IKZ 5192, which I received Saturday 26th Sept.

I disposed of the said motor bike on 5th July 2009 and sent the V5 particulars the same day, as per the current regulations, as quoted:

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002

Change of keeper: registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper not a vehicle trader

22(1) This regulation applies where -

(a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle;

(b) a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and

© the new keeper is not a vehicle trader.

(2) The registered keeper of the vehicle -

(a) if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, shall deliver to the new keeper that part of the document marked as the part which is to be given to the new keeper; and

(b) shall forthwith deliver the remainder of the registration document to the Secretary of State, duly completed to include the following -

(i) the name and address of the new keeper;

(ii) the date on which the vehicle was sold or transferred to the new keeper;

(iii) a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and

(iv) a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.

As you will note, section 22.2 of the above act requires the new keeper to ‘deliver’ the said notification to the secretary of state. I met my obligation by sending the completed V5, to the DVLA as the Secretary of State's agent. Clearly, it would be absurd to require all owners to turn up at the Secretary of State's house and deliver the notification in person, in light of which I posted the said document.

I therefore refer you to the Interpretation Act 1978:

Interpretation Act 1978:

7 References to service by post

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.

The obligation I, as a keeper, have is to "deliver" the document which falls into the category of "give, send or any other expression". The fact that the DVLA (acting for the Secretary of State) provide a postal address, and no alternative, for delivery of the notice implies that service by post is required for the documents. In which case, S7 states, clearly and unambiguously, that

 

...unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document...

 

 

Note that there is no requirement, in establishing that service is effected, to use any specified postal service such as recorded delivery, nor even to obtain a proof of posting.

A simple sworn statement (or statement in Court) that I posted them would, therefore, be sufficient to establish that I have served, or delivered, the documents to the satisfaction of the Law.

Given my above position, I legally dispute the case that I have failed to give notice of the disposal of the vehicle.

I look forward to your reply

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

i know this is an old thread but i know find my self in the same situation for the second time and this time i have no plans to pay for there cock up

if the older posters are still active how did you get on using this line

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHC,

 

Was quite surprised to see this one pop up in my inbox after all this time! It's now over 3 years since they promised to "forward my case for prosecution" and I've never heard another word from them.

 

In that time there have been at least a couple of court cases where judges have upheld the "if you posted it you've done what you need" argument. Unfortunately they've been in County Courts so haven't set precedent but they can still persuasive.

 

Some more info here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/09/sorn.html

 

Note that DVLA don't seem to have changed their stance in the light of the losses - presumably they're still banking on people caving in before court.

 

But make it clear - firmly, politely and concisely - that you won't entertain paying until they obtain a judgment, that you know and understand the argument you'll be using, and that you know that argument has been applied successfully in the past, and there's a very good chance indeed that it'll never get that far ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like SM the DVLA promised me 'my day in court' but alas they completely bottled it. The truth is that they perfer to focus on the 90%+ of people who just give in and pay the fixed penalty or roll over once the 'bullyboy' letters start arriving.

 

 

My advice differs a little from the advice set out by others;

 

I suggest that you do very little to humor these DVLA people. There is little point in humoring them anyway as they will consistantly overstate their powers to a point where they effectively take on the roll of a judical body.

 

In my opinion it is far better to simply inform the DVLA that you have satisfied your obligations so far as the law is concerned. If the DVLA write back then you can take great pleasure in informing them that you will not be entering a dialogue with them as you have done everything which the law demands of you.

 

If / when the letter arrives from the debt collector then phone them (the debt collector) and specify that no debt exists. Specify to the debt collector that you will make a formal complaint against them if they contact you again. Explain that a Penalty Notice is merely 'an offer' of quick resolution and is not some kind of enforceable fine (debt). The debt collector is bound by a fairly strict code of conduct which means that he cannot persue you if dispute that the debt actually exists. They will have no choice but to pass the matter back to the DVLA. In theory the DVLA should not be passing your information to the debt collectors anyway since no debt legally exists. Also, the debt collector should, in theory, take steps to ensure that any instructions to act are valid and that a debt does legally exist - both bodies would appear to be ignoring regulations for their own combined purposes.

 

Hope this helps,

 

N.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If / when the letter arrives from the debt collector then phone them (the debt collector) and specify that no debt exists. Specify to the debt collector that you will make a formal complaint against them if they contact you again. Explain that a Penalty Notice is merely 'an offer' of quick resolution and is not some kind of enforceable fine (debt). Hope this helps,

 

N.

 

It depends what DVLA are claiming for:

If it is for not having a vehicle licence, or failure to notify change of keeper, they are criminal matters and the claim will be an 'out of court settlement offer', if not paid then the matter could end up in magistrates court - although as in the previous posts, they often give up as they have to prove you didn't send the required document, which is difficult for them.

 

If the claim is for the Late Licensing Penalty, that is a debt to the crown - s.7A (3)©, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - which if not paid, could end up in county court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends what DVLA are claiming for:

If it is for not having a vehicle licence, or failure to notify change of keeper, they are criminal matters and the claim will be an 'out of court settlement offer', if not paid then the matter could end up in magistrates court - although as in the previous posts, they often give up as they have to prove you didn't send the required document, which is difficult for them.

 

If the claim is for the Late Licensing Penalty, that is a debt to the crown - s.7A (3)©, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - which if not paid, could end up in county court.

 

In either case, you don't owe the money unless a Court says you do because DVLA have no power whatsoever to determine guilt in a criminal matter, nor to create a debt to the Crown or anyone else. Until (read, unless )a magistrate or CC judge find in their favour it is an alleged offence or an alleged debt, both dependent on whether or not you did what you had to (ie: sent the notice to them). They have no power whatsoever to decide (in a legal sense) whether or not you did - only to shout "we don't believe you, now pay up". A bit like the big guy at school who always wanted your* lunch money.

 

The reason they use DCAs is because they determined it was "more effective" than taking people to court - most people, even if they're in the right, cave in and pay when the threatening letters start arriving every few days. If you tell DVLA, clearly and simply, that you don't agree there's a debt and will not pay anything without a court first saying there is, then they're acting unlawfully if they keep harassing for payment without a court order in their favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* well, mine, anyway ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the criminal matters are concerned, you don't owe anything until a magistrate says you do and debt collectors should not be used for those matters.

 

For the Late Licensing Penalty, it is a debt, and so initially they use debt collectors to collect it, what should happen is that if the debt is denied, the matter should be returned to DVLA for them to take action in the county court - but they don't seem to, just more threatening letters from the debt collectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the claim is for the Late Licensing Penalty, that is a debt to the crown - s.7A (3)©, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - which if not paid, could end up in county court.

 

It is a debt to the Crown if proven, that's for sure, but I'm doubtful that the mere issuing of a LLP by the DVLA would constitute a debt if the person receiving the LLP refuses to accept the penalty? There may be an element of 'grey area' here but given the size of the fine (£80 odd in most cases) it would be hard for the authorities to show that the LLP was anything other than a 'financial penalty' of some kind - this, according to statute law (Code of Law), requires a judical body to judge the case in order for the penalty to be binding on the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why, if it is denied, the debt should be returned to the DVLA so they can take it to county court and let a judge decide.

But it seems that what happens is just more letters from the debt collectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why, if it is denied, the debt should be returned to the DVLA so they can take it to county court and let a judge decide.

But it seems that what happens is just more letters from the debt collectors.

 

I agree 100%, in fact, debt collectors should have no involvement in any matter where liability is unproven. So, in terms of LLP's, the DVLA should send a letter to the Registered Keeper saying 'Your car isn't taxed or SORNed blah blah blah' and offer the £80 penalty for quick resolution. If the RK doesnt respond then the DVLA should assume that the RK hasn't accepted the offer of quick resolution and take the matter forward to court for a hearing. Instead the DVLA appear to hire debt collectors to effectively try and bully people into accepting the offer of quick resolution, this in my opinion is probably illegal as the DVLA are actually provoking the debt collector into breaking their regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best course of action to follow is to write to the CEO at DVLA. His contact details are -

 

Simon Tse

CEO

DVLA

Longview Road

Swansea

SA6 7JL

 

Send copies of the letter to the following at the DfT -

 

Philip Rutnam (Permanent Secretary)

Rt Hon Justine Greening MP (Secretary of State)

Mike Penning MP (Roads Minister)

 

Postal address for DfT is -

 

Department for Transport

Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London

SW1P 4DR

 

If the DVLA is acting ultra vires (beyond the law), the Permanent Secretary and the two politicians named above are the ones to let know. The Secretary of State is ultimately liable for any foul-ups by DVLA and the one who can deliver a swift kick up the backside of Simon Tse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the DVLA is acting ultra vires (beyond the law), the Permanent Secretary and the two politicians named above are the ones to let know. The Secretary of State is ultimately liable for any foul-ups by DVLA and the one who can deliver a swift kick up the backside of Simon Tse.

 

It's a fair point which you make Old Bill. But, after a few long winded conversations with senior staff at the DVLA I can tell you that the DVLA are living largely in their own little world which is extremely well insulated from the outside world (including the laws of the outside world). My friend, this is the real problem and it's largely systemic. In conversation with them I established that they choose to ignore The Interpretation Act simply because it would make their job impossible. Their view is that people could claim to have sent documents for each and every LLP which is sent out and, because the Interpretation Act favours the motorist far more than it favours the DVLA, they have no choice but to ignore that aspect of the law and press ahaed with trying to enforce their fines / penalties etc without giving their clients the full story.

 

It's hard to know whether this can be considered to be 'acting beyond the law' in it's truest sense? If more motorists took legal advice they could find a lot of this stuff out for themselves. My guess is that most fall into the trap of believing the DVLA hype due to the DLVA overstating it's actual powers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a fair point which you make Old Bill. But, after a few long winded conversations with senior staff at the DVLA I can tell you that the DVLA are living largely in their own little world which is extremely well insulated from the outside world (including the laws of the outside world). My friend, this is the real problem and it's largely systemic. In conversation with them I established that they choose to ignore The Interpretation Act simply because it would make their job impossible. Their view is that people could claim to have sent documents for each and every LLP which is sent out and, because the Interpretation Act favours the motorist far more than it favours the DVLA, they have no choice but to ignore that aspect of the law and press ahaed with trying to enforce their fines / penalties etc without giving their clients the full story.

 

It's hard to know whether this can be considered to be 'acting beyond the law' in it's truest sense? If more motorists took legal advice they could find a lot of this stuff out for themselves. My guess is that most fall into the trap of believing the DVLA hype due to the DLVA overstating it's actual powers.

 

If you want a prime example of "acting beyond the law", you have presented a perfect example here. Ignoring statute law in the way DVLA are is disturbing. Putting pressure on the politicians and publicly outing what is going on is the only way it will be stopped. Yes, it will cause public outrage and, yes, it will result in some collateral damage to DVLA's reputation and future. The one who should be sacked for allowing this to happen is Simon Tse and whoever encouraged DVLA to engage in unlawful behaviour in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Please Help. Had a letter sent through from these horrible people on the 18th Oct, and called them right away to find out why they were demanding £80 from me. They explained the DVLA were chasing the money for a car i did not declare was no longer mine, i actually scrapped the car over a year ago and the person never did there part. All info was Supplied to the DVLA over a couple of week in July all information proving the sale of the car and i received a letter stating that i was no longer the keeper. All sorted in my book. I explained this to the Intercred and they were having none of it, they stated as they were instructed i needed to pay the fine for it to go away. I said i wouldn’t. So i called the DVLA to try and clear this matter up, they said for me to write in to this company with all the relevant info and appeal the case. I am in the process of doing this today 25th Oct. I then go and receive a text from them asking to call and Pay. I call to notify them that i am writing in to them to appeal as the DVLA have instructed me tot The horrible woman then went on to state it would make no difference if i appealed because as from today they were taking me to court, i asked why as they haven’t given me a chance to state why i shouldn’t pay. She just kept saying i would be better to pay. I again said i would still appeal and she said again it would make no difference, she told me to go get legal advice. In his end i hung up as she was getting very aggressive. Called the DVLA after this call to asked them if this company were right. they were helpfull and said i still needed to send my letter in with all details and appeal. the company by Law have to hear the appeal. All i can say these people from Intercred, are not helpful and not polite at all, very aggressive if you try to explaine your side of the story and try to reach an agreement to the course of action you are taking. Please let me know if you can give any advise to how i resolve this matter without being bullied in to paying. thanks :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like another case of a Debt Collection Agent acting well beyond what's allowed. One trick to take the 'sting' out of an aggressive DCA is to ask for the name of the person who you are talking to. They'll most likely hang up especially if they have already show any kind of aggression since they will not want you naming them in any potential complaint. Also ask for the name and address of their regulator.

 

The DCA cannot offer legal advice on what represents a 'valid defence'. All they need to know is that you are contesting the DVLA's penalty - this should mean that they pass the matter back to the DVLA, the DCA should not be pursuing a contested 'debt' when there is no court ruling. Of course this isn't what the DCA wants to do so they'll probably just keep chasing you regardless of what they are supposed to do. Don't worry about the DCA, they have absolutely zero powers in terms of what they can do to to you. If they contact you again then just toy with them and waste their time.

 

The bad news is that the DVLA have no formal appeals process which carries any judicial power. With that in mind there is next to no use in entering into prolonged discussions with them. Most of the time they'll ignore the real points which you make in your letters because the law doesn't suit their position on the matter.

 

If I was you I would send one letter explaining the facts. Offer to let them take the matter to court if required. You have clearly notified them and that is where your legal obligation ends. There is nothing in law which requires you to follow the matter up.

 

There are plenty of people on this board who will help you.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

N.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...