Yet another one ...

[SAE140]

Well, here's yet another person who has joined the swelling ranks of those on the DVLA's SORN Christmas Card list ....

 

I have several concerns about the way in which the DVLA is conducting itself and, in no particular order:

 

a) is the issuing of £40/80 fixed penalty notices itself legal ? In the INF51 document (which the DVLA keeps sending me, and thus appears to using as a reference document) there is no mention of such penalties - only of fines of up to £1000 *under certain circumstances* (undefined) following prosecution.

 

b) what exactly is the offence I am alleged to have committed ? Although the DVLA's blurb makes reference to the offence of keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road (an offence of which I have no dispute with), is it actually a punishable offence not to notify the DVLA of a vehicle being kept off-road ? And in the event of notification not being received (for this is what I am being accused of) where does the burden of proof lie ? Indeed, can the DVLA prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did NOT receive my SORN notification ?

 

c) Until I discovered your site, I had assumed that my dispute with the DVLA was a one-in-a-million case of 'lost in the post' - but it would appear that this sort of thing is happening far too often. That the DVLA makes money in the event of SORN non-receipt presents an obvious conflict of interest.

 

In my own case, I posted the SORN within a week or so of the tax expiry, and as someone has already commented here I have more important things to do with my life that tick off days on some DVLA calendar - just in case I do not receive a confirmation letter from them - and it was only when in conversation with someone later (some 8 weeks after the SORN was sent) that I was reminded that I hadn't heard from the DVLA. I then tried to SORN (again) the vehicle on-line without success, and finally emailed them from their site, quoting the vehicle refs.

 

So far I have receive 2 automated letters from them, and am still awaiting a personal response. I am adopting the 'MP first and then take me to court' approach, and will keep you informed.

[jj12345]

Hi,

 

New to forums so I apologise if I am writing in the wrong place but I found your post really interesting.

 

I have but been dealing with DVLA regarding a SORN (car not working and parked on private property) they say they never received. I sent it regular mail so do not have proof of mailing. This was back in August 08 as my car was due tax renewal Oct 1st.

 

I failed to keep track and received fine a month ago. I disputed explaining I was not aware I needed confirmation (my fault and first time doing this, basically I did not read the part that say's I need confirmation).

 

They (DVLA) wrote back saying my dispute has been refused and that I must pay the 80.00.

 

I have spent 2 hours reading past posts but got confused. I am very interested in the outcome of your post which was excellently put!

 

In my case I kind of admitted some liability in the hope they would be sympathetic to a 'first timer' but it did not work. Any suggestions, should I pay the 80.00? (I do not have that kind of money right now, so at best can I delay this?).

[crem]

But you did declare SORN so why should they be entitled to an £80 fine payment for their screw ups?

 

I would write back firmly (polite but direct) stating you DID declare SORN on time as required refering to the Interpretation Act 1978 that does not require you to pursue confirmation of mail having being received by them. Ask for details regarding their complaints procedure as you will be taking this further and inform them that you will be notifying your MP of their failings which, you are aware, are not a rare occurance.

 

Tell them you will be asking your MP to investigate how it can be lawful for a government body to fine people for them "CLAIMING" they have not received your mail. i.e. it is in their interest not to receive this mail and only they can make such a claim, therefore it is in their interest to intentionally "loose" mail sent to them.

[Spunkymonkey]

SAE140,

 

To save posting the same again, read what I just posted here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/178516-damned-dvla.html

 

And the legal background is laid out here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/171156-dvla-intercredit-again.html

 

Note that my first letter in that thread was an attempt to talk reasonably with them - next time I really wouldn't bother because they won't accept whatever you say.

 

I still think that everyone driving to the Secretary of State's house and handing these notices in personally (obviously demanding a signature for receipt...) may be the only way to get anything changed though

[SAE140]

Thanks for those links. They make for interesting reading - I'll need to print 'em out so I can study them carefully.

 

The reason I asked whether the fixed-penalty notices themselves were legal, is that there appears to be 'something' missing ....

 

When comparing these demands for money with other forms of penalty - such as parking offences - it can be observed that when a person is given a parking ticket, the ticket contains evidence of proof of the offence (location, date, duration etc), and also contains the authority of the issuing body (contrary to such-and-such an Act, section and paragraph etc). The same might be true of speeding tickets, but I've never had one so can't comment - maybe someone else can confirm this.

Now I can't be sure about the first letter the DVLA sent me, as it was a form to be completed and returned, but certainly neither of the last two letters, nor the INF51 form contain details of the DVLA's authority to issue penalty notices.

 

I guess the question I'm asking is, "is it a legal requirement that a fixed penalty notice must display the authority of the issuing body to demand payment ?" For if it is, then the DVLA's demand notices then have the legal status of begging letters.

 

I'm also a little concerned about the DVLA's use of the word 'Offence' in their correspondence, rather than using the term 'alleged offence', as the former suggests that there is no requirement for any burden of proof, a concept which underpins the whole of our legal system.

[Spunkymonkey]

The original LLP notice does reference the legislation concerned but, as you say, you have to send it back. I've just received a copy of mine from them after writing and requesting one, including the reverse with my original statement on.

 

The follow-up letters are just that - letters. They refer to the legislation indirectly, by refering back to the issue of the original LLP, which is perfectly ok. In fact, it's possibly preferable to them showering you with reams of legal references which could really scare some people. One of the few things they get right - although they sort of spoil it by asking you to return the bit with the references if you want to challenge them!

 

However, none of that should really matter because it is only an alleged penalty, whatever they call it, and it can't be enforced (beyond endless demands from a DCA) without a court finding you liable.

 

My personal view is that, according to law, a court can't find you liable if you state that you posted the notice. Hopefully I'll be able to get them to summons me and confirm that before you get to that stage

[SAE140]

Spunkymonkey - have you any thoughts on the "4 weeks" issue ? As I see it it's one thing for the DVLA to place the onus for pursuing SORN non-receipt on the public, but this '4 week' stuff doesn't feature at all in the legislation:

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002

 

The terminology is "shall deliver to the Secretary of State the required declaration and the required particulars in relation to the vehicle"and "in any other case, not later than that day." (being the day following the expired period).

 

I wonder if it could be argued that as the 4 week period does not feature in the legislation, the DVLA are operating outside of the law ?

 

I'm also focussing on "shall deliver" - how exactly does one "deliver" ? But - I think there's been quite a few words spoken on this forum regarding this already ....

Regards

[Spunkymonkey]

SAE, the "requirement" to chase them up after 4 weeks is legally complete nonsense. Quite apart from there being nothing at all in law to say that you must, there is also nothing in law to say that they have to provide an acknowledgemet at all.

 

That means that, even if there was something legally requiring you to chase the acknowledgement, it would be requiring you to chase something that, legally, doesn't need to exist. That's an absurdity that would never survive referral to the higher courts.

 

Not that DVLA would ever let it get that far to be tested.......

 

As for "delivering" - that's covered by the wording of the Interpretation Act 1978 S.7:

 

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

 

Now, the accepted way of serving notice of either SORN or a vehicle transfer is by post, to the address provided on the document (either the SORN notice or the V5). "Deliver", as used in VERA 1994 and the RV(R&R) Regs, is simply another expression for "give" or "send". So normal post, correctly addressed and pre-paid, is all that's required and, unless DVLA prove otherwise, you are entitled to deem delivery effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Therefore, you have no need to query the lack of an acknowledgement.

 

DVLA have no power whatsoever to either alter or over-ride Statue law, so their demands that you chase them up is unenforcable in court.

[SAE140]

Thanks again for the words of wisdom.

 

Update - this morning I received a letter from DVLA (Swansea), thanking me for a SORN on the disputed vehicle, but dated from 29 January. Wonderful (!) - nothing like a bit of confusion to add to the existing mess.

 

So - has the original SORN now finally surfaced ? Or has this letter been issued in response to my email posted from the DVLA on-line site ? Or is it in response to my threat to refer this matter to my MP ? Indeed, has the threat of prosecution now been dropped or not ? Who knows - after you with the crystal ball.

 

So many questions - what a way to run a government department ...

Edited February 5, 2009 by SAE140
grammar

[Spunkymonkey]

That letter only gives evidence that it is now registered as SORN with them. Keep it safe! The threat of prosecution is still there unless they've also said they're taking no further action, but really don't worry too much about it.

 

I've been doing a little more digging into statute amendments and the only thing they might rely on is S.31(B)(8) of VERA 1994, which was inserted by the Finance Act 2002:

 

(8) A person accused of an offence under section 31A(1) is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception, but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution

to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.

 

Now, they would no doubt contend that the acknowledgement letter is the required "evidence" but there are a couple of problems with that:

 

First, they don't have to provide an acknowledgement. So they'd be claiming that you had to produce a document that they didn't have to provide in the first place. That's clearly absurd, so the Act can't be read in that way.

 

Second, even if there was an acknowledgement, that is not evidence that you've carried out your duty. It's evidence that you've done what you had to and that they've processed the form properly. In other words, demanding that would be demanding something beyond what the Act requires, and which relies on their correct actions to exist as well as yours.

 

Now, you can prefectly correctly carry out your obligations by using normal (not recorded) post (as per the Interpretation Act) so you can complete your duty without gathering any evidence at that point. Again, insisting on a record of posting as evidence would be insisting on something that need not exist.

 

Realistically, then, the only evidence that you could be expected to have is your own statement to the court that you fulfilled your duty. So, as the only evidence tthat can be expected to exist, that must be the evidence to which the Act refers.

 

To refute your statement, the DVLA would effectively have to accuse you of perjury - and have evidence to support the fact that you didn't post it. So, your defence is the exception under S31(B)(3) of VERA 1994 and your evidence of that exception is your sworn statement to the court that you posted it, correctly and on time.

[SAE140]

That letter only gives evidence that it is now registered as SORN with them. Keep it safe!

 

You're absolutely right. But today's events are showing this SORN confirmation to be particularly significant, for:

 

Yesterday I received the letter from DVLA Swansea thanking me for SORN-ing the vehicle.

 

This morning I received a letter from the enforcement dept in Poole dated 5 days after the Swansea letter, alleging that they have no SORN record for the vehicle, and also, that my secondary mode of communication to the DVLA (feedback email from their site) is not an acceptable form of declaration.

 

But - I have used only two modes of SORN declaration - their form (by post), and their website feedback facility.

Quite clearly DVLA Swansea have accepted one of these: either the original postal SORN has finally surfaced, or the DVLA have accepted a notification via their website feedback facility.

I am left to conclude therefore that DVLA (Poole) are either being untruthful, or are incompetent.

[crem]

I am left to conclude therefore that DVLA (Poole) are either being untruthful, or are incompetent.

 

Why not both?