£80 Fine - No tax - car scrapped

[gizmo111]

July 6th last year I sold a car to a scrap dealer, tax had run out 30 June, I sent off the little bit signed by the new owner o the DVLA (I have a copy) and now they say the vehicle is still mine and I owe them £80 for non tax - in fact it is now with a DCA as I have not received anything in the interim from them. Where do I stand in disputing the fine.

[buzby]

Go to the scrap dealer with all the details - ask why they 'forgot' to advise the DVLA of scrapping. Get a lietter from them stating that the vehicle HAS been scrapped and the date, and send this to the DVLA with a covering letter.

[flyingdoc]

If, for whatever reason you cannot do this (say the scrap dealer did not keep records and will not write a letter) then you might need to swear a statutory declaration regarding when and how you disposed of your car.

 

You can do this free of charge at any magistrates court, just speak to the clerk to the justices to arrange when convenient.

[gizmo111]

Thanks guys - will visit the scrap dealer tomorrow.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

I hope what is below is of assistance. If not my apology. I believe DVLA relies on bully boy tactics at every level and those who are prepared to resist may help others.

 

May I say that only courts have the power to award fiines after an offence has been proved in a court of law.

 

In my view what DVLA is doing is making doubtful demands for payment of penalties under duress; based on its prejudged interpretaion; of the Vehicle Excise Regulations Act 1994 (VERA) with other regulations,because their opinions are coloured by the fact DVLA is not an impartial body, but the major beneficiary of the revenue to be received from the enforcement of 'fines' using debt collection agencies (DCAs) while relying on harrasment; as a tool; to frighten; what the House of Lords members who drew up the legistaion referred to as 'Law abiding citizens'.

 

In my view the entire process is flawed and open to question. Those who have vehicles off the road have commited no offence per se. Try asking the DVLA where it is laid down not making a SORN is an offence. Keeping and / or using a vehicle on a public road is an offence. Instead or arguing that one has been submitted which the DVLA deny receiving and then seek to place the burden of proof on law abiding vehicle keepers. Try asking instead, what offence in law is alleged

 

I suggest that rather than attempting to prove innocence when proof of guilt falls to the accuser, those who have DVLA 'fines' should be asking simple questions. The first of which should be; 'What is the appeal process'?

 

I have read in another forum, DVLA cannot delegate its claimed right to charge a penalty (fine) to DCAs (which despite the use of their logo are i believe not a civil service department). They can be politely told to run away, if they attempt to enforce the alleged debt, which the DCA does not own. If in pressing their claim DCAs resort to the sort of threats that have been used against vehicle keepers such as clamping etc. That I believe is very serious unlawful harrasment. Some argue that must involve the police because it is a criminal offence, but that is not the whole truth. There is a civil remedy provided for in the Protection From Harrasment Act as well.

 

It is a matter for conjecture whether a Governmant Agency should need to resort to making threats, if it is engaged in the lawful activity, of collecting penalties provided for by law. The fact that it does places, at least in my mind, a doubt about the lawfullness of the process DVLA employs. Why for instance does it wait, as in my case, for six weeks before it follows up on what it describes as 'Failure to Relicense' a vehicle that has no tax liability. So what is the offence for which the penalty 'fine' has been claimed? A delay of 30 days ensures an enhanced penalty can be claimed for what? Is that the conduct of a law abiding Goverment Agency or profiteering? I suggest it is the latter. .

[Raykay]

If you sent the document to DVLA by Royal Mail (notification of scrapping or SORN) they are deemed to have received it unless they prove that you didn't - s.7 Interpretation Act..

 

As for SORN, there is no offence of not declaring SORN, the offence is keeping an unlicensed vehicle, it doesn't matter if it is on the public road or not.

[buzby]

There may be no actual offence for 'not declaring SORN', but since (under the continuous licencing regulations) it is not the act of non-declaration that is at issue, but the fact that it isn't currently taxed, or notified as being off-road.

 

A subtle difference, but an impoertant one.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

It is a very fine (and weak) thread methinks !!! I still believe that DVLA is milking it for all it is worth not for law enforcement but enhanced revenue income.

[Bignayf86]

I have a similar problem and I have just spoken to the DCA who have said if I dont pay within 7 days they will start court proceedings. The car was scrapped in May last year, the paperwork was sent of via Royal Mail. Now, apparently because I didn't act within 28 days of me sending the log book back, I am the one in the wrong.. Where do I stand??

 

I do however have an acknowledgement letter dated the 6th November informing me that I informed the DVLA of scrappage/change of owner.

[Raykay]

It would depend on when you notified DVLA that the vehicle had been scrapped. If there is a time gap between when the last licence or SORN expired and DVLA being notified, you become liable for a surcharge known as a Late Licensing Penalty.

 

What prompted their letter in November?

[Bignayf86]

I sent the paperwork as soon as it was gone. I received a first letter from the DVLA over a month on saying I had not informed them and the car was untaxed on the highway.

I responded and told them the car had been scrapped and the paperwork sent off. I then got a reply on the 5th November 2009 saying that I was still liable because of the 28days, had no acknowledgement letter, until the 6th November 2009, when it suddenly appeared! More than just a coincidence I feel...

I then left it and it has gone to 2 different DCAs now threatening court summons within 7 days!

[Raykay]

If you sent the document to DVLA by Royal Mail at the correct time, they are deemed to have received it unless they prove that you didn't - s.7 Interpretation Act.

 

The problem is that DVLA will often not accept that and still maintain their claim is valid.

[Bignayf86]

OKAY thanks, so what should I do regarding the DCA that are on my back now? Call them and request it is transferred back to the DVLA or other?

[Professor Lone Ranger]

OKAY thanks, so what should I do regarding the DCA that are on my back now? Call them and request it is transferred back to the DVLA or other?

 

These are murky waters so nothing is absolutely clear.

 

I have read in the fight back forum that DCAs cannot make a claim in court for an alleged debt belonging to the DVLA. Also that it is for the claimant to prove their case not the defendant to prove their innocence. I have seen reports that the DVLA does not always make an appearance in court but on the other hand DVLA lost a case in the Clerkenwell Court in October 2009 to 'sickpup' which was a dispute about whether or not a SORN was submitted, which the DVLA denied receiving. I have not seen the case details but you might find out more at this link.

Bike Chat Forums : DVLA and SORNs

 

I have a case of my own, but it is different. I admit returning a SORN late but challenge the claim of failing to re-licence made against me. The case is due on 12 May.

 

I am suspicious of those who make threats and am a great believer in asking questions. I asked the DVLA to declare their lawful grounds for the claim it made against me. I got no answers. I think it should be simple to explain the grounds if they have a case. What DVLA does is interpret law to suit its own purpose which is revenue collection. There is general agreement that DVLA has got it badly wrong but very many pay up to avoid the bother, so there is a steady income stream for DCAs, DVLA and the Government to benefit from, by their tactics, which I believe amount to unlawful harassment. If the claim is valid and lawful, why does the DVLA resort to threats through their third party DCAs, I refer to as 'bully boys' and, why does it refuse to divulge what it claims to be the lawful basis of the claims? Everybody assumes if a Government Agency makes a claim it has to be right. I think not.

 

There is a saying; 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' I believe DVLA has more power than it should have, and, many people are suffering from that. How many people have paid 'fines' they should not have? How many have had their cars wrongfully seized and crushed? The easiest targets are those who are already in debt but who need their vehicle most to get to work. How can they fight back? How can they resist the DCAs?

 

If you have returned a SORN and prepared to swear to that in court, if necessary, the court will accept what you say is the truth, which means that DVLA's denial of receiving it will count for nothing, and, they will lose their case. I think that is what happened in sickpup's case. I think also the case was cut short before he could claim his costs. What a pity.

[Raykay]

I have a case of my own, but it is different. I admit returning a SORN late but challenge the claim of failing to re-licence made against me.

 

You are required to renew the licence on the expiry of the current licence or SORN declaration. As you were late sending the SORN declaration you became liable for the supplement because for the period between the expiry of the old licence or SORN declaration, and submission of the SORN declaration, the vehicle was un-licensed.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

You are required to renew the licence on the expiry of the current licence or SORN declaration. As you were late sending the SORN declaration you became liable for the supplement because for the period between the expiry of the old licence or SORN declaration, and submission of the SORN declaration, the vehicle was un-licensed.

 

Very interesting. Just what DVLA would write. Do you suggest this is a matter of split second timing? If so could you perhaps provide the legal basis of that opinion?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Professor Lone Ranger

[Raykay]

Very interesting. Just what DVLA would write. Do you suggest this is a matter of spilt second timing? If so could you perhaps provide the legal basis of that opinion?

 

Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994, Mainly sections 1(A) & © & 7(A) & (B)

 

s.1(A)

(1) A duty of excise ( “vehicle excise duty") shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle that—

(a)

is registered under this Act (see section 21), or

 

(b)

is not so registered but is used, or kept, on a public road in the United Kingdom.

s.1(C) Vehicle excise duty charged in respect of a vehicle by subsection (1)(a) or (1A)(a) shall be paid on a licence to be taken out—

s.7(A)

Supplement payable on vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered]

(1) Regulations may make provision for a supplement of a prescribed amount to be payable where— (a)

a vehicle has ceased to be appropriately covered,

 

(b)

the vehicle is not, before the end of the relevant prescribed period, appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) below with effect from the time immediately after it so ceased or appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (d) of that subsection, and

 

©

the circumstances are not such as may be prescribed.

 

(1A) For the purposes of this section and section 7B a vehicle is appropriately covered if (and only if)— (a)

a vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle,

 

(b)

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force and a nil licence is in force in respect of it,

 

©

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle that is not one in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force, or

 

(d)

the vehicle is neither kept nor used on a public road and the declarations and particulars required to be delivered by regulations under section 22(1D) have been delivered in relation to it in accordance with the regulations within the immediately preceding period of 12 months.

 

(1B) Where a vehicle for or in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force is transferred by the holder of the vehicle licence to another person, the vehicle licence is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1A) as no longer in force unless it is delivered to the other person with the vehicle.

(1C) Where— (a)

an application is made for a vehicle licence for any period, and

 

(b)

a temporary licence is issued pursuant to the application,

 

subsection (1B) does not apply to the licence applied for if, on a transfer of the vehicle during the currency of the temporary licence, the temporary licence is delivered with the vehicle to the transferee.

(1D) In subsection (1)(b) “the relevant prescribed period” means such period beginning with the date on which the vehicle ceased to be appropriately covered as is prescribed.

(2) A supplement under this section— (a)

shall be payable by such person, or jointly and severally by such persons, as may be prescribed;

 

(b)

shall become payable at such time as may be prescribed;

 

©

may be of an amount that varies according to the length of the period between—

(i) the time of a notification (in accordance with regulations under section 7B(1)) to, or in relation to, a person by whom it is payable, and

(ii) the time at which it is paid.

 

 

(3) A supplement under this section that has become payable— (a)

is in addition to any vehicle excise duty charged in respect of the vehicle concerned;

 

(b)

does not cease to be payable by reason of the vehicle being again appropriately covered after the supplement has become payable;

 

©

may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

 

s.7(B) Section 7A supplements: further provisions

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for notifying the person in whose name a vehicle is registered under this Act about— (a)

any supplement under section 7A that may or has become payable in relation to the vehicle;

 

(b)

when the vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered may result in the person being guilty of an offence under section 31A.

 

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision— (a)

for assessing an amount of supplement due under section 7A from any person and for notifying that amount to that person or any person acting in a representative capacity in relation to that person;

 

(b)

for an amount assessed and notified under such regulations to be deemed to be an amount of vehicle excise duty due from the person assessed and recoverable accordingly;

 

©

for review of decisions under such regulations and for appeals with respect to such decisions or decisions on such reviews.

 

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in particular, make provision that, subject to any modifications that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, corresponds or is similar to— (a)

any provision made by sections 12A and 12B of the Finance Act 1994 (assessments related to excise duty matters), or

 

(b)

any provision made by sections 14 to 16 of that Act (customs and excise reviews and appeals).

 

(4) Sums received by way of supplements under section 7A shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

[Bignayf86]

so what should I do?

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994, Mainly sections 1(A) & © & 7(A) & (B)

 

s.1(A)

(1) A duty of excise ( “vehicle excise duty") shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle that—

(a)

is registered under this Act (see section 21), or

 

(b)

is not so registered but is used, or kept, on a public road in the United Kingdom.

 

s.1(C) Vehicle excise duty charged in respect of a vehicle by subsection (1)(a) or (1A)(a) shall be paid on a licence to be taken out—

 

s.7(A)

Supplement payable on vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered]

(1) Regulations may make provision for a supplement of a prescribed amount to be payablewhere— (a)

a vehicle has ceased to be appropriately covered,

 

(b)

the vehicle is not, before the end of the relevant prescribed period, appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) below with effect from the time immediately after it so ceased or appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (d) of that subsection, and

 

©

the circumstances are not such as may be prescribed.

 

 

 

(1A) For the purposes of this section and section 7B a vehicle is appropriately covered if (and only if)— (a)

a vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle,

 

(b)

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force and a nil licence is in force in respect of it,

 

©

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle that is not one in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force, or

 

(d)

the vehicle is neither kept nor used on a public road and the declarations and particulars required to be delivered by regulations under section 22(1D) have been delivered in relation to it in accordance with the regulations within the immediately preceding period of 12 months.

 

 

(1B) Where a vehicle for or in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force is transferred by the holder of the vehicle licence to another person, the vehicle licence is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1A) as no longer in force unless it is delivered to the other person with the vehicle.

(1C) Where— (a)

an application is made for a vehicle licence for any period, and

 

(b)

a temporary licence is issued pursuant to the application,

 

 

subsection (1B) does not apply to the licence applied for if, on a transfer of the vehicle during the currency of the temporary licence, the temporary licence is delivered with the vehicle to the transferee.

(1D) In subsection (1)(b) “the relevant prescribed period” means such period beginning with the date on which the vehicle ceased to be appropriately covered as is prescribed.

(2) A supplement under this section— (a)

shall be payable by such person, or jointly and severally by such persons, as may be prescribed;

 

(b)

shall become payable at such time as may be prescribed;

 

©

may be of an amount that varies according to the length of the period between—

(i) the time of a notification (in accordance with regulations under section 7B(1)) to, or in relation to, a person by whom it is payable, and

(ii) the time at which it is paid.

 

 

 

(3) A supplement under this section that has become payable— (a)

is in addition to any vehicle excise duty charged in respect of the vehicle concerned;

 

(b)

does not cease to be payable by reason of the vehicle being again appropriately covered after the supplement has become payable;

 

©

may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

 

 

s.7(B)Section 7A supplements: further provisions

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for notifying the person in whose name a vehicle is registered under this Act about— (a)

any supplement under section 7A that may or has become payable in relation to the vehicle;

 

(b)

when the vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered may result in the person being guilty of an offence under section 31A.

 

 

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision— (a)

for assessing an amount of supplement due under section 7A from any person and for notifying that amount to that person or any person acting in a representative capacity in relation to that person;

 

(b)

for an amount assessed and notified under such regulations to be deemed to be an amount of vehicle excise duty due from the person assessed and recoverable accordingly;

 

©

for review of decisions under such regulations and for appeals with respect to such decisions or decisions on such reviews.

 

 

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in particular, make provision that, subject to any modifications that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, corresponds or is similar to— (a)

any provision made by sections 12A and 12B of the Finance Act 1994 (assessments related to excise duty matters), or

 

(b)

any provision made by sections 14 to 16 of that Act (customs and excise reviews and appeals).

 

 

(4) Sums received by way of supplements under section 7A shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

 

Thank you for this but;

 

The new Section 31A(1) provides that where a vehicle is unlicensed, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence

That is the nub of it.

The offence is not specified. It is whatever the DVLA chooses to call it, which in my case is 'Falure to relicense'

 

 

• There is no licence to keep a vehicle per se, only an obligation to register one. The vehicle is still registered even though not licensed. DVLA knows where to find the keepers, so what is the problem?
  
• A vehicle license is the authority to keep and use a vehicle on a public road. That is not required to keep a vehicle off the road.
  
• DVL A has interpreted the law to suit its purpose, which is revenue collection.
  
• If there were an offence I had a right to be told what it is but I was not, though I did ask.
  

2. I know that using an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is unlawful but I did not do that.

 

• The claimed debt is invalid. I did not fail to relicense a vehicle I had no obligation to.
  

[Raykay]

Bignayf86

 

From your posts it seems that at some point after 30th June when the licence expired, the vehicle was seen on a public road. Until DVLA received the notification that you had scrapped the vehicle you are responsible for it, if you sent it by normal post DVLA are deemed to have received it by virtue of the Interpretation Act.

DVLA usually claim you need to produce the confirmation letter they send when they receive your document and if you haven't got the letter, you didn't send it.

There is no legislation that requires DVLA to send any letter, or you to take any action in respect on not having a letter.

If they are claiming that it seen on a public road - if after 6th July, how long after - to determin if you or the scrap dealer were responsible at that time (as you had sent the document, they are deemed to have received it and liability could be transferred to the scrap dealer)

If they are claiming for the delay between 30th June and 6th July when you sent the document, you are in a similar position to Professor Lone Ranger.

[Raykay]

Thank you for this but;

 

The new Section 31A(1) provides that where a vehicle is unlicensed, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence

 

 

That is the nub of it.

 

 

 

The offence is not specified. It is whatever the DVLA chooses to call it, which in my case is 'Falure to relicense'

 

 

 

 

• 
  
  • There is no licence to keep a vehicle per se, only an obligation to register one. The vehicle is still registered even though not licensed. DVLA knows where to find the keepers, so what is the problem?
    
  • A vehicle license is the authority to keep and use a vehicle on a public road. That is not required to keep a vehicle off the road.
    
  • DVL A has interpreted the law to suit its purpose, which is revenue collection.
    
  • If there were an offence I had a right to be told what it is but I was not, though I did ask.
    

2. I know that using an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is unlawful but I did not do that.

 

• 
  
  • The claimed debt is invalid. I did not fail to relicense a vehicle I had no obligation to.
    

 

 

You do have an obligation to relicense a vehicle

 

s.1(A). V.E.R.A. 1994:

(1) A duty of excise ( “vehicle excise duty") shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle that—

(a)

is registered under this Act, or

 

(b)

is not so registered but is used, or kept, on a public road in the United Kingdom.

 

If the vehicle is registered, it must be licensed - nothing about out of use, in a garage, on a public road etc.

 

 

 

The offence under s. 31(A) is keeping an unlicensed vehicle - even if it is out of use in a garage, if it is not licensed you commit the offence unless one of the conditions in s.31(B) applies.

 

s. 31(B) lists the conditions where an offence under s.31A is not committed, one of which is if there is a current SORN declaration in respect of the vehicle.

 

If there is no current SORN declaration or any other exception under s. 31(B), the vehicle must be licensed - no matter where it is - if not, the offence under s. 31(A) is complete.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Raykay

[Bignayf86]

Basically I sold the car with 2 months tax on it, and the car was always off the public highway, on a driveway.

 

The log book was sent off before the tax had even run out. Before July 2009. I received a letter after the 28 days saying the car had not been relicenced.

I replied saying I had sent the log book back.

5th November I receive a reply saying it had not been received.

6th November I get the acknowledgement letter.

 

I am determined not to pay it as I served the paperwork to the DVLA. The DCA has said that s.9 of the log book supersedes s.7 of the Interpretation Act.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

For what it is worth, my view is that claims of that sort need to be treated with caution. It is my practice, to ask those who make such assertions, to ask for the legal basis of the statement i.e. the law, not their interpretation of it. I find that results in avoidance or evasion by those making the claim. Naturally DVLA and those who have an interest in supporting the party line (because they benefit from it) will interpret whatever favours their preference.

[Bignayf86]

ok, I found the latter by hungrybear on another thread so I'm going to adapt that to my own circumstances. from what i can tell, the DVLA are in the wrong totally.. I will let you know how I get on!

[Bignayf86]

ok just thought I'd update you, I got another letter from the wonderful inter-credit today... another template letter I must add

 

It informs me under section 7A of V.E.R.A 1994 i have contravened and may also be liable under s.31A a fine of £1000 isCOMMANDED if convicted.

 

I have drafted a letter to inter-credit, as follows:

 

RE: Case No

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would love to get into an argument with your wholly unprofessional company, about how you have threatened me with a £1000 fine under a section of a statute which does not exist, or the non-existent statute, section 7A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; but frankly I cannot be bothered. Please, however, find enclosed a letter which I am sending to the DVLA to sort this problem out via the root. This letter declares that I will have no more communication with you regarding this matter.

Yours Faithfully