DVLA have fined me... nice

[vjohn82]

I have been struck down by the dreaded DVLA this week...

 

I sold a motorbike in 2008 and moved house in August of that year... I filled in all the right paperwork but owing to us moving I never chased up the acknowledgement letter as they now claim I should have done.

 

The first I heard was via a letter from Inter Credit... I managed to get them to put the debt on hold via the OFT Debt Collection Guidance even though I had to get their director to do it... saying I was recording their call freaked him a little too.

 

Anyway... I sent off a letter to the DVLA disputing it stating I had send the appropriate information off and I understood at the time that was where my liability ended for it. They disagree and I am stuck with it for the time being...

 

Got a nice letter ready to send them though... will put it up when I have sent it as I don't want any "guests" snooping around it for now

[crem]

I presume you are maintaining your stance under the Interpretation Act? i.e. correctly posted and stamped is deemed to be correctly delivered 2 days later.

 

I am not aware that the DVLA have ever pursued a case to court where the "victim" has steadfastly maintained this position. Does anyone else know to the contrary?

[vjohn82]

I presume you are maintaining your stance under the Interpretation Act? i.e. correctly posted and stamped is deemed to be correctly delivered 2 days later.

 

I am not aware that the DVLA have ever pursued a case to court where the "victim" has steadfastly maintained this position. Does anyone else know to the contrary?

 

Well... this would form part of a court defence...

 

I will post the letter I have sent anyway

[vjohn82]

Here's my letter... no reason not to display it as it is all correct and within the law

 

Vehicle Registration Mark: ######

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I received your letter dated 12 May 2009 and the contents of this letter have been noted. Having read the letter thoroughly and then taken the opportunity to read through the relevant statutory instruments I believe I still have a defence based in law which I shall explain.

 

You have stated that you have not received a disposal notice as per the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and specifically quoting regulations 22 - 24. Therefore the £80 fine which was passed onto Inter Credit for collection stands.

 

I have included below the appropriate section you quoted from 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.

 

You stated that the Agency issues an acknowledgement letter on receipt of disposal notifications and SORN declarations. However, this is not covered under statutory law and therefore, in my opinion, is open to abuse and incompetence. I believe if the requirement on your part to send out an acknowledgement, confirming the disposal of vehicles, was part of statute law then you would not have the thousands of disputes each year for loss of documentation.

 

Therefore as I stated in my previous letter I notified the DVLA under s.24 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and under that Act that is where my responsibility ends. There is nothing in statute which obliges me to do anything else. Therefore the responsibility of disposal rests upon the DVLA to manage their records and databases properly.

 

You also wrote in the letter that you had sent a letter stating that the late licensing penalty was to be paid by a specified date. On what date was this letter sent exactly? I moved house to 24 Sunflower Drive in August 2008 and all of my correspondence details with the DVLA were kept up to date including my driving licence.

 

Therefore it stands to reason that any correspondence you claim you issued in respect of this vehicle would not have reached me in any case for me to defend at that time. This puts me at a perceivable disadvantage but one which would also make up part of a defence as you seem to be indicating that I have ignored my responsibilities; this cannot be true because I notified the DVLA of my new addresses for both road fund and licensing purposes. Therefore it would have been entirely adequate for the DVLA to have contacted me at my new address when they noticed a discrepancy. If you dispute this I would point you out that under Vehicle Excise and Duty Regulations;

 

“(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b) notice may be given to a person by—

(a) delivering it to him,

(b) leaving it at his proper address, or

© sending it to him by post;

and for the purposes of this subsection, and of section 7 of the [1978 c. 30.] Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this subsection, the proper address of a person is his latest address as known to the Secretary of State.”

 

In immediately fining me I believe you are in contravention of the Bill of Rights 1689 which states:

 

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”

 

The Bill of Rights 1689 assigns protection from civil authorities in imposing fines without the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore your ability to fine me must be made directly from the courts in question as I am allowed the right to a fair trial to put forward my case. You have stated that my submission does not constitute a defence. I disagree and my defence to you is as follows.

 

I let DVLA know by post that the vehicle had been sold. Having given the letter containing the notification to the post office by law it is considered delivered. You yourselves post out penalty notices by second class post knowing this to be the case.

 

The penalty notice therefore is fining me for not spotting the fact that DVLA had lost/ not processed or incorrectly processed my notification. I should not be held responsible for the incompetence of DVLA. The only notification I received that the processing was not handled correctly was within the letter from the debt collection company you assigned. I do not accept that it is lawful or correct to prosecute me for not spotting the failings of DVLA.

 

The DVLA has issued me with a “penalty” for allegedly not informing you of a change of keeper. By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting ‘ultra vires’ by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:

 

Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that –

 

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

This means that the requirement of ‘fairness’ is fundamental. There must be an equal and reasonable opportunity for all parties to present a case. There should be equality of arms i.e. one party should not be placed at a procedural disadvantage over the other:

 

 

“An independent and impartial tribunal

Judges or tribunal members must be free from outside pressures, and should be independent of the executive and of the parties. Impartiality is another important element of ‘fairness’. The decision-makers therefore need to show that they are free of any prejudice or bias.

 

These are wide ranging and highly developed rights which cover all criminal and civil cases as well as cases heard by tribunals and some internal hearings or regulatory procedures.

 

Anyone who has his civil rights determined or is facing a criminal charge is entitled to these rights."

 

Anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain other rights, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense."

 

The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

 

in that:

“The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom";

which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.

In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) -"which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law"

Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides –

“• that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning –

 

(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;

 

(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;

 

© the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.

 

• Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to

give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.

 

• Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court

or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.”

 

Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297

 

“We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

 

I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is established by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-

 

“We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever”

I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights 1689 subsequently enacted -

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”

As such, I do not recognize the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines and nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle license. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234.

 

Therefore I do have a defence and if you pursue court action I shall make a counter claim as per the Bill of Rights 1689 stating that you have imposed a fine on me, as a person, without a fair trial. On that basis I shall seek compensation as per Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. It is clear to see there has been an administrative error on the part of the DVLA and I trust that this will be remedied with immediate effect.

 

As a final note I noticed that on my current V5 document for my car it states the following;

 

“DVLA will issue an acknowledgement letter after 4 weeks to confirm you are no longer the registered keeper. If the acknowledgement is not received then please contact DVLA on 0870 240 0010″

 

Therefore there is no time limit, statutory or otherwise, on the paperwork you said you have processed this fine in the instance of which compels any person in the land to contact you within any specified time limit. I suggest that there is a failing within the administrative arm of the DVLA and this has been highlighted on the BBC TV programme “Watchdog” on multiple occasions. Indeed the legislation put in place is to stop unlicensed vehicles from being used on the roads and not for raising revenue by virtue of your administrative errors.

 

I expect a letter in due course stating that you have resolved the administrative errors within your database and that no further action is required from me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Vaughan Jones

[fwog]

Swear an oath (stat dec) to the effect you have posted the letter. The DVLA will have to change the law of the land to oppose it. costs about a fiver, well worth it. the DVLA were adamant they were pursuing this, until they got the letter.

 

Fwog

[vjohn82]

Swear an oath (stat dec) to the effect you have posted the letter. The DVLA will have to change the law of the land to oppose it. costs about a fiver, well worth it. the DVLA were adamant they were pursuing this, until they got the letter.

 

Fwog

 

What should I put in the affidavit?

[vjohn82]

What about this???

Affidavit.rtf

[fwog]

No ,its just a thing you do at your solicitors. Ring them and arrange an appointment, they will do the rest. Paperwork and all. It just states that you swear all your saying is the truth.

 

Fwog

[vjohn82]

Ok... affidavit signed by a court official today for free! Sent it off to the DVLA along with my statement this afternoon.

 

Have you done something like this before then fwog?

[fwog]

Would be telling

It just puts the onis on the DVLA to say' we dont believe you, you have lied on oath, were taking you to court to prove it' where by the judge would say 'its been posted, deemed received after two days, hav'nt you got anything better to do with the public purse, DVLA?'

Its just crap really, the DVLA are trying to criminalized law abiding people by putting the frighteners on them, tosh.

I shudder to think of the amount of people who, faced with a red-tape behemoth, just cough for the fee. Its robbery of the worst kind. :mad:

 

Fwog

[vjohn82]

Ok... well it has all been sent off today so hopefully I will have a response in due course...

 

I will let you know how it goes

[sturdytenor]

I've just received a somewhat threatening letter from the DVLA regarding the SORN on my vehicle, which requires renewal yearly. This is the second letter I have received. I replied to the first letter, apologising for overlooking the notice of renewal, which was overdue by about 3 months. They are now demanding that I pay them £40, rising to £80 if not paid by 16th June. Also they are threatening that they could have my car clamped or destroyed. Surely this would be illegal as my car is on a private drive, where it has been for two years. This law about yearly SORN renewal is stupid. This is now going to cost me at least £40 when, in my opinion, I have not broken the law. Any ideas on how to avoidpaying this fine?

[vjohn82]

I'll be posting how I am getting on with this soon enough as I have received a response... but your situation is different because you do actually own the car and you are under an obligation to renew it under the law.

 

I don't see how you can escape it mate. Pay the £40 before it goes higher.

[patdavies]

I've just received a somewhat threatening letter from the DVLA regarding the SORN on my vehicle, which requires renewal yearly. This is the second letter I have received. I replied to the first letter, apologising for overlooking the notice of renewal, which was overdue by about 3 months. They are now demanding that I pay them £40, rising to £80 if not paid by 16th June. Also they are threatening that they could have my car clamped or destroyed. Surely this would be illegal as my car is on a private drive, where it has been for two years. This law about yearly SORN renewal is stupid. This is now going to cost me at least £40 when, in my opinion, I have not broken the law. Any ideas on how to avoidpaying this fine?

 

 

You have admitted the offence and are consequently liable for the penalty. You have broken the law by not renewing your SORN declaration. That is the whole point of continuous registration.

 

Changes in legislation mean that for un-SORNed vehicles, they may enter private property (but not the immediate curtilage of a dwelling) in order to clamp or remove a vehicle.

 

My advice on this one is to pay it during the discounted period. Also be aware that you may well get a (perfectly lawful) supplementary demand for VED for the period between the dates of expiration of the last VED and the date of the latest SORN declaration

[crem]

I know they have written it into law, but WHY should you have to do a SORN yearly? Once a car is declared SORN it should remain so until you retax it to put it back on the road.

 

The only purpose of a yearly SORN as far as I can see is to purposefully catch people out who either forget to re-SORN or didn't realise you had to, but that would suggest the government and DVLA had invented this system as pure revenue raising, and surely I can't believe they would do that!!

[patdavies]

I know they have written it into law, but WHY should you have to do a SORN yearly? Once a car is declared SORN it should remain so until you retax it to put it back on the road.

 

The only purpose of a yearly SORN as far as I can see is to purposefully catch people out who either forget to re-SORN or didn't realise you had to, but that would suggest the government and DVLA had invented this system as pure revenue raising, and surely I can't believe they would do that!!

 

 

I would assume that since VED renewal is annual (6 monthly is a concession) that when SORN was established it was aligned with that, without much thought. I don't see a deliberate conspiracy.

 

Motto: Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by mere stupidity.

[vjohn82]

My sympathies are with you on this, they really are. The DVLA act as a law unto themselves... absolute nightmare to deal with too.

 

I'm having a right game with them. Wrote in, got an affidavit signed and stamped by the courts... and they are still rejecting it!!!

 

Looking carefully at the Finance Act 2002 which amended the VERA 1994.

[lola407vga]

don't know if this is the right place to ask vjohn82........

but can I use sections of this letter?

I am in dispute with DVLA over not responding to not receiving an acknowledgement letter. I have maintained that the vehicle in question was scrapped (V5 section posted), but cannot find this letter - don't remember if I got one or not. This dates from 2005!!, so it's not surprising that I cannot find it nor remember receiving it.

Would appreciate a helping hand as I am beginning to give in to them.

One thing that keeps me going is the thought that if I admit this by paying up - what's next - a bill for back tax,

[vjohn82]

don't know if this is the right place to ask vjohn82........

but can I use sections of this letter?

I am in dispute with DVLA over not responding to not receiving an acknowledgement letter. I have maintained that the vehicle in question was scrapped (V5 section posted), but cannot find this letter - don't remember if I got one or not. This dates from 2005!!, so it's not surprising that I cannot find it nor remember receiving it.

Would appreciate a helping hand as I am beginning to give in to them.

One thing that keeps me going is the thought that if I admit this by paying up - what's next - a bill for back tax,

 

To a certain extent you are helping yourself if you have kept hold of your letters. If you are 100% sure you have them it might be a good idea to send an SAR to the DVLA... as far as I know they have to keep personal data records for 6 years which will show whether they sent a letter to you or not - but then again I might be wrong too.

 

You can certainly use the letter if you so wish... the best thing to do is to be strong and positive. The VERA was amended in 2002 by the Finance Act which added section 31B which states something like if you were not in personal possession of the vehicle you cannot be fined the maximum £1000 which they are currently threatening me with... but I have not put that to them yet as it's my ace in the pack so to speak... they think they can bully me by using the section 31 to scare me into thinking I am getting a huge fine if I choose to defend it in court.

 

Tell you what when you have finished your letter post it up here and I can have a look at it for you

[vjohn82]

Ok I will post up the reply I received from the DVLA as soon as I get the chance to but the good news is they have dropped the "fine/penalty" and apologised for the lengthy process in dealing with my complaint.

 

They have also confirmed they will be amending the wording on all V5 documents to make it clearer about the seller obligations and the service of documents.

 

RESULT!!!

[kiptower]

it does not matter how they change the wording , the Law is the Law and until they change the Law on informing the DVLA their excuse you should contact us after X weeks is a load of waffle

 

maybe they should set it up you take it to the POST OFFICE they stamp it and they post it , and you get a receipt , I bet no one would mind paying something like £1.50 etc for that service

 

soon put a stop to their [problem]

 

works like this

 

v5 received not reg'ed go into a pile

 

5 weeks go by, pile gets picked up by oddjob and selects 3 out of 10 etc

 

next thing they demand £80 from the 3 unsuspecting drivers

 

even the tax man aint thought of that YET

Edited August 11, 2009 by kiptower

[vjohn82]

Hey you'll get no disagreement from me... BUT... the wording was the part they were relying on to take me to court and which formed the basis of their replies to me... therefore it was an easy way to defend the claims of the DVLA...

 

It's a case of picking your battle ground with these people... would I have been as confident on this point in court rather than the lawful terms? I would have... the law is always open to interpretation. Their wording on the V5 was fallible which is why it was easier to argue the case. They gave up... I've won... we move on

[gwc1000]

Even though any new wording on a V5 will not be law and is as far as I can see doomed , have they forgotten that there are currently millions of V5s in circulation without the new wording, and would make an easier defence for anybody falling foul of their devious methods?

[vjohn82]

Even though any new wording on a V5 will not be law and is as far as I can see doomed , have they forgotten that there are currently millions of V5s in circulation without the new wording, and would make an easier defence for anybody falling foul of their devious methods?

 

Exactly... hence the reason it is important I published this thread to the full extent to show others how it can be done if you persist.

[nehpets]

Well done vjohn82. And thank you for telling us the story behind you case.

 

 

The comments which people have made about the proposed 'new V5' are correct - it does not matter a jot what the DVLA place in their guidance notes because the law will remain the same. Anyone defending themsleves will be able to show that the DVLA are using the guidance notes in an attempt to circumvent a law or laws which already exist (ie the Interpretation Act). They aren't allowed to do that.

 

In my opinion the only option which they have is to alter the law so that a document is required by a former keeper - effectively a 'former keepers certificate'. Then, in the case of any dispute, a former keeper could be asked to produce the cert. The same would apply for SORN - you'd be given a 'SORN Disk'.

 

N.