Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

DVLA have fined me... nice


vjohn82
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5399 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be telling :p

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?' :D

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::mad::mad:

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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? :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :mad:

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :eek:

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by kiptower

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...