DVLA Late Licensing Penalty

[gwc1000]

One other point that I'm not sure about, is does DVLA actually have authority to clamp a vehicle that is taxed but is subject to a LLP? I know they can clamp an untaxed vehicle, but is there legislation that allows them to clamp the vehicle in Sweeney Todd's circumstances if he were still the owner?

[cab1ne]

I agree that a response isn't necessary, and I would welcome my day in court because, as I see it, the bottom line is that I advised DVLA that I had disposed of the vehicle and they are trying to fine me because they failed to update their records; however, whilst I clearly do not own the vehicle that they are pursuing a fine against, do they have any right of way of clamping or seizing the car that I do own?

 

One other point that I'm not sure about, is does DVLA actually have authority to clamp a vehicle that is taxed but is subject to a LLP? I know they can clamp an untaxed vehicle, but is there legislation that allows them to clamp the vehicle in Sweeney Todd's circumstances if he were still the owner?

 

the can only have a go at you for the offending vehicle.

 

cab

[gwc1000]

the can only have a go at you for the offending vehicle.

 

cab

Yes, I understand that. But my point is, assume that Sweeney Todd still owned the vehicle that attracted a LLP but which had subsequently been taxed, is there legislation that allows DVLA to clamp the taxed vehicle due to an outstanding LLP, let alone a disputed LLP?

[Big Bill]

Law Lords 5 April 2000 :- "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped.

This shows that it would be illegal to clamp his other car as he had not consented to its being clamped. Consent can be inferred if the "owner" of the car ( who is not necessarily the driver or the registered keeper) deliberately performs an action knowing that the penalty is clamping.

Trespass against the goods to recover a debt of a third party is even contrary to the Bill of Rights.

This could be held to prohibit the clamping of any vehicle on hire, leased or where a finance compeny has the "Title " to the vehicle since the actions of the driver cannot be used to trespas aginst the goods of the owner.

[letmehelpyou]

Because you are in dispute it is unlawful for this to passed to DCA. They are not allowed to do it. If they do and when they do you can then report them.

 

I am about to use the letter that "nehpets" suggest and I was thinking of adding something that "reminds" them that they cannot legally pass the matter on to a DCA.

 

Could you or anyone point me to the actual legislation that shows this to be the case?

 

Many thanks

[crem]

The Consumer Credit Act

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

[letmehelpyou]

The Consumer Credit Act

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

 

Thanks for that crem, but could you or someone confirm that the DVLA are licensed by the OFT.

 

If they're are not, then the legal requirement seems to be with the DCA persuing a disputed debt rather that the DVLA actually passing it over to them.

[crem]

Thanks for that crem, but could you or someone confirm that the DVLA are licensed by the OFT.

 

If they're are not, then the legal requirement seems to be with the DCA persuing a disputed debt rather that the DVLA actually passing it over to them.

 

I think that is true, but once you have made the DCA aware that it is disputed, they are legally obliged to return the file to the DVLA. If the DVLA were already aware it is disputed then they are plonkers for passing it to a DCA, but not, I think, in contravention of the Act.

[Sweeney Todd]

OK. I think I've covered the clamping issue by asking them what legislation they are looking to apply in this regard, and I've added in a bit more about the debt being disputed.

 

Does anyone suggest any other amendments before sending this out?

 

Many thanks,

Sweeney.

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your ref: xxxx

Vehicle Reg: xxxx

 

Thank you for your letter of 1 September 2009, the contents of which are noted.

 

As holders of a Consumer Credit Licence you are obliged to comply with the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt Collection. I would therefore be obliged if you would provide me with an explanation as to why you are attempting to collect on an alleged debt which was disputed with DVLA.

 

DVLA have been advised that they were correctly informed of the disposal of the vehicle in question, and that the failure to amend records was theirs and not mine and, as such, no penalty should have been imposed.

Take notice that I will not discuss this matter on the telephone, and all communication must be in writing. Any telephone calls will be perceived as harassment, and dealt with accordingly.

 

In addition, both DVLA and, now, yourselves have been advised that this vehicle was disposed of and DVLA informed in the correct manner and at the correct time.

 

I would, therefore, kindly advise you, as I have advised DVLA, that this debt is in dispute and, in line with OFT guidelines, ask that you treat this matter as such. In view of this, I trust that this matter will now be brought to an end or, alternatively, referred to county court so that this matter may be resolved and the errors of DVLA and their lack of complaints or appeal procedure brought to the attention of the court.

 

Finally, I note your threat to wheelclamp my vehicle. My current vehicle is not the subject of this error by DVLA and is suitably taxed. I trust that Philips will not be looking to wheelclamp this vehicle however if this is not the case, I would be grateful if you would kindly advise under what legislation this will be applied.

 

I look forward to your reply in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sweeney Todd

[gwc1000]

Letter looks good to me. I would also send a copy to DVLA.

[nehpets]

Sweeny Todd...

 

Personally I’d ignore any letters from DCA’s and just collect them in a pile ready for the court case. It’s not going to look good (for the DVLA) when you question their practices and produce a dozen different letters from them (the DVLA) and their DCA henchmen. You could use the fact that they continued to harass you to your advantage by suggesting that the DVLA and the DCA’s ignore rules which regulate these matters.

 

 

With regard to my case...

 

I’ve recently received another batch of letters from a DCA regarding my case. In two of the letters the DCA clearly states that they want £80 from me in respect of “a fine” issued by the DVLA. This is now effectively a fraud because the DVLA don’t have the judicial power to issue fines. Interestingly in a previous letter to me the DVLA actually claim that the £80 charge is not a fine but ‘a supplement’. Personally I would dispute that. Either way the DCA and the DVLA are contradicting each other badly. The bottom line is that the DCA only feels that they can be effective through bullying the defendant and in order to fulfil that task they need to create an illusion that a fine actually exists. If they couldn’t imply that a fine existed all they would be able to do is harass you to accept the out of court settlement – in my opinion that would largely be ineffective.

 

Personally I sense that the DVLA don’t want to take this one to court. If they do then they are dragging their feet. The case is going round and round in circles. This is the second time they reverted to the DCA method. I have maintained throughout that I am not accepting their offer of settlement and that I refute the allegation that I have broken any law.

In the most recent letter the DVLA claim that they would be happy for the case to proceed to court. (That was a month ago but instead of going to court they’ve passed the case to yet another DCA!!) In the same letter they claimed that I would have to submit my defence prior to the actual court hearing – I’m not so sure about this? They indicate that they have the right to examine my defence prior to deciding whether to take the matter to County Court – I would question that? Surely a defendant’s line of defence is classed as ‘legally privileged’ and as such he or she would be perfectly entitled to keep the defence arguments ‘under wraps’ until the actual hearing? The DLVA seem not to want to accept that taking someone to court is a risky business!

 

 

N.

[Sweeney Todd]

I see what you're saying, nehpets.

 

I've already sent the letter to Philips (I want to make sure that they don't try to clamp my current car), but I haven't sent it to DVLA. I doubt whether Philips will pass my letter to DVLA.

 

Either way, keep in contact. It will be interesting to see how both our cases progress.

[gwc1000]

Personally I sense that the DVLA don’t want to take this one to court. If they do then they are dragging their feet.

.

Hi, nephets. I see that Brett Daughtrey (last post in link) is being taken to the County Court. I wonder why and how they cherry pick these cases?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/205549-dvla-sorn-sent-not-2.html

[nehpets]

Hi, nephets. I see that Brett Daughtrey (last post in link) is being taken to the County Court. I wonder why and how they cherry pick these cases?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/205549-dvla-sorn-sent-not-2.html

 

 

Yes - I just read his post.

 

I think that they must weigh up certain cases. Of course they’ll probably deny this as they have to appear to be treating everyone equally.

My guess is that many simply get bullied into paying the £80.00 fines because of the threatening letters etc. I don’t want to get overly political on this matter but it is clear that these laws are tax raising measures.

In terms of individual cases there is no question that they use some dubious means to obtain information from defendants. For example, despite not having an official appeals process, they invite defendants to provide statements relating to SORN or other non notification type allegations. This potentially raises questions regarding a defendant’s right to silence – in many a cases the defendant is unaware that providing a statement could well be placing them at a further disadvantage. The DVLA could well be using these statements in the process of determining which cases to pursue.

When I contacted the DLVA Poole Office I was initially advised that I was committing a further offence by refusing to answer the DVLA’s questions regarding the allegation of failure to SORN. It was only when challenged them on this point that they admitted that I had no obligation to provide them with further information. I wonder how many people have potentially divulged information because they simply believed what the DVLA might have implied?

What is more interesting about the case on the other thread is that the DVLA appear to be applying for a liability order. That is very different to taking someone to court for an alleged offence. The DVLA are implying that the allegation has already been proven and hence the financial penalty exists. In this instance I would challenge the DVLA’s ability to issue a fine – under UK and European law I doubt that the DVLA would constitute a judicial body capable of issuing ‘a fine’. Essentially you could ask the court to consider whether the debt (which the DVLA are claiming the liability order for) actually exists.

N.

[nehpets]

I just couldnt help myself...

 

Another letter arrived from the DCA (Inter-Credit) asking me (rather politely this time) to make arrangements to pay the £80 fine. I phoned them and pointed out to them that I considered a letter demanding £80 for a fine which didnt exist to be fraud..... they quickly decided to drop the matter and said they'd be sending it back to the DVLA.

[Sweeney Todd]

My letter to Philips and their follow up letter have crossed in the post. this is their latest letter:

 

Despite our previous demands for payment you have failed to clear your arrears.

 

The amount which remains outstanding must be paid in full to Philips immediately. Failure to make full payment may result in your case being passed to our Enforcement Department for further recovery procedures.

 

You MUST pay £80.00 in full by contacting is on Tel: 0844 800 4588 (24hr) or by visiting Philips - Debt Revenue Recovery & Enforcement Services. If you ignore this demand for payment your vehicle may be wheelclamped in which case a release fee will be charged and a valid tax disc must be produced. You could also be fined more that £1000.00. Further payment options can be found overleaf.

 

If you have not already done so, and to prevent yourself incurring additional costs and a possible County Court Judment against you, you must pay this penalty and either tax the vehicle if you are using it or keeping it on the public road or make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) if it is being kept off road. You can do this on-line at DVLA Vehicle Licensing Online | Home or by completing one of the forms previously sent to you. If you no longer have the vehicle you must pay the penalty and write to DVLA Swansea SA99 1AR telling them you have either sold, transferred, exported or scrapped it.

 

Receiving this letter gives me confidence. Their 'out of the file' letter is clearly designed at people who have not taxed their vehicle with no excuse or who have subsequently SORNed the vehicle. They have yet to address my complaint; namely that I did advise DVLA that I had sold the vehicle but that DVLA were incompetent in updating their records.

[nehpets]

To be honest I'm not sure if writing the the DCA's does any good. They only seem to understand one thing and that is £££££s. It seems like a lightly regulated industry. They arent supposed to chase 'alledged debts'. When I questioned them (over the phone) on this matter they simply stated that they thought that they'd acted correctly since they were taking instructions from 'a government body' - in other words the DCA (Inter-Credit) don't seem to bother to check if a case has been proved before trying to recover the fine. When I tried to discuss the finer points of this issue they became evasive and said that they didnt want to "go down that road". My guess is that certain DCA's have a 'friendly relationship' with the DVLA and that they make good (easy) money from it even if a few guidelines or rules get bent and they arent going to talk about anything which could threaten that.

 

 

 

N.

[gwc1000]

I consider it suspicious and unusual that a government body that claims a penalty is due would take the option to use a DCA. The Inland Revenue or HM Customs if owed money can be quick to escalate the matter straight to Court, and persue their claim no matter what the cost to themselves. And they have no qualms about giving a CCJ or obtaining a charge on somebody's property. I cannot imagine that they would ever use a DCA before action. They have no need to, they just use the law. Considering the amount of DVLA cases we see on this forum, why are DVLA not persuing these cases themselves if, as they claim, they have the backing of the law. There has to be a reason for them to outsource the collection, it isn't normal government behaviour.

[nehpets]

I consider it suspicious and unusual that a government body that claims a penalty is due would take the option to use a DCA. The Inland Revenue or HM Customs if owed money can be quick to escalate the matter straight to Court, and persue their claim no matter what the cost to themselves. And they have no qualms about giving a CCJ or obtaining a charge on somebody's property. I cannot imagine that they would ever use a DCA before action. They have no need to, they just use the law. Considering the amount of DVLA cases we see on this forum, why are DVLA not persuing these cases themselves if, as they claim, they have the backing of the law. There has to be a reason for them to outsource the collection, it isn't normal government behaviour.

 

 

GWC1000 – I agree with you 100%. I alluded to something similar on another thread a month or two back. Someone also posted an excerpt from what looked like an internal DVLA document / memo where someone at the DVLA was stating how poor their results were from direct court action. On that basis I’d say that it was reasonably clear that the DCA method is purely a ‘tactic’ on their part. It’s nothing more than the [problem] / numbers game which works along the same lines as the “horse racing tipster [problem]” where the organiser knows that a certain percentage of people will respond to the first / second / third letter if they can convince the potential punter that something is true. If what the DVLA sets out in their letters / specifies on the advice lines was completely true then their court cases would have exceedingly high rates of success and, as you correctly point out, would pretty much do away with the need for a DCA and its threatening letters. Effectively the use of the DCA exposes the real weakness which the DVLA have in these types of cases. A good friend of mine (he’s a contracts specialist) also raised a valid question surrounding the DVLA and a Data Protection Act issue – he’s asking if the DVLA realise that they breaking the DPA when they reveal defendants names and addresses to DCA’s prior to cases being proven in court? This information should be protected by law. The law only appears to allow the DVLA (secretary Of State) to make an offer of out of court settlement to the defendant.

 

 

N.

[Sweeney Todd]

Well, today I received template letter number 3 (or Security Code 803 as Philips prefer to call it). I think that this could be my favourite DCA letter ever, being sent from the 'Welfare Department'

 

This is what they had to say:

 

WELFARE NOTICE

It has come to our attention your case is about to be allocated to our Enforcement Department which may result in you incurring additional costs when our Enforcement Officers commence procedures against you.

The Welfare Department's responsibility is to ensure this action only takes place where absolutely necessary.

We are extremely concerned that you have not settled your arrears of £80. Please contact us on Tel:0844 800 4588 immediately. Your concerns may only get worse if you ignore this letter. The Welfare Department is here to help you and can only do so if you contact us.

If you have not already done so, and to prevent yourself incurring additional costs and a possible County Court Judgment against you, you must pay this penalty and either tax the vehicle if you are using or keeping it on public road or make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) if it is being kept off road. You can do this on-line at http://www.direct.go.uk/taxdisc or by competing one of the forms previously sent to you. If you no longer have the vehicle you must pay the penalty and write to DVLA Swansea SA99 1AR telling them you have either sold, transferred, exported or scrapped it.

PHILIPS CALL CENTRE OPENING HOURS: 07:30-20:00 (Mon-Fri) 09:00-13:00 (Sat)

[Sweeney Todd]

And in the same post came the apparent templated reply to my letter, which would appear to be their standard fob off letter number 10 (or Security Code 810 as they titled it) which would appear to be based upon one of DVLA's template 'My fingers are in my ears and I'm not listening La-La-La just pay us' letters (or 'DVLA - Letter B' as they call it, having left that reference on the letter).

 

This is the summary of their 2 week investigation into the contents of my letter:

 

DVLA - Letter B

 

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the above Late Licensing Penalty. By law it is the responsibility of the Registered Keeper as recorded by DVLA to inform them that the vehicle has been either sold, disposed of, part exchanged, scrapped, exported, kept off road, written off, stolen or is part of an insurance claim.

If you have informed the DVLA of any of the above you will have received an acknowledgement receipt from them. Please send in a copy in order that we can update our records. Please note if your acknowledgement receipt is dated after the date of the Late Licensing Penalty you will still be liable to pay the outstanding amount.

If you do not have an acknowledgement receipt or you do and it is dated after the date of the Late Licensing Penalty you must pay £80 in full by contacting us on Tel: 0844 800 4588 (24hr) or by visiting Philips - Debt Revenue Recovery & Enforcement Services. If you ignore this demand for payment your vehicle may be wheelclamped in which case a release fee will be charged and a valid tax disc must be produced. You could also be fined more than £1000.00. Further payment options can be found overleaf.

To prevent yourself incurring additional costs and a possible County Court Judgment against you, you must pay this penalty and either tax the vehicle if you are using it or keeping it on the public road or make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) if it is being kept off road. You can do this on-line at www.direct.go.uk/taxdisc or by competing one of the forms previously sent to you. If you no longer have the vehicle you must pay the penalty and write to DVLA Swansea SA99 1AR telling them you have either sold, transferred, exported or scrapped it.

PHILIPS CALL CENTRE OPENING HOURS: 07:30-20:00 (Mon-Fri) 09:00-13:00 (Sat)

 

I guess it's pointless writing again, because the company seems to be run by chimpanzees who are given a selection of random buttons to hit so that a standard template letter can be sent out, regardless of whether or not you contact them or what the content of your correspondence may be...

[gwc1000]

It is interesting that DVLA threaten the possibility of a CCJ. In other words County Court, and not magistrates. If it were me in this case I would write to DVLA and question this very point, and ask for clarification why if in their opinion you have commited an offence they will not escalate it to the magistrates, and also which legislation allows them to persue a disputed penalty through the County Court.

[nehpets]

Sweeney Todd - The bit where they say "you must pay the £80 penalty" is unqualified legal advice. What they really mean is "you dont have to pay the £80 if you dont want to and you are quite entitled to take the matter to court where our client (the DVLA) will have a rather difficult job proving that you are guilty of the offence"

 

I would now ignore all letters from these DCA morons.

 

N.

[Sweeney Todd]

I would now ignore all letters from these DCA morons.

I agree. I will, however, post up template letter number 4 for your perusal when it arrives.

[Denzlepob]

I just got a dreaded £40 - £80 letter, it was for a moped which has an annual tax of £11, a bit harsh, my question is, will it have an impact on my credit rating? How does the 40 - 80 relate to the tax of £11?

 

Cheers.