DVLA Late Licensing Penalty

[wastedyears1981]

Cheers Hungrybear,

 

Thanks for posting your letter too. Without it, a lot of people would be pulling their hair out. At first when I got the letter I was extremely wooried about what the DVLA would do to me if I didnt pay this, even though it isn't my fault. After reading the posts on this forum and the letter you posted it made me feel so much easier, to the point that I hope they do take me to court. I'd love to screw these crooks over in court and prove just how inept and unproffesional they are. They can threaten legal action all they want, Ive given evidence lots of times in court and its something that does not scare me.

The only thing that does bother me, something that I dont think has been clarified in depth on this thread, is whether they can clamp my current vehicle (even though it is suitably taxed).

[hungrybear]

Cheers Hungrybear,

 

Thanks for posting your letter too. Without it, a lot of people would be pulling their hair out. At first when I got the letter I was extremely wooried about what the DVLA would do to me if I didnt pay this, even though it isn't my fault. After reading the posts on this forum and the letter you posted it made me feel so much easier, to the point that I hope they do take me to court. I'd love to screw these crooks over in court and prove just how inept and unproffesional they are. They can threaten legal action all they want, Ive given evidence lots of times in court and its something that does not scare me.

The only thing that does bother me, something that I dont think has been clarified in depth on this thread, is whether they can clamp my current vehicle (even though it is suitably taxed).In relation to this fine? Not without a court order they can't.

 

If you go to court, the correct response to 'case dismissed' is COSTS - it's the only time you can claim them. I know from someone who went to court they get 95% judgement by default and pretty much lose all the contested cases.

 

Yes, thought I recognised some of the wording. It is one of my current missions to get the 'if you do not have an acknowledgement you are still liable for the penalty' removed from their letters. Unfortunately at that point I feel an amendment to the law coming on - IMO this is a deliberate money making exercise on the part of DVLA.

 

Personally my anger came from the fact that I had done everything right and nearly paid up to make them go away. It's worth noting that they did not contest my letter at all and set an apology letter by return

[wastedyears1981]

What angers me the most is that its their mistake, and for the privilege of their mistake, I get to pay an £80 penalty. Are there any court cases where defendants have attended at court and lost to the DVLA?

[hungrybear]

What angers me the most is that its their mistake, and for the privilege of their mistake, I get to pay an £80 penalty. Are there any court cases where defendants have attended at court and lost to the DVLA?

 

 

There's always the potential in the 'judge lottery' as it were and I would never ever say that anything in the English Judicial system can be a 100% dead cert.

 

......That said, the answer to your question is not that I am aware of. IMO they would have a massive uphill battle because they would have to prove a negative; ie prove that you did not post the V5C or the V890 etc. The law is quite explicit in that if you put it in the post box then legally you sent it and complied with the statute/regulations for vehicle licensing. So I do not see what evidence they could use to trump a sworn statement of postage plus the interpretations act.

[wastedyears1981]

Well, got a reply from Philips. Was exactly the same letter as the first one I got. Nice to see that they've looked at my letter on an individual basis and spent their time sending me the pre typed letter. Muppets lol. Ive made it clear to them in the first letter that Im only dealing with DVLA so I aint gonna waste my time and paper writing back to them. As for DVLA, also got a reply, to the letter I sent back in october explaining that I didnt have the vehicle anymore, it was the acknowledgment letter but nothing regarding my query and challenge of their penalty. And again, even after 2 twice telling them I have changed address, they have sent it to my old address. Yet some more ammo for my evidence to their imcompetance.

 

As for the acknowledgement letter they've sent, there is no date as to when the vehicle was sold, no date stating when the RK changed or anything, just the date of the letter when it was sent. I wonder if I could us that as proof to philips that I no longer own the vehicle.

[hungrybear]

Well, got a reply from Philips. Was exactly the same letter as the first one I got. Nice to see that they've looked at my letter on an individual basis and spent their time sending me the pre typed letter. Muppets lol. Ive made it clear to them in the first letter that Im only dealing with DVLA so I aint gonna waste my time and paper writing back to them. As for DVLA, also got a reply, to the letter I sent back in october explaining that I didnt have the vehicle anymore, it was the acknowledgment letter but nothing regarding my query and challenge of their penalty. And again, even after 2 twice telling them I have changed address, they have sent it to my old address. Yet some more ammo for my evidence to their imcompetance.

 

As for the acknowledgement letter they've sent, there is no date as to when the vehicle was sold, no date stating when the RK changed or anything, just the date of the letter when it was sent. I wonder if I could us that as proof to philips that I no longer own the vehicle.

 

 

this dvla letter where was it from -preston, glasgow or swansea? - then I'll comment on philips

[wastedyears1981]

Swansea

[hungrybear]

Swansea

 

 

OK this has nothing to do with the fine, this is swansea telling you that they have now updated their database, it has nothing to do with sorting out philips and the fine.

 

You will/should get a reply from (preston?) regarding your letter.

 

I think you just need to keep telling all of them to either take you to court or sod off. They no they have at best a slim chance in court so I asume that they think sending lots of threats will work better.

 

Perhaps a letter to the enfrorcement department -presumably preston - threatening legal action for harassment by a third party in a disputed matter.

[Vise]

Hi Guys

 

Very sorry for the necro bumb, but I was wanting a little bit of advise.

 

I part exchanged a motorcycle with a major used motorcycle centre on the 22/10/09

 

I sent off all required details to DVLA from the post office while I taxed my new bike.

 

I got a letter today 16/1/10 saying

 

failure to licence ******

 

According to records you were the register keeper of above vehicle, vehicle did not have excise licence or sorn from 1/11/09, this is an offence.

 

yada yada

 

If you are unable to provide documentory evidence that shows the vehicle record to be inaccurate, I must inform you that you are liable for a late licensing penatly

 

more yada yada

 

I sent, all the details off, I recieved the new V5 for the new bike on 16/11/09 but no confirmation of vehicle transfer for the old bike

 

I have been suffering with depressed for over a year and everthing is a bit of too much effort so I just assumed with getting the new V5 surely they would have the other information (all sent at the same time at the same post office) I know this is a wrong assumption and I should have checked but its NOT a legal requirement correct?

 

I know the fine is only 40-80 but its a lot of money when been on sick for a year, but due to the effort involved and potential stress. Should I just pay up or fight the case?

 

In the latter case what would be my best responce to use?

 

I have already called the bike shop I did the part ex with and they can confirm the sale to themselves for me. Does this help?

 

any advise would be very helpful

 

Vise

[sorndisease]

Sorry to here about this see my post under SORN LLP County Court Action. They may leave you alone if you dispute it, however I very much doubt it. I contested my case on what I believed was right and fair, certainly not on a financial basis. The letter battle you will have to endure will cost you best part of £20. The stress that you will suffer as you realize they are not interested in anything but recovering the money that they have decided you owe will frustrate you beyond any financial pain you are more likely than not to incur. Penalty plus costs another £130 ish. Continuous Registration does not raise revenue if you win in court. If a significant proportion of people start winning cases more people will contest it. Do you think this is going to be allowed to happen. I think a few people got lucky at the start, however I think the process has been honed enough now to close any potential loopholes, thus maximising revenue. If I knew what was involved initially and how I would be treated by the DVLA and the Courts, trust me the £40 will seem insignificant. You are not surposed to query it, just pay and be grateful of damage limitation!

[crem]

I think a few people got lucky at the start, however I think the process has been honed enough now to close any potential loopholes, thus maximising revenue.

 

I wouldn't consider having the support of an Act "a loophole".

[sorndisease]

Neither would I. Unfortunately on the day neither your, mine or Paddington Bear's opinion matters, just the judges. When I questioned whether this Act would be taken into account the judge was quite happy to inform me that as it is the County Court they listen to any evidence offered and make a decision as to whether it applies to your particular case.

 

Quite simply if they dont think that it does they wont apply it to your case. In other words any evidence they choose to deem irrelavent at the time is just that.

 

It gets worse, if there is no evidence of an offence, you will be asked if you have "proof" of innocence! If you do not the magistrate will decide on "the balance of probability"

 

In my case the judge was convinced, regardless of anything else, it is the registered keepers responsiablility to ENSURE the DVLA update the records correctly. On the "balance of probability" was I the RK at the time. YES. Am I guilty? "On the balance of probability" YES.

 

Trust me, forget fairness etc, this is the reality of the situation regardless of how unpalatable it may be!!

 

You have to ask yourself which of the following situations is more likely

 

1 You have been treated dreadfully and wrongly by the DVLA and the government. Case dismissed let me award you some costs"

 

OR

 

2 The Court agrees with the DVLA and the government. You do owe this money. Stop trying to scupper our fantastic little revenue raising scheme and pay up.

[sarah_w]

HI I am new to this forum and was wondering if anyone could give me some advice?

I recieved a letter from DVLA regarding a late licensing penalty of £80

However I sold the car in feb 2009 and the letter states the date of offence was april 2009. I phoned them informing them of the sale and that the new owner was sending them the appropriate paper work. Since then I have been sent numerous letters from Philips collection services ltd demanding the outstanding payment. They have also sent me a letter stating , YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY COURT PROCEEDINGS MAY NOW COMMENCE. county court summons/judgment(being made against your person) and/or :

statutory demand

charging order

attachment of earnings/benefit

bankruptcy petition.

 

I Phoned philips and explained to them I sold the car, but they are still demanding I pay the £80 penalty and If I dont I could also be fined more than £1000.00

 

 

:?

[jkdd77]

It sounds like you should consider an appeal on the grounds of misapplication of law, although I can understand why you would want to put this travesty of justice behind you.

 

Neither would I. Unfortunately on the day neither your, mine or Paddington Bear's opinion matters, just the judges. When I questioned whether this Act would be taken into account the judge was quite happy to inform me that as it is the County Court they listen to any evidence offered and make a decision as to whether it applies to your particular case.

 

Quite simply if they dont think that it does they wont apply it to your case. In other words any evidence they choose to deem irrelavent at the time is just that.

 

It gets worse, if there is no evidence of an offence, you will be asked if you have "proof" of innocence! If you do not the magistrate will decide on "the balance of probability"

 

In my case the judge was convinced, regardless of anything else, it is the registered keepers responsiablility to ENSURE the DVLA update the records correctly. On the "balance of probability" was I the RK at the time. YES. Am I guilty? "On the balance of probability" YES.

 

Trust me, forget fairness etc, this is the reality of the situation regardless of how unpalatable it may be!!

 

You have to ask yourself which of the following situations is more likely

 

1 You have been treated dreadfully and wrongly by the DVLA and the government. Case dismissed let me award you some costs"

 

OR

 

2 The Court agrees with the DVLA and the government. You do owe this money. Stop trying to scupper our fantastic little revenue raising scheme and pay up.

[damageandy]

great thread, very useful.

just got a fine thru myself for not taxing/sorning in november, car was scrapped, V5 sent off and no tax reminder was recieved either. If it was just a £40 fine i would have probally have just paid for the ease, but the greedy gits try to make u pay for the time not taxed, sod that.

ill let you know how i get on, using the info on here to help me.

[dojj]

i've red most of this therad and have my own input to add:

 

been there, done that, got fined

 

they will send you one letter of aknowledgement

 

if you do not have that they can do you, simple

 

it does not matter how long afterwards, but you have ot keep that letter as it's the onl yproof they will accept

 

mine came to pass after 3 years, i'd scraped the car, got the letter, wrote letters back to them etc saying that the car was toast and that they couldn't possibly ex[ect me to keep a letter for 3 years etc

 

no, if you don't hve the letter yuo have to pay the fine

 

insert random rude words here........

[damageandy]

you obviously havnt read the thread then. Did you go to court and lose?

[dojj]

didn';t even know the thread was here or that i could do this sort of stuff so yes, i went to court and lost, for the same reason as stated before, the judge chap who sits in the middle of you and the dvla chap, believs the dvla chap because he's wearing a smarter suit and is deaf in the ear you are sitting next to

 

and if you want to challenge the ruling, it's going to cost you more and more and more so you take the hit and think yourself lucky

 

i do have a letter asking me to provide all sorts of details to support my claims that i've already reported the car as sorn, so i'll send it off after reading a few more

 

rote to dvla asking them to sorn 5 cars

they sent letters back for 2

i wrote back asking where the other letters of confermatin were

they didn't wroite back

i called them

they said i had to wroite in

i wrote in

they doidn't write back

they sent me a llp

i called them

they said write in

i write in

they wrote back saying i had to prove that i had confermation, "the letter"

i am about to write back telling them all of what you have described above

 

unless there is something else that can be simply and easily typed out to say "sod you" ?

[pelham9]

I do not think that it is unlawful for a debt claimant to pass the debt to a DCA whist it is in dispute. Cartainly OFT considers that the action would be unfair. If the DCA continue to communicate with you after you have told them that the matter is in dispute you should complain to OFT who license DCAs. The OFT will take action if they get enough complaints - the licence has to be renewed annually.

[pelham9]

They no they have at best a slim chance in court so I asume that they think sending lots of threats will work better

　

　

Just so - but in 'court' chould read 'in a magistrates or criminal' court.

 

I have read extensively on CAG as a whole and on this forum in particular and I see the matter thus. Please contradict me if I have it wrong.

 

a) There are a number of authorities such as Councils (for parking fines) who have a statutory power to impose penalties

.

b) the DVLA is not one of those authorities and they have no power to impose penalties.

 

c) there are a number of criminal offences that are involved in car licencing.

 

d) the DVLA has a duty to take action in a criminal court if the law is broken and up to recently it did so.

 

e) for a number of reasons the DVLA ( and M of T) did not find this satisfactory because

 

i) Though there were many default (i.e. undefended) wins the cases where the Interpretation Act was invoked by the defendent. were always lost.

 

ii) All 'wins' were subject to appeal.

 

iii)The fines went in the first instance to the court not to the DVLA. In the case of non-payment of a fine it was the court collection procedure that intervened.

 

iv) the procedure took time and is expensive.

 

So the DVLA experimented with the DCA route and found that this was a quicker and more lucrative approach, They did not care that

 

i) No debt was actually owed to them.

 

ii) that people would be intimidated by DCAs who are nearly always dishonest and would harass their victims particularly with the threat of court action.

 

iii) they would have to lie to licencees as to their powers, that the Interpretation Act was not involved and that their internal views were paramount.

 

iv) in a civil court they would have to lie that a debt was actually owed.

 

They do not mind going to a civil court with a spurious debt because most cases will be undefended and they will 'win' by default' - the judges are often not well informed in the lower courts and are unlikely to throw the case out because there is no debt. If a defendant is determined to go to court and clearly is well informed they drop the matter with apologies. Some cases are taken to court and they win some, principally when there is no challenge that a debt is owed. I would bet that up to now few judges have had to decide cases brought by the DVLA and are ignorant of the law in this matter

 

At the moment the DVLA (and M of T) are acting outside statute in a dishonest fashion. When are you guys affected by all this going to organise a witch-hunt in the media?

 

This may provoke legislation which should be welcomed because the DVLA is acting in a greedy, pigheaded fashion. To my mind the present situation is an affront to common sense and worse to British Justice.

[dojj]

so, with all the above information, how would you suggest i write to the llp people?

 

i wrote to them to report 5 cars

they sent confermation letters for 2 vehicles

the dvla acknowledge recipt of the original letter

the llp have writen to me asking me to proove that i wrote to the dvla

the dvla have said it's not their problem and i need to take it up with the llp offices

 

i've printed off every letter and bit of corespondance i've had with the dvla in regards to this matter and was going to send that, along with a letter asking them what they were playing at as the actual dvla have admited to getting the letters, but now i'm sort of swayed in my thinking

[the_ripper]

I have read this thread from the very beginning, and felt obliged to speak up in the interests of being of some help.

 

Throughout this thread, everyone talks about courts and debt recovery agencies. I just simply wish to tell everyone here that none of this matters whatsoever. The DVLA is listed on Dunn & Bradstreet as a RUN FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, as is every local council in the land and the police forces (Devon & Cornwall are owned by IBM). Even the UK is listed on there as UK plc, trading under the name of Alister Darling MP. Simply put, a private, run for profit company has NO standing in law and therefore can not be an authority. They have no power over you.

 

Ok, some of you, if not all on here, are thinking that I'm probably a nutter. But don't believe a word I say - go here and watch the presentation, it will explain everything much better than I can.

 

John Harris - 'It's an illusion' talk at the Stoke 'Lawful Rebellion' Conference | www.tpuc.org

 

The video lasts for approx. 57 minutes. Please spare just 1 hour of your time, with an open mind. It will be well worth it if it solves your problems with the DVLA. I hope this helps.

 

Ripper

[crem]

Again.....

[xxtinyangelxx]

Can any of you more knowledgeable people read my late licence penalty thread that i posted yesterday and give me some advice? Thanks in advance!!!

[damageandy]

Can any of you more knowledgeable people read my late licence penalty thread that i posted yesterday and give me some advice? Thanks in advance!!!

 

having looked at your thread, everything u need to know is already in this thread, give it a read ;-)