I am sending them a turd!

[Britainsworstdriver]

DVLA kindly sent me a 'fine' of £55 this morning, reduced to £35 if I pay blah blah blah.

 

This is because THEY say I didn't notify them I sold my car in June. Not only did I send the V5 off the very next day (car sold previous eveining) but I got a proof of posting too.

 

Not only that, but when I phoned DVLA when I didn't receive my notification letter, they told me that everything had been done and that a letter was on its way.

 

The only thing I will send DVLA is something my dog wishes to donate to the DVLA appreciation society!

[Guest wino]

 

Do let us know how you get on this could be very entertaining

[yourbank]

DVLA kindly sent me a 'fine' of £55 this morning, reduced to £35 if I pay blah blah blah.

 

This is because THEY say I didn't notify them I sold my car in June. Not only did I send the V5 off the very next day (car sold previous eveining) but I got a proof of posting too.

 

Not only that, but when I phoned DVLA when I didn't receive my notification letter, they told me that everything had been done and that a letter was on its way.

 

The only thing I will send DVLA is something my dog wishes to donate to the DVLA appreciation society!

Why not simply copy the proof of posting and tell them that you sent it to them and here is the proof and I telephoned on this date and it was confirmed. Might be worth saying at the end of the letter, I assume this is an error on your part and that I will not be receiving any further correspondence with regards to this matter.

If you send them what you are thinking of doing, I think it will be you that might be in trouble

[nehpets]

Why not simply copy the proof of posting and tell them that you sent it to them and here is the proof and I telephoned on this date and it was confirmed. Might be worth saying at the end of the letter, I assume this is an error on your part and that I will not be receiving any further correspondence with regards to this matter.

If you send them what you are thinking of doing, I think it will be you that might be in trouble

 

 

Better still send the following;

 

Dear Sirs,

 

This letter is to inform you that I have issued the DVLA with a £55 penalty for failure to correctly discharge your duty to your clients in the correct manner. If payment reaches me in 7 days I will accept £35 for quick settlement.

 

Failure to pay this will result in court action to recover the debt.

 

 

Yours,

Mr Smart.

[nehpets]

PS Rather than disclosing your proof of posting + telephone conversation why not letter the matter go to court. How stupid will they look? Slam in a counter claim for loss of earnings + damage to feelings.

[Britainsworstdriver]

OK, I cannot actually send them a turd. But tempting, LOL.

 

TODAY, I get the very letter I wanted, dated 29 July which confirms that they have updated their records etc etc .

 

The fine letter received yesterday was dated 31 July.

 

In other words, 2 days BEFORE issuing the fine letter they had already sent confirmation of me notifying them I had sold the car.

 

 

Rearrange these words into a suitable sentence:

 

Hand right doesn't the know hand left doing is what.

[Guest wino]

This whole thread has made me smile.

I am glad it has sorted itself out. I really did not believe for one moment you where going to send a message from your dogs.

The DVLA can be a joke sometimes. Although I Taxed my car on line and the disc arrived within 48hrs.

[craig8661]

best one i had was for no tax was a car brought from the midlands to northern ireland.

i scanned the tax disk it accedently turned out to be a4 size so posted that in with the words i dont expect to hear from you again on this matter.

i got a letter back saying that the english plated dvla swansea cars was not on the ni system yer right

[rickyd]

how about this - In 1976 I bought a Vauxhall Chevette (anyone here old enough to remember these?) rally replica from a main dealer in Bristol. It had been used as a show car to publicise Vauxhall's entry into the world rally championship and was pretty special.

 

After two years I decided to it was time to change cars and sold it to a car dealer also based in Bristol who wanted to use it as a rally car. The main reason being that the bodyshell was extensively modified by Vauxhall and was therefore highly suitable for the job.

 

The garage was staffed by a bunch of real enthusiasts who occasionally sent me pictures of the car in competition and I kept an eye on their progress throughout the season until they had an almighty accident in the Forest of Dean which completely wrecked the car, bent the chassis and then it caught fire.

 

Imagine my surprise then when about 6 months later I received notification about an unpaid parking ticket issued in Aberdeen(?)

 

Bemused by this I called DVLA to advise that I had sold the car more than two years ago and they promised to sort it out. Out of curiosity I called the rally boys and found that they had scrapped the car after the crash and that they had since received several parking tickets too!

 

We wrote a joint letter of complaint outlining the change of ownership date and the fact that DVLA must have known this as the garage was receiving parking tickets. We enclosed photographs of the wrecked car and the garage had copies of the notification of scrapping they had sent to DVLA.

 

Within a week we received a detailed letter of apology together with a cheque each for £15 (this was 1976 remember) for our troubles. We never found out what happened to the clone however.

 

We thought that was a fair outcome but what the hell has happened to DVLA's service since then?

[Britainsworstdriver]

Actually, having read again the letter I got yesterday (fine one) it says that I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle on 23rd June. Actually I was still the keeper that day as the car wasn't sold until later that same evening.

 

So I was the keeper on 23rd June and I wasn't either.

 

Well, which is it then??????? Muppets!

[patdavies]

Actually, having read again the letter I got yesterday (fine one) it says that I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle on 23rd June. Actually I was still the keeper that day as the car wasn't sold until later that same evening.

 

So I was the keeper on 23rd June and I wasn't either.

 

Well, which is it then??????? Muppets!

 

Although it results from a DVLA cock-up, both statements are true.

 

Your were the keeper on 23rd June; you were no longer the registered keeper.

[rickyd]

Is the term "keeper" recognised in law, as "owner" or "registered keeper" are?

[Britainsworstdriver]

Your were the keeper on 23rd June; you were no longer the registered keeper.

 

I was the registered keeper up until I signed the V5 at 20:10hrs. then I became not the registered keeper.

[patdavies]

Is the term "keeper" recognised in law, as "owner" or "registered keeper" are?

 

Yes.

 

Case law is Mohindra, where the distinction is defined.

[rickyd]

can you enlighten us?

 

I'm genuinely interested.

 

I thought the only relevant terms were Registered keeper and owner. What status/liability does the keeper have?

[crem]

how about this - In 1976 I bought a Vauxhall Chevette (anyone here old enough to remember these?)

 

Yep! I learnt to drive in one.

 

We thought that was a fair outcome but what the hell has happened to DVLA's service since then?

The DVLA "service" department was closed shortly after that I believe

 

[rickyd]

me too that's probably why I bought one. (How sad was I?) It was a good looker though and although I was never mistaken for Penttii Airikkala or Jimmy McCrae their exploits in Chevettes made me feel like I was part of something worthwhile.

[Britainsworstdriver]

Whilst I did have a chevette as a company car in 1982, does a Hilman Avenger Tiger from 1975 count? How about an Austin 1800? Or my trusty Morris Marina 1.8TC? Well, when I say trusty, I mean you could rely on that car to let you down at every possible chance.

 

Looking back I have fond memories of the chevette.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..... as the crap was crushed out of it at the scrap yard.

[rickyd]

my god, you're probably older than I am, and yes the Tiger defo counts. Did you know they're changing hands for £30k plus these days? Bet you wish you'd kept it!

[patdavies]

can you enlighten us?

 

I'm genuinely interested.

 

I thought the only relevant terms were Registered keeper and owner. What status/liability does the keeper have?

The term registered keeper is defined in law.

 

In Mohindra, the defence was that someone who had charge of the car, but was not registered with the DVLA as the registered keeper, was not to be held to such a high level if care/diligence in response to a S.172* demand for the details of the driver at a particular time.

The appeal judgement held that the person borrowing the car was, for the time being, the keeper and therefore liable to the same level of diligence as the registered keeper.

* S.172 of the RTA 1988 reads:

172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases

 

(1) This section applies—

(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—

(i) an offence under Part V, or

(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,

and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,

(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and

© to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

Until Mohindra, it was assumed that s.172(2)(a) only applied to the registered keeper, and that anybody else having charge of the vehicle came under s.172(2)(b) - which has a much lower standard - to gain a conviction for failing to provide, the prosecution would have to show that the person knew the identity of the driver (whereas 2(a) has an absolute requirement for the identity of the driver).

 

However, the RTA uses the phrase '...keeping the vehicle...' and the judge ruled on the appeal that someone having charge of the vehicle was the keeper (for the time being) even though he/she was not registered with DVLA as the registered keeper.

[rickyd]

Pat, thanks for that it makes much more sense now. I can see why the appeal judge felt the need to rule this way in order to secure the conviction.

 

If I, as registered keeper loaned you my car and you then let someone else drive who was caught by a Gatso, I couldn't identify the driver as I wouldn't know who it was, but as you were the "keeper" at the time you would be able to state it wasn't you and identify the culprit. I suppose it closes the "I don't know who was driving" defence as used by Sir Alex Ferguson et al to evade points for speeding.

 

Thanks again1

[Britainsworstdriver]

Letter received today:

Dear mr XXXXXXX

 

Failure to notify change of keeper: A123 BCD (not the actual reg of course)

 

Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning the out of court settlement offered to you in respect of motor vehicle registration mark A123 BCD for which notification of keeper change had not been received on the 23/06/2009 as required.

 

The contents have been noted. In the circumstances no further action will be taken in respect of this case.

 

Enforcement Officer

On behalf of the Secretary of state for Transoprt

 

Nice. I will most certainly be keeping this letter in a very safe place.

[crem]

I think that letter is disgracefully worded, with the clear implication that, "although the fine is valid and due, we are going to let you off this once".

 

I would write back to them telling them you don't find this letter acceptable, and you want another one, which quite specifically acknowledges that you notified the DVLA correctly and on time as required.

[Britainsworstdriver]

I agree Crem. I particularly like the requirement to let them know on 23/6/09 when I only sold the car at 8:10pm that eveining! Pretty difficult to do as A, the post had gone and B, they were shut by then anyway!

 

Now. Looking at my current V5, there is the following ambiguous wording:

 

 

*return the page opposite (Sections 1- 8 ) immediately to: DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1BA.

 

Immediately means now. Not tomorrow or the day after,but NOW! How exactly do I get it to them NOW?

 

It then goes on with the following interesting paragraph:

 

*DVLA will issue an acknowledgment letter after 4 weeks to confirm you are no longer the registered keepr. If the acknowledgement letter is not received please contact DVLA . Customers with impaired hearing who have textphone/minicomn should ring 01792 766426

 

Now then. It clearly says the wording AFTER 4 weeks. Not before or by, but AFTER. So, I shouldn't expect anything at all within 4 weeks as they clearly say it will be after. Thus I have no duty to chase them up within the 4 weeks.

 

However, it doesn't actually specify any timescale beyond the fact that it will be after 4 weeks. That might mean 5 weeks, or it might meanm 12 years. I have no way of knowing as it isn't stipulated.

 

This raises an interesting issue and I believe a get-out clause for ANYONE penalised in this manner in future. There is no specified point in time that I must or should contact DVLA by concerning whether they have processed the V5 or not. Thus there is no point at all in them writing and saying that I haven't, because I can legally just ring them up on receipt of said fine letter and ask if they have processed it yet.

 

Of course the best solution is to have proof of posting, but then what does that prove exactly? That an envelope was sent. Nothing else. It doesn't prove there was a V5 inside or anything for that matter.

 

Who actually writes this crap for DVLA? It is nothing short of inept!

 

Where is my dog????

[rickyd]

I picked up on that point too. In my book the "please" sounds nothing like "you must" or "it is compulsory" and as you say, since they will only send an acknowledgement letter after 4 weeks, you have no idea when its supposed to arrive.

 

Interesting that it says "DVLA will issue" so if they don't, are they falling foul of their own rules?

 

I think inept is too mild a description here it's totally incoherent and illogical. Its also grammatically incorrect, we confirm that we are no longer the registered keeper, they confirm that they have changed their database.

 

Footnote - out of curiosity I used one of the checking systems to see what it said about one of our personal numberplates, whicvh is on retention just now. It was showing as being affixed to the lease car I sent back 18 months ago.

 

This despite me having a new retention certificate for which I'd paid £25 and the car having its original reg number re-affixed and a new matching tax disk bought and paid for by the leasing company. I wonder why nobody has sent me a demand for late tax or SORN?