Professor Lone Ranger / DVLA fines.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

I have been in dispute with the DVLA for two years over a claim made against me for failing to timeously complete and return an SORN for a car which had been off the road in our garage for about a month when it was taxed and insured but not in use. The form V11 arrived at the beginning of the month but set aside then forgotten. The DVLA did not react to my omission until halfway through the next month. It did so by sending me a demand for payment of £80, explained as unpaid tax plus a penalty for non payment. An early payment deduction was offered. The letter contained threats to clamp, seize, crush my car and take legal action to recover the alleged debt warning as well that a county court judgement would result in damage to my credit rating. I completed and returned the SORN, then wrote to the DVLA Cardiff denying that any tax was due on the car also complaining about the aggressive, harassing nature of the notice, asking for the legal basis of the claims made. The DVLA Cardiff rejected my complaints stating it was nothing to do with it and I should write to the Enforcement Agency in Glasgow. I persisted with the DVLA Cardiff which did not answer my questions properly. I wrote twice to the Secretary of State for Transport complaining about this with no result. The director of enforcement DVLA wrote stating he had closed his file, which I took to be an admission of an error in issuing the claim but that did not satisfy me so I wrote to the Parliamentary Ombudsman to be advised that the DVLA omplaints procedure should be exhausted first then only an MP can ask the Ombudsman to take action. I have not found my MP of any use in the past so fear the DVLA is beyond reach whatever it does. A claim against me has now been issued in the County Court, which I have acknowledged, and, entered a defence, with a counter claim for the harassment. I also asked the DVLA to clarify the legal grounds it claims for its action, which so far it has not done. Reference is made to s 7A and s 9A of Regulations, which I was unable to find. I have asked for an extension of time pending the receipt of that information. I would appreciate views on this. Am I right or not? Is the DVLA exempt action for harassment?

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome, Professor Lone Ranger.

 

I'll move your post to start a new thread in the appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[IdaInFife]

can you confirm what country you live in?

[Professor Lone Ranger]

United Kingdom

[IdaInFife]

got that but where in the UK?

 

you say you were advised to contact Glasgow EA but said you received county court papers which would mean England/Wales

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Sorry,

 

Winchester is my County Court and the DVLA enforcement agency is based in Glasgow it seems or perhaps work is shared between them in some way.

[sickpup]

You are probably not aware that in a court case at the Central London County Court 18/07/09 Secretary of state for transport~V~E.T.A. DVLA's old LLP notices were ruled to be Non-compliant with the law. If your original LLP has only 28 days between the letter date and the final date to pay the reduced amount it is non-compliant. DVLA have since changed their SORN LLP's in an attempt to make them compliant.

 

AS DVLA's haven't followed the rules to the letter the penalty as it stands is in theory unenforcable. Following the case of Secretary of state for transport~V~James Collins held at the Clerkenwell County Court on the 26/10/09 District Judge Armon-Jones held that DVLA DO have to follow the law to the letter.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Thank you for that most helpful message. In my case I argued that as the car was neither in use nor on a public road there was no tax to pay, so I was not guilty of anything more than failing to complete a form timeously but I did complete and return it late as there was no tax to pay I could not be guilty of late payment only late submission of an SORN. Am I right or mistaken? The DVLA has failed to answer my request for further particulars of the grounds on which they have made their claim i.e. s 7A and 9A of the regulations referred to, which I have not found.

[sickpup]

Section 7a vehicle excise and registration act 1994

 

7A

Supplement payable on [F2 vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered]

(1) Regulations may make provision for a supplement of a prescribed amount to be payable [F3 where—

(a)

a vehicle has ceased to be appropriately covered,

(b)

the vehicle is not, before the end of the relevant prescribed period, appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) below with effect from the time immediately after it so ceased or appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (d) of that subsection, and

©

the circumstances are not such as may be prescribed.]

[F4 (1A) For the purposes of this section and section 7B a vehicle is appropriately covered if (and only if)—

(a)

a vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle,

(b)

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force and a nil licence is in force in respect of it,

©

the vehicle is an exempt vehicle that is not one in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force, or

(d)

the vehicle is neither kept nor used on a public road and the declarations and particulars required to be delivered by regulations under section 22(1D) have been delivered in relation to it in accordance with the regulations within the immediately preceding period of 12 months.

(1B) Where a vehicle for or in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force is transferred by the holder of the vehicle licence to another person, the vehicle licence is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1A) as no longer in force unless it is delivered to the other person with the vehicle.

(1C) Where—

(a)

an application is made for a vehicle licence for any period, and

(b)

a temporary licence is issued pursuant to the application,

subsection (1B) does not apply to the licence applied for if, on a transfer of the vehicle during the currency of the temporary licence, the temporary licence is delivered with the vehicle to the transferee.

(1D) In subsection (1)(b) “the relevant prescribed period” means such period beginning with the date on which the vehicle ceased to be appropriately covered as is prescribed.]

(2) A supplement under this section—

(a)

shall be payable by such person, or jointly and severally by such persons, as may be prescribed;

(b)

shall become payable at such time as may be prescribed;

©

may be of an amount that varies according to the length of the period between—

[F5 (i) the time of a notification (in accordance with regulations under section 7B(1)) to, or in relation to, a person by whom it is payable, and

(ii) the time at which it is paid.]

(3) A supplement under this section that has become payable—

(a)

is in addition to any vehicle excise duty charged in respect of the vehicle concerned;

(b)

does not cease to be payable by reason of [F6 the vehicle being again appropriately covered] after the supplement has become payable;

©

may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

[sickpup]

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2003

Amendment of the principal Regulations

2. In the principal Regulations after regulation 9 within Part II there shall be inserted -

" Supplement payable on late renewal of vehicle licence

9A. - (1) Where paragraph (2) applies a supplement of the amount prescribed in paragraph (3) shall be payable.

(2) This paragraph applies where -

(a) a vehicle licence taken out for a vehicle expires,

(b) no vehicle licence was issued for the vehicle before the end of a period of one month beginning with the date of that expiry, and

© the registered keeper has failed to comply with requirements contained in Schedule 4.

(3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40.

(4) The supplement shall be payable by the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the 1994 Act at the date of the expiry of the licence by reason of whose late renewal the supplement becomes payable.".

[Professor Lone Ranger]

I wish to argue that a 'supplement' implies that a payment is due.

 

If a car is off the road and not in use when the vehicle excise expires then there is no VED to pay.

 

In that case what can justify a charge of £80 which was described on the demand as £40 for unpaid road tax plus a supplement of £40 for late payment. I argue if there is no duty to pay then a supplement cannot be applicable. Am I wrong?

 

Is it not the case that there is an assumption that if the VED has not been renewed it automatically follows that the law has been broken with a car on a public road and / or is use without a valid tax disc?

 

Am I right in claiming that to send a demand for payment accompanied by threats to clamp my car, seize it and crush it as well as taking legal action to enforce payment of the alleged debt threatening to damage my credit rating amounts to harassment or not or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[buzby]

Sickpup - a lot of this has been amended as part of the changes to the Finance Act (with regard to VED and SORN), so for completeness of the current law, you would have to add this to the mix.

[sickpup]

Hi Buzby

 

Yes a lot has but the notices sent up until about 3 months ago were all non-compliant regardless. The OP is beating his head against a wall for nothing if he thinks what he has will help him but the non-compliance will if he can get his head around it. After one of my cases DVLA were forced by a judges ruling to change the LLP's because of their non-compliance yet they are still putting through prosecutions knowing the paperwork is wrong, a clear case of abuse of process.

[Lula]

Was the case in the high court ? if not, then noprecedent is set, but I would continue to use the same arguments and paraphrase what the presiding judge said.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Where might I find the case referred to?

[sickpup]

Was the case in the high court ? if not, then noprecedent is set, but I would continue to use the same arguments and paraphrase what the presiding judge said.

 

If you are referring to my cases then no they were in County Court so no precedent was set BUT DVLA changed their SORN LLP's so backing the judges decision.

[buzby]

The difficulty is that id they were non-compliant due to an oversight, this will be seen as incompetence, nothing more. What you suggest (in a way) is that all prior SORN fines are - or should be returned due to this failing... yest this isn't happening, as the intention of the law remains. Hit the motorist if they don't dot the i's and cross the t's.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

I believe I have now completed the circle. I have just visited the DVLA web site to ask for a copy of the original notice of LLP, which received an automatic response, which I can post if required. I now understand (I think) why a judge declared them none compliant. In this instance there is an option to pay or appeal. In the original case no appeal was offered. That would amount to a human rights claim of denial of a fair trial of a complaint by an impartial court established by law. It is arguable that an appeal to the DVLA or a government body, including a county court does not amount to an impartial court established by law because the magistrates and judges are paid by the state which made the law being applied or is that too obtuse?

[sickpup]

The difficulty is that id they were non-compliant due to an oversight, this will be seen as incompetence, nothing more. What you suggest (in a way) is that all prior SORN fines are - or should be returned due to this failing... yest this isn't happening, as the intention of the law remains. Hit the motorist if they don't dot the i's and cross the t's.

 

They are not non-compliant due to an oversight they are non-compliant because it makes DVLA's job easier due to not having to maintain paperwork and yes I can prove it. Even the new ones aren't complaint but I'm not going in to why they aren't.

 

I don't know if you ever saw this not very well publicised news report... DVLA under scrutiny over penalty notice dating game ? The Register but thats me. DVLA have known about this for quite some time but tried to hide it. The Secretary of state for transport refused to investigate it, all he did was ask DVLA if they were behaving to which they said yes and he said oh good.

 

Sadly no matter what I do, no matter what I win in court no one is interested in publicising the cases as it isn't as sexy as speeding fines. Even this site has consistantly ignored this matter.

 

The fact is that even if it is just an oversight on DVLA's side they are prosecuting people for making and oversight. Unless DVLA follow the law to the letter they fall foul of the civil procedure rules and shouldn't be able to progress the case according to Judge Armon-Harper.

[Professor Lone Ranger]

Sickpup,

 

Thank you for that. My angle is different. The DVLA supplement is a charge based on the assumption that none return of the SORN within 30 days of the expiry date of the VEL is a punishable offence. The £80 charge is made up up £40 unpaid tax plus a £40 supplement. In my case the VEL expired on 30th September 2007 on a car not on the road or in use but it was not until mid November a LLP was raised accompanied by threats of clamping etc. No right of appeal was offered as it now is. I complained but was rejected. Therefore DVLA is in breach of the HRA finding motorists guilty of an offence without any right of reply. They are assumed to have broken the law keeping a car on a public road without a valid VEL. That has changed. The LLP now offers a right to appeal. On what basis did a judge declare the LLP 'Non compliant' Was it about issue dates or the HRA, i.e. the right to a fair trial of complaints, before an impartial court establish by law? The DVLA is not impartial so how would an appeal be dealt with?

Edited November 13, 2009 by Professor Lone Ranger
errors

[sickpup]

Your points are valid re HRA and Buzby and myself have discussed this with out coming to a conclusion. I believe the HRA applies, Buzby thinks not. I did actually use the HRA as part of a defence but the case was thrown out before we got to that point. If you really want to throw everything into the mix then as DVLA are working on behalf of the Crown any attempt to subvert the law and replace it with (DVLA) policy cannot be tolerated by a court as it would undermine our whole legal system but I doubt that one would wash either.

 

As far as I know DVLA stil do not offer the right to appeal.

[buzby]

I read the Register's report, but I do believe it is making much out of nothing - the problem for the DVLA is NOT that they are misrepresenting the dates on their communications, but not posting them out when they are prepared/printed. A very different issue indeed.

 

What the Register seems to expect its readers to believe, is that the notice letter should be given a date 'when it is recieved' - which is laughable! The DVLA is really no different from Bills from BT and Virgin Media, the day shoing as the billing date now invariably ISN;T the date of posting, (which can be up to a week to 10 days later). Now, to my mind this issue is one for them to resolve with their postal services provider - and be held accountible for same. (If a letter is dated 1st Month, then the letter should be posted on that date). If it isn;t, then the letters need to be reissued - not allowed to pile up till they've got enought to send to achieve their mailing discount.

 

As for PLR's assertion the it is somehow against HRA of being found guilty of an offence without a right of reply. How so? You can reply, and they can accept or reject your representation - but then we've all been told of what will happen if the SORN is not declared, so the smart guys make sure it is done (and it shuts them up) - lets not forget it was the KLAbour Government that came up with this great idea and passed it into law, A bit late to complain about the unfairness of the process when your democratically elected representative probably not only accepted, but voted for it too.

[sickpup]

I read the Register's report, but I do believe it is making much out of nothing - the problem for the DVLA is NOT that they are misrepresenting the dates on their communications, but not posting them out when they are prepared/printed. A very different issue indeed.

 

What the Register seems to expect its readers to believe, is that the notice letter should be given a date 'when it is recieved' - which is laughable! The DVLA is really no different from Bills from BT and Virgin Media, the day shoing as the billing date now invariably ISN;T the date of posting, (which can be up to a week to 10 days later). Now, to my mind this issue is one for them to resolve with their postal services provider - and be held accountible for same. (If a letter is dated 1st Month, then the letter should be posted on that date). If it isn;t, then the letters need to be reissued - not allowed to pile up till they've got enought to send to achieve their mailing discount.

 

I think you've miss-read the Reg article.

 

The point is that there shouldn't be a date to pay by on the letter but the statement '28 days from the date you are notified/served'.

 

 

As for PLR's assertion the it is somehow against HRA of being found guilty of an offence without a right of reply. How so? You can reply, and they can accept or reject your representation - but then we've all been told of what will happen if the SORN is not declared, so the smart guys make sure it is done (and it shuts them up) - lets not forget it was the KLAbour Government that came up with this great idea and passed it into law, A bit late to complain about the unfairness of the process when your democratically elected representative probably not only accepted, but voted for it too.

 

HRA states that an 'Independant tribunal' is required. DVLA cannot be independant from themselves.

[buzby]

I agree their idea of stating a date is erroneous if the letters are not posted and the time taken to deliver them not factored in - but how many complaints have there been where these dates have actually been disputed? (You know, I paid within 28 days but they said it was too late). The percentage chances of someone paying at all get less as time passes. So the pragmatic role of the DVLA would be to take the money they are given and move on even if it is 'late' by their warped definition.

 

As for the 'independent' tribunal - have you not heard of 'absoute' offences? Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like computer failure/data mismatches and the usual incompetence, if game now is the RK is obligated to pay VED whilst they have the car. If they do not, they become liable unless they file a SORN. The cases outlined here are all in breach of this, and are seeking loopholes. Isn;t it easier just to comply? It saves on the hassle and elevated blood pressure. Then we can concentrate on getting this stupid law removed.

[sickpup]

I agree their idea of stating a date is erroneous if the letters are not posted and the time taken to deliver them not factored in - but how many complaints have there been where these dates have actually been disputed? (You know, I paid within 28 days but they said it was too late). The percentage chances of someone paying at all get less as time passes. So the pragmatic role of the DVLA would be to take the money they are given and move on even if it is 'late' by their warped definition.

 

DVLA actually refuse to accept the lower payment when they consider it outside the 28 days ie the date of their letter regardless of whether it is outside the 28 days since notified or not.

 

As for the 'independent' tribunal - have you not heard of 'absoute' offences?

 

Yes I have but I have yet to hear of an absolute offence that the recipient doesn't have the choice to take to court which is where the HRA comes into play.

 

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like computer failure/data mismatches and the usual incompetence, if game now is the RK is obligated to pay VED whilst they have the car. If they do not, they become liable unless they file a SORN. The cases outlined here are all in breach of this, and are seeking loopholes. Isn;t it easier just to comply? It saves on the hassle and elevated blood pressure. Then we can concentrate on getting this stupid law removed.

 

Yes it is easier to just comply (and hope DVLA sort themselves out) but the final Irony is you are being fined by the DVLA for failing to comply with the law when they themselves in the way they are procesing the LLP's fails to comply with the law.

 

Forget the rights and wrongs of the various laws that have brought in the SORN LLP's and look at the FACT that DVLA are breaking (or at least were) the law in the ways they fine people and the question has to be asked at what point do the people of this country stand up and say 'behave' to the Government. To allow an Executive Agency of Government to continue to break the law is ridiculous.