Jump to content


WAURA09

SORN fine - Help needed please !

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3538 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi there

 

I have received a fine from the DVLA for not declaring my car SORN, however forgive my ignorance but previous to my current car which i have only had around 9 mths i never knew what SORN was as it was brand new and came taxed etc.

 

My car has been off the road since the start of August as a part called the diesel paricular filter went and VW wanted £1,200 :eek: for the part. I didnt have the money, and have gradually saved the money up and it is due to be fixed on the 7/12/2009, when i was going to get it taxed and re-insured. So my car has been in a Garage waiting to be repaired all this time. So because i wasnt driving it i didnt think i needed to tax it (as i had also let my insurance lapse because i knew it would be sometime before i would be getting the money to get it fixed)

 

To cut a long story short is their anyway can get around this at all any loopholes or is it just tough s**t fro my lack of knowledge in this area ??

 

thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No getting out of this one. You MUST tax the car or declare it SORN. If you don't you get fined, as has happened to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOu can get out of this one by being economical with the truth which, in my experience is a standard DVLA ploy anyway - so this would be tit for tat so to speak.

 

If it were me I would write and tell then that you sent the correct paperwork at the correct time and according to the Interpretations act 1978 that completed your statutory obligations under the licensing regulations. There is no legal requirement to have an acknowldegement - that is just DVLA internal policy and cannot be legally enforced.

 

I'm NOT telling you to do this I am purely advising the OP as to what I may or may not consider doing if I found myself in the same situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should change your name to 'naughtybear', and stand in the corner! :)

 

To the OP, look at the form the DVLA sent you asking you to renew your tax disc. It tells you all about SORN, and what you need to do. Don;t get caught again, but you may find it best to go online NOW and SORN until the car is ready to be retaxed, as their letter to you will be seen as a reminder to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should change your name to 'naughtybear', and stand in the corner! :)

 

To the OP, look at the form the DVLA sent you asking you to renew your tax disc. It tells you all about SORN, and what you need to do. Don;t get caught again, but you may find it best to go online NOW and SORN until the car is ready to be retaxed, as their letter to you will be seen as a reminder to do so.

 

As the kinks said ' I fought the law and I WON' - well they got it wrong in the song. I do not advocate lying and that is a two way street. Have you read my thread on how the DVLA tried to con me into paying a fine and back tax on a car that I had legally exported and told them in the manner that I was supposed to.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/230624-dvla-fine-mess.html

 

read my letter in post one of that thread especially the bit about 'if you do not have an acknowledgment letter then you are still liable'.

 

then feel free to come back and tell me to stand in the corner and you never know I might:D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I had read it - but I had already BT&DT, along with getting themselves to mis-state 'the law' with regard to their acknowlegement letters. I had actually recorded my call with them when I was told they do NOT send out acknowledgement letters when a vehicle is exported :)

 

I stand in the corner often..... :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I stand in the corner often..... :) :)

 

 

My wife makes me!! and as I recall I NEVER told anyone to lie anyway did I?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that sorn is only valid for a year. You have to either tax or re-sorn.


Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that sorn is only valid for a year. You have to either tax or re-sorn.

 

 

also known as the 14 month recurring fine scheme:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new to this forum so hello everyone.

 

I have just received a Failure to relicence vehical letter. I sent the V11W to DVLA to declare SORN (due 01/10/09) at that time. It was sent via Royal Mail as usual, first class post.

 

The DVLA letter is asking for £80.00 penalty by 24/02/10 or £40.00 by 01/02/10, plus arrears duty calculated as £30.84.

 

I never thought to check for an acknowledgement letter from DVLA. I have looked today and cannot find it and on reflection, do not remember receiveing one.

 

1. Should I reply to letter in section D which begins I wish to provide the following information in relation to this alleged offence:

 

2. Should I re-SORN now or wait?

 

Any advice aprpreciated

Edited by dudleydog2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sent the V11W to DVLA to declare SORN (due 01/10/09) at that time. It was sent via Royal Mail as usual, first class post.

 

If this is what you did, then that is all you should re-itterate to them. i.e. something like;

I sent you notification of SORN on [date] using the appropriate V11W form and am not therefore liable for the £80 penalty as you claim.

 

Please update your records immediately as you should have done when I first notified you and confirm you have withdrawn the aformentioned penalty. Should you maintain you did not receive the information I sent you regarding SORN at the time, may I remind you that under s7 of the Interpretation Act 1977 that once I had correctly addressed and posted the document to you, then it is deemed to have been served in the normal course of post and I am no longer responsible for you receiving or not receiving the document. Should you have evidence to the contrary then please provide me with same to support your penalty claim.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, may I say again, I fulfilled my obligation to notify you of SORN for my vehicle, I dispute your claim for a penalty and because it is in dispute, you cannot refer this amount claimed to any of your associated debt collection agencies. Should you maintain your claim you must refer it to a court where I will be able to defend myself against your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - as Crem notes, you may have to complain again after they initially reject your response (they invariably always do), but whilst they always say they acknowledge SORN by mail (and they do) if you are not expecting it, you are not aware of its non-arrival.

 

In my case, after my 2nd letter of complaint, they cancelled the fine and flagged it no further action. Subsequently, I used their online SORN service, and have never had a problem since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both very much for this. I will send the response to them today. I will post outcome as and when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've just received a reply from DVLA today as follows:

 

You have stated that a SORN declaration was made for the above vehical. However, our records indicate that a SORN was not received. As the registered keeper, you are responsible etc etc and are still liable for the penalty.

 

I note your comments that by posting the declaration you believed you had served "the declaration and particulars by way of the SORN at the required time" and therefore discharged your statuatory duty. This is not true. Delivery only takes effect as per Pettit v. Mitchell (1842) "as soon as an article is put into the hands of a party". You have not provided any evidence to corroborate this, i.e that delivery has taken place as the article (SORN) has not been put into the hands of the party i.e DVLA. Delivery has not taken place merely by allegedly posting a SORN via Royal Mail.

 

I fully accept that you may have posted a disposal notification to the Agency prior to this but for whatever reason that notification was not received. It is to prevent circumstances such as this arising and to make the system as foolproof as possible that the Agency introduced the Acknowledgement Letter system.

I look forward to your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a similar letter too, just trying to fix this damn scanner and will upload for people to advise.

 

Ps Dudleydog, Hungarybear is the man when it comes to this field !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1842 pre dates the establishment of the Royal Mail postal service, the quoting of this case is a blatant attempt at misdirection. They are talking 'dangling swinging oval things between the male legs'. And in any event it has sod all to do with delivery. This is about service of a document under an act of law and what constitues service NOT what constitutes delivery by the royal india shipping company, captian blyth or long john silver!

 

You are prepared to swear on oath in court that a SORN was posted as previously stated and that this constitues service of the document within the meaning of the licenceing regulations as a consequece of section 7 of the interpretations act 1978.

 

The case they quote is not relevant and in any case would be superceded by the Interpretations act. If they think they have a case then they should issue court proceedings which will be vigorously defended because the Interpretations act, together with witness statements, constitutes an absoukte defence. Kindly note that this matter is fully disputed and that as such you are legally prevented from involing a third party such as a debt collector until any liability has been established.

 

Also, the acknowledgement letter system is an internal DVLA system which has no basis in law. This system attempts to impose a reverse burden of proof, which is not lawful and is not legally admissible in a court accept in cases where a reverse burden is allowable , such as section 5a of the sale of goods act.

 

- Basically you should tell them that they are talking rubbish, that you know they are and that they probably do too. So, they should either take it to court or sod off

 

section 7 of the Interpretations act 1978:

 

7 References to service by post

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

- if they want to superceed this with case law, which they cannot because a judge cannot rule against absolute statute, then the case would have to be from 1979 or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hungrybear, I too have received the same dribble from the DVLA today. I have previously written twice to defend my position, firstly I was polite and re-provided evidence of the sale of my car, the second time I was more firm and stated my absolute defense with section 7 of the interpretations act 1978 and my witness statements. This will be my third reply, my wife is started to falter and would rather I just pay the £40 fine, but I am in the right here and prepared to fight it all the way. What is stating to really bug me is it seems this is very much on the line of not being legal and this draconian approach must fleece millions of pounds from law abiding citizens. I also read that the service is outsourced to Capita, I'm not sure if this is true, but the line they are taking is so unreasonable there must be obscene profit being made somewhere.

 

Really appreciate your previous reply. I am so furious with this, in my letter I will also advise them that if any further threats are received or they take me to court and they lose (I'm really hoping this will be the case) that I will write to my MP, the press and any consumer body I can get interested in this appalling attempt to coerce me to pay an unlawful fine. I will post back any updates to let fellow disguntled people know how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretations Act 1978 did not work for me in Court. See full post under DVLA "Sorn LLP County Court Action"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hungry Bear,

Well I’m on the final stage now, I responded to their Captain Cook laws and advised them as such. I would like to share with you their notification of County Court Action letter and seek any advise you may have.

The letter reads:

Dear Mr Keyman12,

Thank you for your letter dated 24 January 2010 addressed to Miss Nina Lee, Customer Service Manager based at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) Enforcement Centre (EC) in Exeter. Your correspondence has been escalated to me for consideration and review. My role is to reassess disputed enforcement cases, taking into account the concerns, mitigation and supporting evidence offered.

Having done so I confirm that the Agency’s actions in your case are correct and proportionate. You have already been advised of the background to the Continuous Registration (CR) legislation, and also the reasons why enforcement action was taken against you in respect of vehicle registration number xxxxxxx. I do no propose to repeat that information.

Your contention in respect of the Interpretations Act 1978 is noted. It is the Agency’s position that it is not sufficient for a person issued with a LLP, who is registered as a vehicle keeper, to simply advise that a disposal notification has been posted to DVLA. Should such a mitigation be accepted, DVLA would be unable to fairly preside over the enforcement of CR and ensure the aims of the legislation are achieved. Consequently, something more tangible than an assertion is needed to prove that a registered keeper has discharged the obligation to notify. This is why the Acknowledgement Letter scheme is an important part of the disposal process.

The mitigation submitted has been fully considered but I can find no reason to alter the decision already conveyed to you. You remain liable for the penalty issued. Therefore, the matter will now be pursued through the County Court. The papers are being prepared and you will be contacted in due course regarding this.

You have stated your intention to refer this matter to your Member of Parliament (MP). As you wish to escalate your complaint further, I am enclosing a copy of the DVLA’s leaflet INS101 “Customer service guide and what to do if things go wrong” for reference.

I hope that you are now able to accept the Agency’s position in this matter.

I feel I have to re-write to this letter and remind them it remains disputed and I do not accept their position. Any advise would be really appreciated

Thanks

Edited by keyman12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your contention in respect of the Interpretations Act 1978 is noted. It is the Agency’s position that it is not sufficient for a person issued with a LLP, who is registered as a vehicle keeper, to simply advise that a disposal notification has been posted to DVLA. Should such a mitigation be accepted, DVLA would be unable to fairly preside over the enforcement of CR and ensure the aims of the legislation are achieved. Consequently, something more tangible than an assertion is needed to prove that a registered keeper has discharged the obligation to notify. This is why the Acknowledgement Letter scheme is an important part of the disposal process.

 

 

In other words;

 

we know you are referring to a Law that is absolute, but we don't think that's good enough, and certainly doesn't work in our favour for raking in fines. therefore, we have invented a totally new and arbitary system which is under our total control and didn't see any need to get this new system approved by parliment.

 

To this end, it allows us to screw up our job when handling your update requests, and as this will in turn automatically screw up our notification to you, we can then send out a fine which would require you to produce the letter that we haven't sent you in order for us to remove the fine. Do you have this letter? No? Fine stands then.

 

You can appeal like you have done, but as we have no vested interest in you winning this appeal it is duly refused.

 

We hope you like our answer coz we think it's great.

 

Now please be a good boy and send us 60 quid as quick as ya can. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there

 

I have received a fine from the DVLA for not declaring my car SORN, however forgive my ignorance but previous to my current car which i have only had around 9 mths i never knew what SORN was as it was brand new and came taxed etc.

 

My car has been off the road since the start of August as a part called the diesel paricular filter went and VW wanted £1,200 :eek: for the part. I didnt have the money, and have gradually saved the money up and it is due to be fixed on the 7/12/2009, when i was going to get it taxed and re-insured. So my car has been in a Garage waiting to be repaired all this time. So because i wasnt driving it i didnt think i needed to tax it (as i had also let my insurance lapse because i knew it would be sometime before i would be getting the money to get it fixed)

 

To cut a long story short is their anyway can get around this at all any loopholes or is it just tough s**t fro my lack of knowledge in this area ??

 

thanks in advance!

This is a question of special interest to me. I believe there has been some manipulation of law going on and there is a tendency to accept apparently authoritative rumours and stataments as law. I even see references to 'absolute law' which I do not believe exists, except in the minds of those who have invented the phrase, and, like to make use of it. If there was such a thing as absolute law, what purpose would there be in having courts of law, and, judges, and, juries? As I understand it, fines are handed down by courts, of law, not the likes of the DVLA, which have been given powers, to collect penalties, for failure to comply with regulations, which are drawn up by parliament, to deal with administration of such things as Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). If anybody can show me a law that makes failure to declare SORN an offence, meriting a fine I would be very interested to see it. There is an offence of keeping and / or using a vehicle on a public road that attracts a fine BY A COURT OF LAW but I need convicing that DVLA has any right to issue a fine for anything.

 

You have done precisely what any other motorist would do if they had a car they could not use. I believe the DVLA is taking advantage of its position of absolute power - as opposed to absolute law. to mislead car owners or keepers about the powers they actually have. If you have been told they have the power to fine; I suggest you ask to see proof of that. If they can actually show it, that would be interesting. They will not answer the question. I have been asking the DVLA for a very long time for proof of its claimed right to issue a penalty for allegedly not renewing a vehicle licence (failing to submit a SORN). It has not managed to do that. It has not even tried to. That I believe is because it cannot do that. When you state the car has 'been in a garage' do you mean yours or somewhere else? There is emphatically no requirement to tax a car that is not on the road or in use but I can well see an ambitious DVLA operative chasing a bonus perhaps, taking advantage of the innocence, (some might call it ignorance) of a vehicle owner or keeper who was unaware of the DVLA campaign to take advantage of the poorest vehicle owners, who have no place to keep their cars, save on the roads or in their gardens while they struggle to get them back on the road to go to work or take children to school. The clampers and snatchers have been having a field day, ripping off the poor, and defenceless, when the idea was DVLA would be fighting crime, long term vehicle excise duty evaders, abandoned cars.

 

I have no legal qualifications but can read, and, as law is wriiten in English, accept what I can read and understand. I have read nothing that says not completing a SORN carries a fine. I have read that it is an offence not to declare SORN for a vehicle in use on the road but that is an offence under s 29 of VERA which does attract a fine but DVLA does not have that power only the courtst do. Perhaps some kind DVLA reader will explain where I am mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVLC of course have the right and DUTY to go to a magistrate accusing you of a criminal offence. If the magistrate finds you guilty he will no doubt fine you (or not?). The enforcement of the fine will be the court's responsibility. Either way the fine will not go to the DVLC. Not good for DVLC. It is of course possible for the DVLC to have fines directed to them by government but the drawback from their point of veiw is that the magistrates have to date failed to find people guilty of any offence - they know DVLC are inefficient and prefer the defendants claim that the requred notice was posted which is all that is required under the Interpretation Act.

 

I have read somewhere on these boards that it is the M of T who have advised DVLC to go down the route of DCAs and the civil courts because more money is extracted this way. So we now have a Government minister advising that the DVLC should not take a legal route but demand money with menaces via a DCA for an offence and 'fine' that has not been proven in a court of law. I would be making a fuss in the media as this is not British justice.

 

There is no fine or penalty until a criminal offence has been committed and proved. A criminal court is the only entity that can fine you and any fine is not owed to DVLC. There can be no money ever owed directly to the DVLC. How can the DVLC be party to a claim for a debt that is zero in a civil court which cannot deal with criminal matters.

 

When you tell the DVLC to take you to court you should be specifying a magistrates court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...