S.O.R.N and L.L.P. County Court Action

[sorndisease]

O.K Here is all you need to know. If you have had an LLP you have two choices. You either pay it or dispute it.

 

If you pay it quickly, it will cost you £40. If you do not, you take what in my opinion, is a high risk gamble which may cost you upwards of £130 or more if you lose.

 

TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THIS EVENT IN PRACTICE RATHER THAN THEORY.

 

DO NOT be concerned about what you think about the rights/wrongs/fairness of the issues are at the time, as unfortunately, this is more likely to sway you into a dispute,which in my experiance, is unlikely to make little difference to the outcome.

 

I received an LLP as DVLA claimed not to have recieved my SORN document. I did not send it registered post as I had no previous unpleasent dealings with DVLA. I, like many others, did not expect anything to go wrong.

 

I did not receive an acknowledgement letter and did not follow that up.

 

Sometime later I received the infamous Late Licensing Penalty.

 

An unrelenting letter battle (at least 14 from me) then took place before an eventual County Court hearing.

 

In court the DVLA say they want the money based on the fact that the record was not correct when it should have been, you are the registered keeper at that time, and therefore you must pay.... end of story.

 

I explained to the district judge in County Court that I had "notified" the DVLA as set out in Continuous Registration Legistration by filling in a SORN form V890 (as the DVLA had not sent me a V11 reminder) and therefore had fully complied with the law.

 

The judge declared the fact that I had not recieved the V11 reminder irrelavant to the case and asked why I felt I had complied with the law despite not contacting the DVLA after failing to receive an aknowledgement letter after 28 days.

 

I explained my only point of reference at that time in the absence of my V11 reminder was the V890 form I had sent off. Could I reasonably be expected to remember what guidance was written on it 28 days later and act on it?

 

The judge said I put my signiture to it, therfore must be expected to follow the instructions, no matter what or when that might be!

 

I then explained that my origional V890 posting was covered by the Interpretation Act which is why I felt my duty had been forfilled towards the DVLA.

 

Although the judge considered this, no further comment on this issue was made.

 

I then pointed out that there is no legal responsability to chase up the acknowledgement letter, (ensure the DVLA has processed your documents correctly) as it does not appear in the Continuous Registration Legistration.

 

I laboured this point as I knew it was critical at this time for the judge to appreciate that the "contact us" wording is purely advice from the DVLA.

 

IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANYTHING IN LAW.

 

Unfortunatley this would be to no avail.

 

I also asked the DVLA what evidence they had of any offence being committed. I pointed out that the record being incorrect, is surely not evidence of an offence being commited, as the two are not one in the same.

 

The judge declared that was a decision that would be made at judgement!

 

At this point I knew it was all over. and although I tried to counteract with a raft of information regarding DVLAs previous record, it again was deemed irrelavent to the case.

 

Finally I explained their is no due date to declare a SORN by either on a V890 (Sorn form) or a V11, or any mention of financial penalty regarding SORN documents not recieved. Lets face it,even clampers have a sign up somewhere explaining exactly what the penalty will be.

 

However I think although it may have been considered, again in the judges view, irrelavant to the case.

 

The judge also unfortunately found in favour of the DVLA. However, the judge was magnamanous enough to explain the reasons for the decision.

 

The judgement was as follows

 

Continuous Registration is the registered keepers responsability. I was the registered keeper at the time the existing licence expired. For whatever reason the DVLA database was not updated correctly. This results in a statutory debt of £80 being due by the registered keeper. Thats it. End of.

 

Although the judge accepted that the "contact us" is advice and not law, as the law states that the registerd keeper is the only person who can declare SORN, they are the only person that can be held responsable should the data base at DVLA not be updated correctly.

 

The judge made it quite clear that, in their opinion, either proof of posting and confirmation of contact with DVLA BEFORE an LLP is issued or an acknowledgement letter was the only way they would find for me as opposed to against. Everything else was irrelavent.

 

IM MY CASE I ASSUMED EVIDENCE WAS NEEDED TO SECURE A CONVICTION. IN FACT, I NEEDED PROOF OF INOCENCE, WHICH I DID NOT HAVE, OR EXPECT TO NEED.

 

I honestly expected to win this case on the basis that once the SORN is correctly submitted by you, you have in fact forfilled your duties as regards Continuous Registration Law.

 

After studying the appropiate Acts, as well as the additional support I had hoped to gain from The Interpretation Act, and a small dose of comman sense, I truly believed the DVLAs action was genuinely futile.

 

To my cost this has turned out not to be the case.

 

I am aware others (some on this site) have had a more reasonable outcome, however bear in mind, more likely than not, you will be held responsiable AT YOUR COST unless you insure the DVLA have done their job correctly.

 

As you are unlikely to gain redress in Court, if you do not agree with Continuous Registration and its revenue raising abilities, inform your MP you would rather efforts be focused on removing untaxed/uninsured vehicles, cars without MOTs/banned/dangerous drivers from the roads etc.

 

If they seem unresponsive at least you can soon have the pleasure of voting against the present government who are responsiable for this complete and utter mockery from beginning to end.

[crem]

Continuous Registration is the registered keepers responsability. I was the registered keeper at the time the existing licence expired. For whatever reason the DVLA database was not updated correctly. This results in a statutory debt of £80 being due by the registered keeper. Thats it. End of.

So why don't the DVLA just close the "update SORN office" and wait for people to shout after 28 days and update those only. That way, anyone who hasn't chased them up will get an automatic fine which this judge thinks should be upheld automatically. That's gotta be worth a few bob to the government in thes hard times!!

 

Although the judge accepted that the "contact us" is advice and not law,

Great! so he agrees you didn't break the law, but you're guilty anyway!

 

as the law states that the registerd keeper is the only person who can declare SORN, they are the only person that can be held responsable should the data base at DVLA not be updated correctly.

errmm, no. How about holding the DVLA responsible for doing a crap job?

 

 

The judge made it quite clear that, in their opinion, either proof of posting and confirmation of contact with DVLA BEFORE an LLP is issued or an acknowledgement letter was the only way they would find for me as opposed to against. Everything else was irrelavent.

So having statute law clearly staing that if you posted it, they got it 2 days later and therefore must have lost it/ binned it/ filed it under the desk their end didn't matter? Are there any other laws and statute this judge would like to inform us are irrelevant?

 

If they seem unresponsive at least you can soon have the pleasure of voting against the present government who are responsiable for this complete and utter mockery from beginning to end.

True,

 

..

[buzby]

Really sorry to hear about this. I did hear a similar incident in Edinburgh last month, it had the same rersult, but it is hard to find the details.

 

I'll be doing my ballot box best too....

[lonerider]

Hi

 

I am going to county court in 1 month for the same thing. I sent my SORN as requested, DVLA say they never recieved it. I have asked for my original SORN that I sent to prove the date on the form is the date i sent it. V888 sent over 20 days ago DVLA say they dont have it. Going to send another one.

These bar stewards are got to say that judge, very bad indeed

 

Any advice please?

[sorndisease]

The DVLA have tried various tactics to secure revenue with SORN and seemed to have settled on this one, as by virtue of the process it is likely to more succesful than not. In your case I suspect the DVLA will present "evidence" that they did not receive your SORN. This "evidence" is the fact that an LLP was issused. As far as the DVLA are concerened there is a statutory debt due, that can only be due by the registered keeper. (ie it does not matter if they lost it, post office lost it, they have not keyed the data in correctly etc) because

 

YOU ARE THE R K AND AS THE RESPONSIABILITY LIES WITH YOU TO DECLARE THE SORN, IT IS THEREFORE ALSO YOUR RESPONSIABILITY TO CHECK UP ON THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE DONE THEIR JOB PROPERLY BY PROCESSING IT. IF YOU DO NOT, IT MUST BE AT YOUR OWN COST. The point they will try to push home to the judge IS YOU ARE RESPONSIABLE NO MATTER WHAT.

 

If the judge is lead into accepting this arguement ( its easy as it doesnt give them much to deliberate about) all they have to do to bring things to a close in the DVLA s favour, is ask you for proof of posting.

 

As a County Court Judgement is made on a "balance of probability" ie hard evidence is not needed to win a case as it is in the criminal courts, if you dont have it the judge can decide that "on a balance of probability" you did not send it. One could argue that by asking for proof of post, the judge is asking you to prove your innocence rather than the DVLA establish your guilt.

 

Regardless of this once the DVLA have evaded being able to prove YOU DID NOT SEND IT, you have had it.

 

If you have proof of posting, the "balance of probability" is the DVLA wouldnt have taken you to court. If you dont have it "the balance of probability" is they will get the money!

Edited January 26, 2010 by sorndisease

[postggj]

this fine, sorry penalty from dvla

 

has it been agreed by parrliament or is it just dvla doing this

[sorndisease]

All agreed I think!

[Raykay]

L.L.P. was introduced by the Finance Act 2002 which added s.7A & 7B to V.E.R.A. 1994.

[kwaks]

Well seeing as the DVLA are insisting that the responsibility to keep registration details up to date and correct is solely on the RK, I had better contact them for my login and password to their database.

 

If they don't give me access to the database I can't see how I can hold this sole responsibility.

[crem]

Well seeing as the DVLA are insisting that the responsibility to keep registration details up to date and correct is solely on the RK, I had better contact them for my login and password to their database.

 

If they don't give me access to the database I can't see how I can hold this sole responsibility.

 

:lol:

[sorndisease]

EXACTLY

 

IF YOU ARE FULLY LIABLE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE YOUR OWN LOGIN AND PASSWORD.

 

Just one problem with this scheme though. What motivation do you have for getting it wrong? You will be costing yourself money as opposed to raising revenue!!

 

I should imagine the government would rather the TASK be left to the DVLA, and the RESPONSIBILITY with the R.K. This allows for the current situation which is NO MATTER WHOM HAS MADE WHICH MISTAKE/ERROR , the DVLA continue along unchecked as does the revenue from the RK.

 

Seriously though this dire situation is not the DVLA'S fault or the Courts. They merely follow government policy. The current government is responsible for this ridiculous system from beginning to end.

 

No one can be against any system to remove uninsured untaxed cars, cars without MOT etc from the roads. Unfortunately resources have to be committed to catch people carrying out these crimes. When you catch them,you cant really fine money out of them as nine times out of ten they don't have it, otherwise they would have taxed, mot d insured the car in the first place!!

 

SORN laws use a combination of any error (it does not matter whose remember) and a database to get £40, £80 or more every time. If you have a car that is legal, and registered, the DVLA know you have money and where to find you to get it.

 

IF YOU DON T LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TREATING YOU THIS WAY, TELL THEM THE ONLY WAY THEY UNDERSTAND. AT THE BALLOT BOX!!!

[pelham9]

sorndisease

 

Are you sure that you are not a DVLC plant who has concocted this court case to discourage the rest of us ?!!

 

I do not mean to insult you but the rulimg is so perverse and illogical that that was my first thought when I read your account. Where was the court and who was the judge? It must have been a small claims court which are often presided over by inadequate judges?

 

Small claims courts are well known to produce peculiar rulings and are known in some circles as small claim 'lotteries'. Fortunately this is fully recognised and rulings in them cannot be used as precedents in other courts and can be appealed to a higher court without leave of the judge.

 

This ruling should be appealed but I would not blame you if you said 'once bitten twice shy'! One thing you should do - which will cost you nothing - is to contact one (or all) of the quality newspapers who will be very interested in this peculiar case.

 

Some judges in a small claims court would throw a case such as this out as 'no DVLA case' and I am sure that if DVLA were given a hearing then your arguments woulnd convince the majority.

 

The next thing I am going to do is to write to DVLA to make sure that they have my record on their database fully and correct.

[sorndisease]

NO I AM NOT A DVLA PLANT!!!!

 

I cannot remember the name of the judge. The Court hearing was at Buxton County Court on 26th January 2010 at 1200. I am fully aware you can get peculiar rulings from small claims courts, it is as you say a lottery.

 

Unfortunately I was forced to take this risk, as this was the particular method the DVLA chose to employ. I firmly believe that by getting the judge to accept that the SORN IS the sole responsibility of the RK, you are the RK and therefore you are responsible (regardless of anything else) is their standard tactic.

 

I was happy to agree with the judges assertion that it was the RK responsibility to declare SORN, however she was unwilling to accept that my duties had been discharged by sending off the form. At the risk of repeating myself, she was of the mind that as I was solely responsible, I should do everything in my power to ensure the data base was updated including following up the SORN receit, or suffer the consequences.

 

The point is if DVLA say you have done something wrong/ not done something right, to get a conviction in a criminal court, they would need some hard and fast evidence of a crime/offence. Without it every case would fail.

 

The County Court works off the "chances of probability". If the DVLA can get the judge to agree with their way of thinking, then their "chances of probability" are somewhat higher than they would be if they were stood in a criminal court with no hard and fast evidence.

 

The judge had to decide between the DVLA RK argument and my argument that my duties had been discharged. As neither of us had any evidence she chose to focus on the letter of the law, which as she saw it, meant as the RK is responsible no matter what, I was guilty.

 

Obviously to anybody who has followed my case this would appear an inadequate decision, and one I certainly was not expecting, however at the time, a took what I considered to be a small risk and lost.

 

I should appeal but if they can get it so wrong once,why not again?

 

As I have said before the DVLA are not here to take you to court to lose. THIS DOES NOT RAISE ANY MONEY.

 

The Continuous Registration and other related Road Traffic Acts as well as the proceedings used to raise money in relation to them, have continuously been tinkered with since their conception to produce a more certain and higher yield.

 

I am afraid on a personal note the DVLA have had all they are going to get from me financially, however as you say I do believe with the help of some papers they are going to get something else from me they wont like!!

 

I will keep this site updated.

[danielr]

EXACTLY

 

IF YOU ARE FULLY LIABLE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE YOUR OWN LOGIN AND PASSWORD.

 

Just one problem with this scheme though. What motivation do you have for getting it wrong? You will be costing yourself money as opposed to raising revenue!!

you do have your own login and password, it's called your registration number and document reference number (on your V5).

 

you can update details yourself and get instant confirmation that the details are updated at the time that you update. to be honest I find that a whole lot easier than actually filling in the written form and buying a stamp...

 

if you're so convinced that the judgement is wrong, then why not appeal it?

[dojj]

i can confirm tha the dvla are "insert random rude words here"

 

i scraped a car

i got the letter confirming it was scrapped

they sent me a llp 3.5 years later

at which point i said "what's going on here then?"

 

eventually i had to pay

 

without that letter they've sent you, it does not matter a bean as to how long you have had since you got rid of the car/disposed of it/sent the v5 off i someone elses name

 

you have to provide the letter or they will fine you

 

i think my letter has made it into this months edition of ppc, but i'll find out tomorrow and let you know

 

i'm also currently fighting the dvla on another sorn'd car which they have admitted to having a record of, but because the llp is a different department, the dvla have no say in the matter and you have to pay the continuous registration people the fine, even though i have it in writing that the car was asked to be sorn'd but there was no paperwork in order to enable it to be sorn'd as they didn't send out the sorn letter with the code on it that you have to put into the computer

 

3 letters and a phone call are the proove that i have, i've even got the recorded delivery paperwork for them, and they've sorn'd 2 of the 5 cars i put on the list, but the llp ppeps won't have it

 

 

what a [problem]

 

i might just have my day in court, at least then it'll be giving me a chance to see if i can get a smaller fine lol!!! (last time i went to cuort it cost me £4k, but let's not dwell on that shall we)

[Professor Lone Ranger]

What a dismal tale. Did anybody actually refer to law or was it simply the DVLA's interpretation of it? I am in court today and hope to be able to report a better result based on my case, which is not about missing SORNs but DVLA's interpretation of law, which they seem to believe they can manipulate to achieve their ends. Has anybody actually seen any law that supports the idea that the law allows no gaps in what is called continuous registration? How is it the DVLA permits itself a four week gap before acknowledging the receipt of a SORN? If they throw it in the bin it is an automatic revenue earner the Keeper cannot disprove. Does that sound right? Has anybody appealed a County Court Judgement against them on such a blatant injustice? This Hansard extract Lords Hansard text for 14 Nov 2003 (231114-01) Shows the idea was to catch criminals not fill up the coffers but that is what it has become. Perhaps it is a job for your new MPs? If the bully boys have control on the roads appealing to the DVLA will not work as this makes clear.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sorn_decelerations_failure_to_re

 

As can be seen from this the purpose of the legislation is not law enforcement but revenue collection. Indeed concerns were expressed about that when the ACT was introduced. So far it seems Judges simply accept what the DVLA tells them. Please pray for me today that my arguments will not fall on deaf ears and be seen by blind eyes.

[Raykay]

As has been said, the small claims court is a bit of a lottery when it comes to DVLA cases, if you send a SORN declaration - or any document - to DVLA by normal post, they are deemed to have received it unless they prove that you didn't (s7 The Interpretation Act).

 

As long it was sent on or before the expiry of a current declaration or excise licence that is all that is required for a valid SORN declaration.

They usually claim that unless you can produce their letter acknowledging the declaration, you are liable for the charge but there is no legislation requiring them to send a letter, or you to receive one or do anything if you don't.

 

Unfortunately some judges do not understand the implications of the Interpretation Act and accept the DVLA's argument.

[buzby]

Sorry, we solve problem IN forums, not attempt to deal with them privately off site.

[postggj]

Or For A Fee

[buzby]

Why not benefit ALL forum users and tell as all how you do this? Why should the OP email you privately?

[Reclaimgroup]

Sorry but i did not say a fee or anything in that regard.

 

Basic

If there is a debt collector harassing you for court action

or any other recovery service.

 

Issue one your problem is disputed under the oft and the debt recovery authority if a debt is disputed no debt recovery company can they continue action until the dispute has been resolved first by both parties.

 

Send a letter stating facts like this for an example

Kindly note I { YOUR NAME } are not indebted to dvla or its agents or successors as claimed, or at all. if those who instructed you disagree then they must raise an action to prove there claim. Any such action will be defended by my legal representive. Either way, as the matter is clearly a dispute and not a debt you are respectfully invited to return to your instructions as per the debt collection association code of practice and the OFT guidance on debt collection in this matter.

 

In english it means that no debt recovery agent or solicitor can issue a claim under the uk laws if the issue is disputed as of all sorns are posted under oath and nothing more, they have to prove you did not post it and you have to pove you posted it.??????

 

Either way its disputed and no legal action can be taken until the deadlock has been removed by both parties.

 

If it is under dispute and the debt agency issues a claim . do not defend with a defence . you have to go direct with a counter claim and hit them right between the eyes.stating facts of events and get whitness statements that you posted your v890s on all events.

 

Remember all courts have to use evidence of fact state your facts that you posted your sorn under oath and stick with it as they have to prove you did not and it is imposible in the uk as at the moment unless they make you return by recorded post which they do not. so its catch 24.

 

Please do not mess with dvla as its a bailiff . just like council tax you need to fight your corner as soon as you have your debt recovery letter to stop further action do not wait. My advice if you are un sure see a solicitor and he or she will tell you the same as ive just done.

[kiptower]

correction, DVLA DO USE Debt collector's where some are also Bailiff's

 

 

as in Philips and a few others who use a general letterhead's which covers DCA and Baliff's

 

its a different matter when the DVLA actually take you to Court then it a judgement against you

 

the initial charge from DVLA IS NOT A FINE

[buzby]

Debt Recovery Authority.....?

[kiptower]

thanks Buz I missed that 1

[foolishgirl]

Your attention is drawn to this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/254049-breaking-news-dvla-loses.html

 

Media report here:

DVLA off-road system seriously off-message ? The Register