Failure to notify. Another case!

[lulilu]

Its not just dvla or the banks. Its everybody who wehave been told are paragons of viture use the rule when t suits them. I think this is a massively important case. I will do whatever I can to help butdoubt if its much but whatever it is you're welcome to it.

[lulilu]

Thanks.

[renegadeimp]

I think its time you got this issue highlighted in the press. Something this major and affects every driver in Britain will undoubtedly gain their attention.

[poor-boy]

So whats next then now - curl over and pay the fines and admit fault or battle on?

[Tony P]

So whats next then now - curl over and pay the fines and admit fault or battle on?

 

We need to hear more of the arguments put forward in No 6's case.

 

Naturally his frame of mind was not immediately on providing this, but I hope he will do so in due course.

 

Subject to hearing what happened, I believe the Interpretations Act still fulfils the requirement.

 

The illogical consequence could be, as Surfboy points out, that on what we know of this case, EVERYONE selling a vehicle MUST from now on actually take the V5C to a DVLA office and physically hand it over.

A nonsence that I doubt even DVLA wants - or can cope with.

 

Poor-boy.

If it were me in your position I would battle on with the known, tried, tested and succesful arguments that, for reasons that are as yet unclear, came unstuck in one case on Friday.

But what I would do would be my own personal decision for me only, based on my thoughts, readings and relish for a fight against burocracy and inefficiency.

 

That may not be appropriate for others of a different appetite, disposition and circumstances and who may value cost and time higher.

[poor-boy]

Thanks Tony, I did try to PM you but not enough posts

[Number6]

Hi

 

Sorry for the delay in posting further information. I wasn't minded to do so on Friday as I was a little depressed about the whole thing. Yesterday and most of today I've been very busy with work and other pressing matters.

 

At my appeal hearing the Judge was only interested in hearing submissions concerning pure issues of legality so that boiled everything down to "did I send it or didn't I?" Sounds simple yet I was in court for the best part of two hours.

 

I presented witness evidence that I had indeed posted the document as well as a statement from me affirming that I had done so. I then invoked Section 7 of the Interpretation Act.

 

I'll state at this point, and this might be useful for future cases, that the judge did not not have any copies of my submissions from the Magistrates hearing so it's best if you take everything along with you. Also he did not have a copy of the Interpretation Act with him, neither was he aware of what it said. This surprised me.

 

He was presented with a copy of the Interpretation Act, a copy of The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Section 22 and a copy of a V5.

 

His judgement was that as section 7 of the Interpretation Act states "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post...." and that Section 22 of the Road Vehicles ... Act makes no mention of "service by post" then Section 7 did not apply. I vehemently stated that the V5 is what everyone sees and that the V5 says to send it to a postal address; as the DVLA is an executive agency of the Dept of Transport then that constitutes provision for service by post. This was dismissed by the Judge who said that only the wording of the Act itself was important.

 

The judge awarded costs against me and contemplated increasing the severity of my sentence (he didn't in the end but his attitude made it clear to me that he thought my appeal was frivolous)!

 

This next bit may sound harsh and somewhat ungrateful, it's not meant to be, it's just the reality as I see it.

 

I know that this is important to lots of people who have been and potentially will be affected by DVLA tactics. However, I have now attended two stressful hearings expecting to win but losing both. This has cost me in terms of a conviction on my previously clean record, in terms of a bellyful of stress for both me, my partner and my children, in terms of a lot of time (approx 12 hours of court/travel/waiting time and probably 10 or more hours of research etc) and in terms of financial cost.

 

I am prepared to continue to fight this but only as a figurehead. I'm not prepared to lay myself open to any further stress or financial cost.

 

If this is going to go any further then it's axiomatic that it needs proper legal council to look at every aspect to see if there's a basis upon which to fight. It then needs a barrister + team to actually present the case at the Court of Appeal. This is serious money and if I were to lose again then, even if my own legal representation was free of charge I'm thinking that potential costs awarded against me could be very considerable.

 

I simply don't have the financial resources to risk even if I were minded to do so. The only way that I could take this forward is if my legal representation were completely pro bono and if I had guarantees that any costs awarded against me and expenses would be paid on my behalf.

 

Well, those are my initial thoughts. As I said, sorry if they seem harsh but I have to face reality.

[Tony P]

Thanks No 6.

Understood and apreciated.

 

Moves and contacts are going on behind the scenes.

[SURFBOY]

Understood as well No6.

I will do what i can to support.

[BURTYGRAMPS]

Hi Number 6

 

Just been reading about your problems with DVLA

 

Quick question - did you sell you car privately or to a dealer?

 

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Section 22 applies only if you sold privately

and states

22 (2) The registered keeper of the vehicle -

 

(a)if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, shall deliver to the new keeper that part of the document marked as the part which is to be given to the new keeper; and

 

(b)shall forthwith deliver the remainder of the registration document to the Secretary of State, duly completed to include the following—

 

(i)the name and address of the new keeper;

 

(ii)the date on which the vehicle was sold or transferred to the new keeper;

 

(iii)a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and

 

(iv)a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.

 

If you sold to a dealer section 23 applies

 

23 (2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following—

(a)the name and address of the vehicle trader;

(b)the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;

©a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and

(d)a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).

(3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

In sectin 22 it states notification must be delivered to the Secretary of State but in section 23 it states the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

It's ridiculous that these two sections have different requirements.

 

Hope this helps with you and others who are being pursued by the DVLA

[poor-boy]

The courts change things as they please.

 

I called the DVLA today asking that they have not responded to a letter I sent to them 6 weeks ago, I was told that a reply was sent. I told them that I had not recevied anything and can they prove postage - I was TOLD that them posting it is all the proof they need and I should take it up with Royal Mail!!

 

How rude!!

[bourne123]

Hi to all

i myself are due in court on monday with failing to notify change of keeper.i do find reading this forum that this is happening far to much with the dvla and is it just a money making scheme.on reading this forum that all you read i was sent a letter pay this or see you in court.if the dvla sent out 20,000 letters all the same at a fee of £35 lower cost thats £700,000 dont forget the court cases that people may not win or the higher £55.00 fee so we can all do the maths.i did read on were the person lost in both cases and there was going to be a fund starting.i do have another plan if everyone on here sent there complaint to the bbc watchdog program and the media go hold of it then things may happen and the bbc may start asking questions to the dvla.i just look at dont spend your money till you have to as we all know the bbc love the dvla.please post your thiughts

[nehpets]

Section 23 specifically says "notify" rather than deliver. Section 23 also says "or otherwise in writing". Both points, especially the second part, blow the Judges comments out of the water. It's hardly likely (reasonable) that you can satisfy section 23 by posting the infomation whilst not being able to satisfy section 22 in the same manner. In order for the Judge's comments to hold true that would have to be the case.

 

The Judge has simply sought to take a small specific line of text from Section 22 / 23 and use it completely out of context. In the UK the Royal Mail is considered to be a secure way of serving / delivering documents and the Interpretation Act makes that clear. With all due respect, for a County Court Judge to have little or no understanding of this appears to be nothing short of ridiculous.

 

Secondly, it appears to me to be grossly unfair for the Judge to specify that only the legal arguments could be considered. This is perhaps where having specialist legal representation may have paid off. It simply isn't reasonable for 'The Act' to contain everything with regard to the delivery of documents. As time move forwards the possible methods of delivery may change (email for example) so it's not feasable for individual Acts to cover all methods of delivery. The methods (of delivery) which the DVLA themselves set out have to be considered when judging the case - that is pure common sense.

 

Thirdly, the Judge doesn't appear to have considered either the wording of the Interpretation Act itself or the purpose of the Act itself. The Interpretation Act uses 'OR logic' where it states "Where an Act authorises OR requires any document to be served by post" - whilst it's possible for the Judge to argue that Section 22 or 23 doesn't specificly state that a 'document being served by post is a requirement', it is not possibe for the Judge to state that the Road Vehicles Act does not "authorise" service by post. If you read the Interpretation Act carefully you'll see that there are two aspects to the logic in the sentence and that those two aspects are seperated by the word 'OR'. The judgement handed out only appears to cover the second half of the logical requirement of the statement. The defendant is clearly relying on the first part of the sentence and that is perfectly reasonable given that the DVLA themselves specify that service by post is acceptable to them - service by post is clearly an 'authorised' method of delivering the documents even if it's not a 'requirement'.

 

Fourthly, the Judge is blantantly ignoring the actual wording of the Interpretation Act in order to produce his out-of-context interpretation of the Road Vehicle Act - The Interpretation Act covers the caveat which the Judge is trying to invoke where the Act states, "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)". In this particular case the Road Vehicle Act uses the words "deliver" and "notify" which clearly, when placed in context, fall into the catagory 'any other experession'.

 

Fifthly, if the Judge is to believed (and the Road Vehicle Act or any other Act is to be taken literally) then one could reasonably argue that there is no requirement to actually send any document where the term 'put in writing' is used. Simply writing it down would be enough.

Edited August 29, 2012 by nehpets

[bourne123]

REF TO MESSAGE That why iv said that everyone should send an email to watchdog as they seem to have more clout than enyone and this problem isnt going to go away as the dvla always try to make money.its alwrite for them to say it got lost in the post but when the shoes is on the other foot the joe public have to pay.

[Number6]

Sorry for lack of response from me, I've only just seen the new posts as I'm not being notified by email even though I'm subscribed to the thread.

 

I'm just checking whether there is any prospect of taking this further as per post #82?

 

If I'm going to continue to fight then I need some input. If it's not going to go any further then I need to draw a line under it.

 

Let me know and I'll prepare accordingly.

[Number6]

Hi Number 6

 

Just been reading about your problems with DVLA

 

Quick question - did you sell you car privately or to a dealer?

 

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Section 22 applies only if you sold privately

and states

22 (2) The registered keeper of the vehicle -

 

(a)if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, shall deliver to the new keeper that part of the document marked as the part which is to be given to the new keeper; and

 

(b)shall forthwith deliver the remainder of the registration document to the Secretary of State, duly completed to include the following—

 

(i)the name and address of the new keeper;

 

(ii)the date on which the vehicle was sold or transferred to the new keeper;

 

(iii)a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and

 

(iv)a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.

 

If you sold to a dealer section 23 applies

 

23 (2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following—

(a)the name and address of the vehicle trader;

(b)the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;

©a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and

(d)a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).

(3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

In sectin 22 it states notification must be delivered to the Secretary of State but in section 23 it states the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

It's ridiculous that these two sections have different requirements.

 

Hope this helps with you and others who are being pursued by the DVLA

 

 

Private buyer.

[Tony P]

..

Edited September 6, 2012 by Tony P
Solved!

[poor-boy]

I have received a letter from the prosecuter at DVLA giving me one last oppurtunity to pay the original fine as I have stated I will be pleading not guilty.. They state that by simply posting the V5 to DVLA is not good enough and I SHOULD have delivered it to Secetry of state.

[SURFBOY]

As they say posting is not good enough, this needs to be spread contry wide otherwise everyone who posts the v5 could fall foul to this money generator for the DVLA.

I wonder if BBC Watchdog are aware of this?

[SURFBOY]

I wonder if a formal complaint to the DVLA is in order.

I see this as an important issue.

[SURFBOY]

I notice on the DVLA web site they state that when you sell a vehicle you must SEND the completed part of the V5C to DVLA Swansea , SA99 1BD.

I would be interested to know what their official meaning of SEND is in this situation.

[paul kennedy]

I am really sad that Number 6 lost . I am certain that there is a winnable appeal to the Court of appeal in this case but I appreciate Number 6's reasons for wanting to draw a line under his bad experience. Ironically though in my opinion the victory for the DVLA will be short lived. If the DVLA starts getting confident as it seems in post 93 it is only a matter of time before this is revisited at the crown court and a proper verdict is delivered. Like the post nehpets !

 

Absolutely Ridiculous DVLA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vengeancedemon]

I have emailed DVLA asking them to define exactly what they consider is a proper way to deliver documents, ie by Royal Mail, hand delivered to Swansea or a local office and given receipt or diectly by hand to the Secretary of State, wonder if they will reply?

 

I am sure that a superior court would throw this out and then this would sort DVLA out, but its going to cost unless a Silk would do it Pro-Bono

[poor-boy]

I had a quite indepth conversation with the prosecuter on the telephone yesterday - they called me to ask where I had obtained my letter that I had sent them but I was not willing to indulge. They asked my reasons for not pleading guility and I stated that as I had posted the V5 to the address stated on the back of the V5 my job was done. The prosecuter asked why I had not called the telephone number on the back of the V5 to confirm if they had received it - I advised that this was not possible as the V5 was posted and that would have meant travelling to DVLA Swansea to obtain the V5 to a vehicle that does not belong to me to obtain the phone number.

 

They agian told me to either provide them with evidence of "Delivery" or pay the fine - I opted to go to court and provide evidence there BUT have requested the DVLA to provide evidence to the court that one of the employees have not tampered with the V5 and disposed of it and also to prove that Royal mail have not lost it.

 

The prosecuter told me that this was not possible and again I can avoid court by paying the simple little fine!! But by me paying the fine would mean that I am guilty of what ever crime they think I have commited. The prosecuter have asked me to call them back on Monday an make arrangements to see them before the court date...

[Old Cogger]

well if we send via Royal Mail to swansea, that is sufficient surely, as their renewal notices come that way = Not Recorded Delivery. Daughter get letter etc as she part exchanged her car and she says she sent off paper to them, they keep sending letters saying they know nothing? has the garage not notified them as well as a few months have gone and possibly the car exchanged is re-registered to new owner, and the garage notified them I wonder, this country is klike a dictatorship or is now.??? comments anyone????