Philips bailiffs for late car tax

[Raykay]

A Late licensing Penalty is payable if a vehicle licence is not taken out on, or before expiry of the existing one. s.7A, V.E.R.A. 1994, which creates the debt and gives the authority to to claim it. It is not a 'judgement' by DVLA at that stage, only a claim that a Late Licensing Penalty is due.

 

It is no different to any other any claim for a debt, it is only a claim and can be contested. In your case they claimed that the LLP was due, your reply was that you had sent a declaration to continue the SORN before the existing one expired. (DVLA are renown for losing paperwork!!).

They can either accept your explanation and cancel their claim, or take the matter to County court - where you have the right to contest the matter. Until such time as you are found to be liable for the penalty in court, it is not a judgement, only a claim - that can be contested.

[nehpets]

But in my case the DVLA informed a Debt Collection Agent that I owed them £80. The implication being that a judgement on the matter had already been reached when that was not the case since I had refused to accept the LLP.

 

Under your interpretation 'the cart is before the horse' in so much as the debt occurs before the court hearing. Therefore the DVLA's position in court is one where they are seeking what amounts to, in legal terms, as ratification. This almost makes it seem like you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise and allows the DVLA to take the higher legal ground based purely on the fact that 'you are guilty because our perfectly maintained database says you are.'

 

You say that VERA gives the DVLA right to create the debt and then claim it. I would disagree with that. You then state that "this is not a judgement" on the part of the DVLA. I would then question you on the following... What is the pivotal moment at which the debt occurs? How do they 'create the debt' if they have no judicial powers? A debt has legal significance and this significance is being overlooked / ignored by the DVLA which is to the detriment of the accused. The fact is that there is a point in time in any LLP situation where the DVLA decide / judge / consider / conclude that the £80 penalty / fine is due for what amounts to a failing on the part of the vehicle keeper. Before that moment occurs no debt exists. After that moment a debt is deemed to exist. The problem is that due process has not been followed. Every defendant has the right to a fair hearing before the fine / penalty / debt is bestowed.

 

In my opinion, whilst the DVLA might be within their right to issue an LLP the defendant has every right to refute the LLP. Since neither party has a judicial power neither party can prevail over the other without a judicial hearing of some kind. Therefore, the legal status quo remains exactly as it was before the LLP was issued and as such no fine or penalty can be deemed to exist since, if a fine did now exist, one party would have an unfair advantage over the other.

[Raykay]

A debt collector is a normal procedure to persue a claim for a debt prior to court action. The only powers that debt collectors have - and here I include DVLA and their agents - is to ask for the money, it is only after being found liable for the debt at County court that the money can be demanded. If it is not paid then, it can be enforced by bailiffs.

 

s.7A V.E.R.A. 1994 creates the liability to the crown for the LLP, DVLA don't create the debt, only collect it.

 

The liability for the penalty (the debt) occurs upon the expiry of a current licence if a new licence has not been obtained - subject to the statutory reasons when a licence is not required. In your case, a SORN declaration had been sent prior to the current one expiring, so as you say, you would, as the defendant, have every right to refute the matter at the County court.

 

 

Until a County court has found a person liable, it is only a claim for a debt, it is only after they are found to be liable that it is judgement for a debt.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Raykay