Failure to Notify - 15 Years Ago! **Case now closed**

[Gick]

Dear Nickitmma

I have not posted on this forum for some time for various reasons, but I have been visiting and noticed your thread title. The immediate response has been ‘they’re ‘aving a “larff”!’ One can see at first glance why.

Unfortunately most responses are not properly dealing with the issues that you face and I would urge you to be very careful in your preparations to answer the allegation.

 

1) Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 refers to the situation where service of documents is required or authorised by an Act of parliament to be completed by post. (Yes, I know that it also says ‘give’, ‘send’ or ‘any other expression’ etc) but these refer to the movement from ‘A’ to ‘B’ from the perspective of ‘A’.) The DVLA emphasize that the Act under which they prosecute, is from the perspective of the Secretary of State ie ‘B’ and the need to deliver to same. They have had success in rebutting what the man in the street might consider a sensible understanding of this section on this point. So it should not be relied upon in your defence. It may appear to be pure pedantry, but on such nuances is the application of law decided.

 

2) Bazooka Boo was wrong at post #19.

The Limitation Act 1980 does not apply to summary offences, rather it is section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 which restricts laying of information to 6 months. However, no doubt the DVLA will say either (a) that they are within the 6 month limit following a recent application to either re-register or SORN (as mentioned in a previous post) or (b) the offence continues to be committed until notification.

Bazooka Boo is again wrong at post #21 after you informed us that you are in Scotland.

The links that he provides refer to property claims

Instead section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 would appear to be the equivalent to the MC Act 1980, with a similar 6 month limit, although this also introduces the concept of a continuous offence. See below

 

3) The requirement to notify change of keeper is found in The Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. From reading the original post I imagine that you owned/kept the motorcycle prior to 1997 so section 21 applies. This required the NEW keeper to send in the Registration document with the changes, the old keeper notifying by means of the separate slip that you mention. After 24th March 1997 the onus changed to the OLD keeper to send in the V5 for the change to be registered as is the present requirement.

Should your ownership/ keeper have commenced post 24th March 1997, section 22 will apply as per my previous sentence. Either way, the requirement is the same, - ‘shall forthwith deliver to the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the notification of transfer (or otherwise in writing), the following information— ‘

 

Note the word ‘forthwith’ this means that it is not a continuing offence (see above) and the 6 month limit starts as soon as the vehicle changes hands. However, it will be incumbent on you to prove to the court’s satisfaction that the transaction did in fact take place 15 years ago. It would help if you had a history of licensing the vehicle for the period that you had owned it and which ceased at the time that you recall disposing of the vehicle. Obviously any other evidence even of a circumstantial nature would be helpful to strengthen your claim. If you have anyone, independent for preference – maybe a neighbour or your mechanic for example, who can vouch for the disposal at that time, such that would lead any reasonable bench to your view.

 

Unfortunately I do not have access to the 1978 Regulations which moved the registration and licensing from local councils to central government and eventually to DVLA, or subsequent Regulations until 2002, as they have not been released in digital form and the National Archives which hold copies charges for them! Therefore I cannot tell when the ‘forthwith deliver’ wording came into effect. I do recall that the 1964 Regulations required the new keeper to ‘forthwith enter his details in the Registration Book and deliver’ the amended registration document to the council that last held the registration. (Regs 15 & 16)

 

Obviously your first course of action should be to reply to DVLA expressing surprise that this matter has arisen 15 years later, including any details that occur to you in support of the assertion that you sold/disposed of the machine then. Be polite and reasonable, do not start quoting legislation as this may put their backs up and result in their pursuing this to court where, unless you have the reasonable proof as described above, your success is not the forgone conclusion that previous posters suggest.

 

I am sorry for the length of this post and hope that it helps in your dealings with the matter.

[nickitmma]

Hi Gick, appreciate you posting your thoughts and keeping my feet on the ground I had noticed that while some people did get off, some people didnt on the interpretation act alone so was aware that wasnt a certainty based on that. I need to read through your points properly when i have a bit more time (sorry, skimmed them for now as at work!) but my immediate thoughts are that im going to struggle to provide any evidence of when I sold the bike, im pretty sure i wont have any record of when I bought the bike either so im unsure if I bought it before/after 24th March 1997. Im pretty sure my parents confirming I sold the bike before I moved will not be taken as evidence but would welcome your thoughts?

 

I have replied to the first 2 letters giving as much information as I can (but thats virtually none) and asking they consider the fact that 15 years have passed since the event in question took place so its not reasonable to expect me to have kept records this long, I have kept everything polite and not quoted any legislation as to be honest I didnt feel I understood it well enough (im the same about the links Boo posted and a lot of the info you posted above - wish Google had an interpreter for law speak ).

 

I would still like to think that after 20 years owning vehicles without problem and also the fact they have never written to me before to say tax was due or anything like that to suggest they hadnt received the green slip, that they would accept the fact something has went wrong somewhere but after such a long period its not worth pursuing.

 

Im struggling to understand all the legal terms and language so hopefully I get to speak to someone who can see my point of view - I understand they havent received/processed it for whatever reason but still think its pretty bad that after 15 years they still want to pursue me for such a silly little thing...

 

Appreciate your post Gick, thanks again, certainly food for thought although I still feel im being wronged since i did send the bloody thing

[Bazooka Boo]

You are being wronged nickitmma, an out of date dickensian biased mix match of rules designed to make the maximum amount of profit out of those who can least afford it.

 

The onus of proof is upon them, NOT you, please please please exhaust their complaints procedure, 15 years to kick up a fuss over profit they never received??

Pull the other one, I appreciate Gick has picked holes in my advice, I don't profess to be knowledgeable in all areas of questionable actions by corporations, but I'm pretty confident my common sense head is firmly attached, and this preposterous claim is far from sense!

[nickitmma]

Hi Boo, im still in agreement about fighting it as I too use common sense to live my life, its a shame the DVLA dont seem to (or dont care enough to apply it instead of sending standard response letters). I appreciate the points Gick has made about not thinking it'll be a walk in the park or that the outcome is in any way guaranteed as they help me not take it lightly. I know everything you have said and referred to is being given to help me and while i dont pretend to understand it, you have a much better grasp of these things than I do lol...

 

I fully intend to continue to argue my points and as yet have not tried calling them so will maybe give that a try and see if I can register a formal complaint through actually speaking to somebody. The thought of actually going to court is a worry so im hopeful this can be resolved before that point but it doesnt sit right with me to roll over and pay so I wont be doing that...

[unclebulgaria67]

This is complete nonsense, as you have no control over how DVLA ensure integrity of their data. DVLA are required under Data Protection laws to ensure that they have systems in place to ensure that the data they hold in accurate. Therefore they will conduct regular checks to identify data that is incomplete, with missing information.

 

If this bike was sold 15 years ago and the DVLA record was never updated, then recently something happened at DVLA for them to write to you, I would question what has happened during those 15 years. DVLA would presumably have sent out letters regarding licencing for the bike and even issued a new V5 registration document, as DVLA updated all V5 documents a few years ago. Where have DVLA sent all letters and documents during those 15 years.

 

In this situation, I would write a recorded delivery letter to the Data Protection/Compliance Manager at DVLA, threatening to involve the ICO and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, copying in my local MP. If you want to involve the Parliamentary Ombudsman, you have to get your MP to do this.

[nickitmma]

Thanks for the reply unclebulgaria

 

I think someone must recently have tried to register the bike which is whats kicked this all off. I agree, why have i heard nothing for 15 years - if they have had me down all that time im sure they would have chased me up for road tax etc etc. As i mentioned the bike was registered to my parents as I stayed there at the time and my parents still stay at the same address so I would have had any mail passed on to me (it couldnt have been binned by anyone else as I can still be reached through the same address).

 

I think my first port of call is to give them a phone and see what they say although i think that in itself may be difficult as the letters say they only deal in writing - talk about frustrating... If that fails I will definitely look to get others involved ie media/MP etc...

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for the reply unclebulgaria

 

I think someone must recently have tried to register the bike which is whats kicked this all off. I agree, why have i heard nothing for 15 years - if they have had me down all that time im sure they would have chased me up for road tax etc etc. As i mentioned the bike was registered to my parents as I stayed there at the time and my parents still stay at the same address so I would have had any mail passed on to me (it couldnt have been binned by anyone else as I can still be reached through the same address).

 

I think my first port of call is to give them a phone and see what they say although i think that in itself may be difficult as the letters say they only deal in writing - talk about frustrating... If that fails I will definitely look to get others involved ie media/MP etc...

 

I would suggest not phoning them, as phoning these type of people can be a waste of time. You really need to spend 15 minutes writing that complaint letter to the compliance/Data Protection or Chief Executive at DVLA, sending a copy to your MP. The letter does not need to be complicated. Keep it simple, state the facts and ask questions.

 

If DVLA continue with this, you need a written records of complaints, which is why phoning is not a good idea.

[nickitmma]

Fair point, ill get something put together tonight, is it worth posting it here for opinions or is that a bad idea?

[unclebulgaria67]

Fair point, ill get something put together tonight, is it worth posting it here for opinions or is that a bad idea?

 

You can if you want. I don't see the point really. It does not need to be a complicated letter. Often the best letters are straight to the point. If you try to be too clever in wording the letter, they may not respond properly.

 

The point is that you cannot be expected to keep records for a bike sold 15 years ago, for which you sent notification to DVLA at the time. If there had been any issue of DVLA not receiving this, then why has there been no tax disc reminders or any other post received from DVLA during the 15 years. Advise them that your parents have lived at the address that DVLA had for the bike and they have not received anything during that time.

[nickitmma]

Cool, thanks for your advice, simple is good for me

 

Nick

[Gick]

Im pretty sure my parents confirming I sold the bike before I moved will not be taken as evidence but would welcome your thoughts?

 

Whilst not perhaps as persuasive as a completely independent witness, your parent's recollection would be good in the absence of anything else. If you can remember how much you got for the machine - I don't suppose that you have a bank statement entry, who would after this time - this all helps. You have not mentioned what the motorcycle was, did you sell as a going/roadworthy vehicle or had it been off the road for a length of time before sold?

 

With regard to post 30 about reminders etc from DVLA in the ensuing 15 years, prior to 1998 there was no SORN and vehicles could just disappear into the ether until such events as I mentioned, reregistration/SORN etc. I have three such machines and three cars in storage, but did take the precaution of notifying change of address 6 years ago so they are on the system, it was only when I did that a V5c was issued.

 

Post 28 refers to the onus of proof, which whilst a usual tenet of law, does not apply in this situation as the DVLA only have to certify that there has been no change in their register prior to whatever has recently occurred to have a prima facie case. It is therefore necessary to produce rebuttal.

 

Uncle Bulgaria is correct that a letter trail is important, but sometimes an informal chat, provided that no disclosures about lack of proof are admitted, you could even ask their advice on what sort of further information they required to satisfy them.thus could forestall the formal action. If you are able to record your call, you as a private individual do not need to disclose that the call is being recorded. From the tenor of your posts, you come across as a reasonable person so you may well be successful if you were to ring them.

 

Good luck

[unclebulgaria67]

I

 

About 2 or 3 years ago DVLA started to replace all V5 reg docs. If DVLA had the OP still noted as the owner of the bike, why does it appear that no new V5 reg doc has been received ?

 

Re DVLA and proof, this is complete and utter nonsense ( even if you are correct). This sale took place apparently 15 years ago. There is no requirement in law for a vehicle owner to keep a papertrail of vehicle ownership for 15 years.

 

SORN came in quite awhile ago. If the OP had not been taxing their bike, then I would have thought that DVLA would have dealt with this ages ago. They would have written to say, get a tax disc or SORN the bike, or you will receive a fine. Why does this appear to have not happened ?

 

If DVLA do not come to a sensible position, personally I would get my MP involved and if necessary take this to the parliamentary ombudsman.

[Gick]

I am sorry to have to correct you once again.

 

SORN came in quite awhile ago. If the OP had not been taxing their bike, then I would have thought that DVLA would have dealt with this ages ago. They would have written to say, get a tax disc or SORN the bike, or you will receive a fine. Why does this appear to have not happened ?

 

As per my post #36, SORN commenced in 1998. Any vehicle that was not taxed at that time continued to escape the SORN requirement until it became once more taxed. It seemed that it did not occur to the programmers that there might be vehicles already in storage! It became difficult to retrieve dated number plates for historic/classic cars for a long period of time until the single marque clubs began jumping up and down and making loud noises.

 

Likewise when the EU standard V5c was introduced and more recently (August 2010) it was revised to the current red fronted version, any vehicle not taxed and consequently SORNed before 1998 would not be issued until it came to the attention of the DVLA.

[unclebulgaria67]

I am sorry to have to correct you once again.

 

SORN came in quite awhile ago. If the OP had not been taxing their bike, then I would have thought that DVLA would have dealt with this ages ago. They would have written to say, get a tax disc or SORN the bike, or you will receive a fine. Why does this appear to have not happened ?

 

As per my post #36, SORN commenced in 1998. Any vehicle that was not taxed at that time continued to escape the SORN requirement until it became once more taxed. It seemed that it did not occur to the programmers that there might be vehicles already in storage! It became difficult to retrieve dated number plates for historic/classic cars for a long period of time until the single marque clubs began jumping up and down and making loud noises.

 

Likewise when the EU standard V5c was introduced and more recently (August 2010) it was revised to the current red fronted version, any vehicle not taxed and consequently SORNed before 1998 would not be issued until it came to the attention of the DVLA.

 

I understand where you are coming from on this, but if the bike was sold 15 years ago and has been kept in storage by someone for all that time, with it only being registered again recently, how can the DVLA pursue a penalty for failure to notify 15 years later ? 99.9% of people would not keep a record of advising DVLA for 15 years, so why should the onus be on the former owner. Surely the DVLA should be making enquiries before they start sending out letters accusing people of failing to notify 15 years previously ? It would be better for DVLA to write to the person who was newly registering the bike for tax/V5, to ask them how long they had the bike in their possession and whether they had details of the previous owners.

 

This is the type of issue I would be taking up with my MP. There should be limitations placed on DVLA, so they cannot pursue beyond a reasonable time period.

[Bazooka Boo]

This is the DVLA we're talking about here, common sense does not register with them at any point. 'computer says no' is the standard response you will get.

 

I am still firmly of the belief that they have no leg to stand on,

welcome them to argue this in court.

 

I've not read any evidence that they have been successful in bringing such a historic case to victory, nor have I read any to the contrary.

 

However, having done a lot of digging about, I am now of the opinion that this may well be an abuse of process?

Perhaps Gick would be able to advise on this?

 

The offence comes under the Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994, and more specifically s.46 and s.46(a)

You should note that you are already deemed guilty before you can prove innocence,

(3)A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.

 

However, you have given them this information, albeit they claim you haven't, there clearly has to be a time limit for such a derisory and vexatious claim to be made, and although I cannot find (yet!) anything which specifically answers this exact question, ie fifteen years in which to claim a monetary fee.

There is the Magistrates Court Act 1980 in which it clearly states;

Limitation of time.

 

(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.

 

However there are, as always, more rules they made up, but even then, this only gives them three years.....

(2)No such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this section more than three years after the commission of the offence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/6

 

Either way, I stand by my word, the interpretation act is very clear, regardless of what silly little sentences they like to use on their bit's of paper, it isn't law!

[Gick]

if the bike was sold 15 years ago and has been kept in storage by someone for all that time, with it only being registered again recently, how can the DVLA pursue a penalty for failure to notify 15 years later ?

 

Unfortunately you appear to be missing the point - again.

 

Although this is purely speculation at this time, it would seem that as far as they are concerned, the change of keeper has only just taken place for reasons previously posted. Until they are convinced that it is historic to the tune of 15 years, they are quite rightly pursuing the law. Do you really think that for every failure to notify case, irrespective of the loss of mail at Swansea issue, they should write to new or previous owners to ask if the change took place a long time ago? It is only cost effective for a computer to issue the penalty fine letter until such time as the alleged offender shows reason why the case should not be pursued. Whilst acknowledging that the DVLA are driven by cost often to the detriment of natural justice, in this situation I am pleased that my road tax is not being spent on writing to the hundreds of thousands involved.

 

Bazooka Boo,

 

You really should read posts more closely.

 

The OP is in Scotland, so the Magistrates Court Act 1980 does not apply, as I posted at 26. You are looking on line at legislation, but perhaps do not understand what you are reading? Your link to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/6 is totally irrelevant as the failure to notify comes under different legislation.

 

Your assertion that the offence comes under sections 46 & 46a of Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994, is also incorrect. These sections of the Act refer to the use on the road of vehicles. Individual sections cannot be read in isolation. (One reason why solicitors charge so much)

 

As I have previously posted in 26, the alleged offence comes under section 21 if registered to the keeper before 1997 or section 22 if post 24th March 1997 of The Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

 

I am now of the opinion that this may well be an abuse of process?

 

Only if conclusive evidence was available and presented to the DVLA notwithstanding which they continued to pursue the case to court could it be considered an abuse of process. Do you expect regulators to say 'Oh dear the person claims to have dealt with this 15 years ago even though they have not produced any evidence of this, so it must be true. No need to test the truth in court'. I think not.

 

Nickitmma

 

I am sorry that your thread has become somewhat contaminated by some of these uninformed posts. I will only reply to your own posts if you seek further help from me, as others do not seem able to grasp the concepts involved.

 

Regards,

 

Gick

[nickitmma]

Id like to thank everyone for their help on this - appreciate there has been some conflicting information but its all being given with the same purpose in mind - to help me out in a situation where I have no knowledge or real understanding of the legalities. As everyone is trying to help im grateful to everyone whether any of the info they provided is correct or not.

 

I had a chat with my parents last night and they are also sure I sold the bike before i left home - having since changed banks though i cant show any financial transaction that could be attributed to the sale - i think i was paid cash and cant even remember if I paid it into the bank or not. I can however show ownership of another motorbike not long after i sold the one in question, I have photos of the new bike at my new property. Again though, this proves nothing as I lived there for 10/11 years and could have been taken at any time. I have pics of the bike in question outside my parents house with my car at the time (I can remember the number plate) but again this doesnt prove anything I dont think. Ultimately I can provide no solid evidence of the date i sold the bike

 

I think my argument hinges on the fact its taken 15 years for the issue to come to light, effectively meaning I have no chance of proving anything. I would have expected to receive some kind of communication over this long period to say the bike needed taxed/declared SORN/new reg document etc but think Gick has maybe explained above why this didnt happen, i cant remember if the bike was taxed when I sold it or not (it had been off the road for a while although was working when I sold it - this was before SORN came into effect).

 

I am going to write a letter of complaint as advised above and see how that goes as I dont know what else to do - at the end of the day I did post off the slip so in my eyes in not guilty so dont think I should have to pay anything. I dont understand the legal side other than failure to notify is an offence and at this point in time the DVLA never received/processed any notification so I understand where they are coming from (although I dont agree with it).

 

Thanks again to everyone for their advice, its all appreciated. Gick, if I need anything legal clarified as I go through this process I will message you in person. I will keep posting here as this happens as the moral support helps

 

Nick

[unclebulgaria67]

if the bike was sold 15 years ago and has been kept in storage by someone for all that time, with it only being registered again recently, how can the DVLA pursue a penalty for failure to notify 15 years later ?

 

I am sorry that your thread has become somewhat contaminated by some of these uninformed posts. I will only reply to your own posts if you seek further help from me, as others do not seem able to grasp the concepts involved.

 

Regards,

 

Gick

 

The general idea of forums is that problems are discussed and questions raised, so people know what to do. We have asked questions and you have come back with information about how DVLA operate, which is useful. Not everyone can be an expert on every issue.

 

I have had long experience in dealing with data and problems in getting IT to work for a company, so that it can work for customers. It appears that DVLA have a few problems in dealing with old data that has not been touched for years. Hopefully the OP will manage to convince DVLA that they sold it many years ago and that they did inform them.

[Bazooka Boo]

Ah yes, once a bottle stopper always a bottle stopper! 1312.

 

My apologies nickitmma for not 'grasping' the concepts of what is involved, and contaminating your post with my uninformed advice.

 

Don't PM Gick, he isn't on your side, ALL posts must be kept on the open forum so others can advise whether the advice is correct or not.

 

Seeing as He has it all nicely sewn up and knows the in's and out's of Lawful & legal, I'll hand you back to Gick.....(rhymes with something else that?)

[nickitmma]

Nobody needs to apologise to me lol, im grateful for everyones help I get your point about keeping everything on the forum thread and will do so...

 

I didnt mean any offence to anyone with my last post, just Gick seems to have a good grasp of the legal side and im really struggling there, hence my comment. Please continue to add your thoughts as I go through this, as I said a few times now im a bit lost and value all the help I can get, certainly didnt intend to get stuck in the middle of anything and **** people off

[Bazooka Boo]

It isn't you at all, not by a long chalk so don't worry.

 

I'd be extremely cautious of accepting any advice via PM, certainly from the above.

 

http://www.govanlc.com/advice.htm

 

Be aware that Lawful and Legal are not the same thing.

The link above is for the Govan Law centre, have a look see, but IMO you should NOT be accepting this fine from DVLA, you need to make them answerable for their actions.

You sent it 15 years ago, if they wish to pursue this, then gladly see them in court.

[Gick]

Dear Nickitmma

 

] ]Gick, if I need anything legal clarified as I go through this process I will message you in person

 

Whilst I appreciate that you may wish to avoid the legal table tennis of recent posts on specific legal points, I must agree with Uncle Bulgaria on the importance of keeping the thread on the forum so that opinions can be peer checked. I am always pleased when an error that I have made is corrected and will, I hope, be gracious in acknowledging such correction; it is by such acceptance that one is educated.

 

Post 44 and 46 are of such calumny that I will leave it to others to judge/comment as hopefully I am above the need to.

[dx100uk]

don't forget what cag is all about too...

 

most people find cag through a search engine and read 'like' threads

 

if people PM stuff

 

it helps no-one and is rather selfish.

 

as its not on view

 

which breaks the circle of how most users find cag

 

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

There was a point I was trying to make and did not succeed in, which comes from working out flowcharts for data processing.

 

If in 1997/98, nothing had happened i.e no notification of sale or SORN, DVLA would have continued sending out tax disc reminders and any other documents. It appears that DVLA did stop sending documents to the address registered for the bike. Commonsense therefore seems to say that DVLA must have received something from someone regarding the bike.

 

Does this make sense ?

[Tony P]

Bulgaria.

Did, that long ago, DVLA "continue" to send reminders in following years after nothing had happened a year before - and keep doing so for ever? I think not - but cannot remember!

 

In more recent times they would not have done because they would have already started the "Failure to tax/SORN penalty" paperwork well before the next anniversary. But 15 years back?

 

As an aside, are they going to keep sending annual reminders now SORNs do not need to be renewed annually?