Nice letter to the DVLA?
Discussion
Strangely Brown said:
Liquid Knight said:
Do you think being accused of theft and defamation of character would go down well?
If you'll excuse the comment, you're starting to come across like a barrack room lawyer. Making threats of arrest etc. just makes you look like Mr. Shouty and weakens your position. Simply state the facts and then leave it to them to take you to court.So letter three draft two....
I’m writing to you in reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me Blah (your reference Blah-Blah) and my refusal to pay a fine for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN.
In my previous letter I mentioned the Interpretations Act 1978, Sec 7 which 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) 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.”
Your argument was that the “Acknowledgement letter” sent by the DVLA is “designed to remove any uncertainty” that the DVLA has received or not the V5 certificate from the sender. This is obviously flawed. All this letter actually proves is the DVLA have sent a letter and nothing more. It does not prove the DVLA have received the V5C or not and does not prove the DVLA has processed the V5C correctly or not.
An Acknowledgement letter will not prove beyond reasonable doubt the sending or not of a V5 registration document. If the DVLA either failed to receive the document or failed to process the document then it is either the DVLA or Post Service who is at fault.
In the last letter a representative of the DVLA used terms such as “no defence against enforcement action”, “mitigation” and “constitute a defence”. I do not recognise the DVLA as an authority that has the power to act as a court. If the DVLA would like to deal with this matter properly in a public court then the nearest one to me is in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.
Yours Sincerely,
Me
....and breathe out and think of a happy place.
I’m writing to you in reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me Blah (your reference Blah-Blah) and my refusal to pay a fine for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN.
In my previous letter I mentioned the Interpretations Act 1978, Sec 7 which 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) 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.”
Your argument was that the “Acknowledgement letter” sent by the DVLA is “designed to remove any uncertainty” that the DVLA has received or not the V5 certificate from the sender. This is obviously flawed. All this letter actually proves is the DVLA have sent a letter and nothing more. It does not prove the DVLA have received the V5C or not and does not prove the DVLA has processed the V5C correctly or not.
An Acknowledgement letter will not prove beyond reasonable doubt the sending or not of a V5 registration document. If the DVLA either failed to receive the document or failed to process the document then it is either the DVLA or Post Service who is at fault.
In the last letter a representative of the DVLA used terms such as “no defence against enforcement action”, “mitigation” and “constitute a defence”. I do not recognise the DVLA as an authority that has the power to act as a court. If the DVLA would like to deal with this matter properly in a public court then the nearest one to me is in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.
Yours Sincerely,
Me
....and breathe out and think of a happy place.
Edited by Liquid Knight on Tuesday 5th October 15:34
Exactly the point I'm trying to make Streaky. Also the DVLA have probably spent more than the £80 fine in administrating the letters I've sent so far.
So I either get to go to court and make the DVLA look like the thieves they are, the DVLA back down or the DVLA spend more than the fine is worth making it a futile exercise on their part.
Win, win, win situation and my principals are intact.
So I either get to go to court and make the DVLA look like the thieves they are, the DVLA back down or the DVLA spend more than the fine is worth making it a futile exercise on their part.
Win, win, win situation and my principals are intact.
Edited by Liquid Knight on Wednesday 6th October 08:29
Cyberprog said:
philthy said:
TuxRacer said:
I don't think debt collection agencies deal with matters where there's an ongoing dispute about whether monies are owed?
The first I heard of a sorn penalty, was a letter from moorcroft recovery, demanding £80.I sold the bike in 2005 to my brother, who received his V5 as he should have. The DVLA computer must have had a brain fart, because it suddenly fined me £80 for not declaring sorn.
I explained this to moorcroft, who couldn't give a s
t. Their usual policy seems to be harass the hell out of you by phone and letter. I told them I would see them in court, as the debt was disputed. Luckily for me, I was changing my phone number, and they were writing to my 2005 address.Never heard any more about it.
If they sell the "penalty" on to a debt recovery agency, just tell them you will see them in court. You will of course be claiming all expenses incurred, plus a fee for your time.
It is a scam perpetrated by a bullying organisation.
Somebody in government needs to light a fire under the w
kers at DVLA.As the DVLA have failed to provide the service I have pre-paid for (via my cars previous road fund licence) and the DVLA refer to members of the public as "customers" I've suggested that I should be entitled to a refund.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
One letter to the Trading Standards office to find out what we already know, the DVLA is above the law including the "Trades Descriptions Act" and it will be a waste of a stamp, but if the right people get to hear about it then it could prick a few ears up.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
One letter to the Trading Standards office to find out what we already know, the DVLA is above the law including the "Trades Descriptions Act" and it will be a waste of a stamp, but if the right people get to hear about it then it could prick a few ears up.
Strangely Brown said:
Liquid Knight said:
Still waiting for a reply or summons from the last letter.
In the mean time I'm after something Tax exempt as I now refuse to pay road tax at all!
Whether you pay or not, you've still got to get the disc from them. In the mean time I'm after something Tax exempt as I now refuse to pay road tax at all!
[quote]
You pay road tax as an advance payment for the DVLA not to mess things up so when they do you've been ripped off. I can't get a refund from the DVLA the same way you could any other organisation in the country that refers to the general public as "customers" so I refuse to give them any more money.
You wouldn't pay for food at a restaurant that had poisoned you in the past so why pay for a company to sort paperwork out who then try to charge you again for them not doing it?
Dear me
I have recieved your further reply concerning the late licencing penalty imposed upon you for failing to relicence your vehicle as required. I have again noted the comments in your letter in which you challenge this penalty and the requirement to notify the DVLA of the vehicles disposal.
The Agency issues an acknowledgement letter on reciept of disposal notifications and SORN declarations. Information on disposal of a vehicle is available on the Vehicle Registration (V5C). If a keeper cannot provide a copy of a valid acknowledgement letter issued by the DVLA for a SORN or disposal notice, dated prior to 21st July 2010 he/she has no deffence against the enforcement action. An acknowledgement letter iissued after the commencement of enforcement proceedings would not be accepted as mittigation.
I acknowledge that you may no longer be the owner of this vehicle but the law regarding vehicle registration and licencing is drawn very tightly and quite deliberately so. Under Regulation 21/22 od the Road Vehicles (registration and licencing) Regulations 2002 the registered keeper of a vehicle is obligated when disposing of the vehicle to deliver a notification of the change of keeper to the Secretaryof State for Transport immediately. In order to assist the registered keeper to fulfil their obligations, when disposal notification is recieved at the Agency's offices an acknowledgement letter is included on both the V5 registration document and the leaflet INS160 that accompanies the registration document.
Clearly when sending any documents to the Agency's offices it is only the person sending them that can know they have been sent. It is for this reason it is imperative they make sure they recieve an acknowledgement letter within four weeks and, if they do not, then they must contact DVLA Swansea to find out why.
Under section 7A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) if a vehicle remains unlicenced and not declared off road for a period of one month then the registered keeper becomes liable to a supplement of £80.00. While this may be regarded as a penalty no criminal offfence has been commited and the penalty is regarded as a debt owed to the DVLA. As this is, therefore, a civil matter it does not come under the juristiction of the Magistrates court.
As previously stated, the mittigation you submitted is noted, but it does not materially alter the outcome of your case or constitute a defence. Consequently you are still liable for the £80 Failure to make this payment may resultin your case being referred to a collection agency for further action.
So just a re-cap the DVLA have just admitted I have not broken the law and it is in their opinion a civil matter.
The DVLA have also admitted that it is not a fine that has been imposed but a "penalty".
So they are quoting various Acts, "the law", "legal" and "legally" without grounds to properly do so due to this "penalty" being little more than a glorified administration fee. An administration fee for a service the DVLA have failed to provide dispite being pre-payed to provide such a service via my and everyone elses road fund licence (Tax). Interesting.
If it's agaist the law for parking enforcement companies to impose "penalty notices" that are similar to the "fixed penalty notices" issued by the Police for civil action (impersonating a Police officer) why are the DVLA allowed to do so?
I think the chap who wrote the last letter will be recieving an interesting reply.
I have recieved your further reply concerning the late licencing penalty imposed upon you for failing to relicence your vehicle as required. I have again noted the comments in your letter in which you challenge this penalty and the requirement to notify the DVLA of the vehicles disposal.
The Agency issues an acknowledgement letter on reciept of disposal notifications and SORN declarations. Information on disposal of a vehicle is available on the Vehicle Registration (V5C). If a keeper cannot provide a copy of a valid acknowledgement letter issued by the DVLA for a SORN or disposal notice, dated prior to 21st July 2010 he/she has no deffence against the enforcement action. An acknowledgement letter iissued after the commencement of enforcement proceedings would not be accepted as mittigation.
I acknowledge that you may no longer be the owner of this vehicle but the law regarding vehicle registration and licencing is drawn very tightly and quite deliberately so. Under Regulation 21/22 od the Road Vehicles (registration and licencing) Regulations 2002 the registered keeper of a vehicle is obligated when disposing of the vehicle to deliver a notification of the change of keeper to the Secretaryof State for Transport immediately. In order to assist the registered keeper to fulfil their obligations, when disposal notification is recieved at the Agency's offices an acknowledgement letter is included on both the V5 registration document and the leaflet INS160 that accompanies the registration document.
Clearly when sending any documents to the Agency's offices it is only the person sending them that can know they have been sent. It is for this reason it is imperative they make sure they recieve an acknowledgement letter within four weeks and, if they do not, then they must contact DVLA Swansea to find out why.
Under section 7A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) if a vehicle remains unlicenced and not declared off road for a period of one month then the registered keeper becomes liable to a supplement of £80.00. While this may be regarded as a penalty no criminal offfence has been commited and the penalty is regarded as a debt owed to the DVLA. As this is, therefore, a civil matter it does not come under the juristiction of the Magistrates court.
As previously stated, the mittigation you submitted is noted, but it does not materially alter the outcome of your case or constitute a defence. Consequently you are still liable for the £80 Failure to make this payment may resultin your case being referred to a collection agency for further action.
So just a re-cap the DVLA have just admitted I have not broken the law and it is in their opinion a civil matter.
The DVLA have also admitted that it is not a fine that has been imposed but a "penalty".
So they are quoting various Acts, "the law", "legal" and "legally" without grounds to properly do so due to this "penalty" being little more than a glorified administration fee. An administration fee for a service the DVLA have failed to provide dispite being pre-payed to provide such a service via my and everyone elses road fund licence (Tax). Interesting.
If it's agaist the law for parking enforcement companies to impose "penalty notices" that are similar to the "fixed penalty notices" issued by the Police for civil action (impersonating a Police officer) why are the DVLA allowed to do so?
I think the chap who wrote the last letter will be recieving an interesting reply.
B'stard Child said:
davidjpowell said:
As I said earlier and on the other thread, Interpretations Act is the way to go. I'm thinking you have either really pissed them off, or they are enjoying your letters so much they are provoking you.
^ ThisI wouldn't send another letter.
Howabout joining in and sending a greetings card.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=...
Copy and paste to other motoring forums and your own facebook profile.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=...
Copy and paste to other motoring forums and your own facebook profile.
Reply six draft 1
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN.
In my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct channels. You declined due to the fact I have committed no criminal offence. So the use of the terms “Penalty” and “Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is legally nothing more than an administration fee and in your own words “a supplement of £80.00” allegedly “owed to the DVLA”.
I and every other member of public who the DVLA refer to as “customers” have pre-paid for all the administration and services the DVLA are supposed to provide when we pay our “Road Tax” or “Road Fund Licence”. We do not however pre-pay for the DVLA to lose our documents in its shambolic internal mail system and then charge us for the privilege.
“The off-road notification system of the DVLA is in disarray due to administrative chaos and the fact that is not legally enforceable. The DVLA may be unlawfully acting against cars parked off-road, and does not really have any power over motorists, at least not in the way it thinks that it has”.
If the DVLA are willing to use terms like “Penalty Notice” and in correspondence enquiring about this use terms like “he/she has no defence”, “evidence”, “mitigation”, “enforcement action”, “in accordance to the law”, “legally”, “constitute a defence” and quote various Acts of law (VERA for one) it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate its customers into paying an unenforceable “supplement” or administration fee by making it appear to be a fine. I question the legality of this and am more than willing to discuss this in an open court.
Yours sincerely,
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN.
In my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct channels. You declined due to the fact I have committed no criminal offence. So the use of the terms “Penalty” and “Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is legally nothing more than an administration fee and in your own words “a supplement of £80.00” allegedly “owed to the DVLA”.
I and every other member of public who the DVLA refer to as “customers” have pre-paid for all the administration and services the DVLA are supposed to provide when we pay our “Road Tax” or “Road Fund Licence”. We do not however pre-pay for the DVLA to lose our documents in its shambolic internal mail system and then charge us for the privilege.
“The off-road notification system of the DVLA is in disarray due to administrative chaos and the fact that is not legally enforceable. The DVLA may be unlawfully acting against cars parked off-road, and does not really have any power over motorists, at least not in the way it thinks that it has”.
If the DVLA are willing to use terms like “Penalty Notice” and in correspondence enquiring about this use terms like “he/she has no defence”, “evidence”, “mitigation”, “enforcement action”, “in accordance to the law”, “legally”, “constitute a defence” and quote various Acts of law (VERA for one) it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate its customers into paying an unenforceable “supplement” or administration fee by making it appear to be a fine. I question the legality of this and am more than willing to discuss this in an open court.
Yours sincerely,
As writen in the last reply.
Letter six draft two (half way through a crap day at work).
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of.
In all five of my previous letters I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine”. This was compounded by the language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws. My last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence. So the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration fee. In your own words “a supplement of £80.00” allegedly “owed to the DVLA” and a not legally binding “Penalty Notice” or “fine” at all. The fact it took five letters for you to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language.
I and every other member of public who the DVLA refer to as “customers” have pre-paid for all the administration and services the DVLA are supposed to provide whenever we pay our “Road Tax” or “Road Fund Licence”. We do not however pre-pay for the DVLA to lose our documents within its shambolic internal mail system and then attempt to charge their customers for their own incompetents.
“The off-road notification system of the DVLA is in disarray due to administrative chaos and the fact that is not legally enforceable. The DVLA may be unlawfully acting against cars parked off-road, and does not really have any power over motorists”.
If the DVLA are willing to use terms like “Penalty Notice” and in correspondence enquiring about this use terms like “he/she has no defence”, “evidence”, “mitigation”, “enforcement action”, “in accordance to the law”, “legally”, “constitute a defence” and quote various Acts of law (VERA for one) it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate its customers into paying an unenforceable “supplement” or administration fee by making it appear to be a fine. This is a gross misrepresentation and I question the legality of using such methods.
Yours sincerely,
Letter six draft two (half way through a crap day at work).
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of.
In all five of my previous letters I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine”. This was compounded by the language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws. My last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence. So the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration fee. In your own words “a supplement of £80.00” allegedly “owed to the DVLA” and a not legally binding “Penalty Notice” or “fine” at all. The fact it took five letters for you to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language.
I and every other member of public who the DVLA refer to as “customers” have pre-paid for all the administration and services the DVLA are supposed to provide whenever we pay our “Road Tax” or “Road Fund Licence”. We do not however pre-pay for the DVLA to lose our documents within its shambolic internal mail system and then attempt to charge their customers for their own incompetents.
“The off-road notification system of the DVLA is in disarray due to administrative chaos and the fact that is not legally enforceable. The DVLA may be unlawfully acting against cars parked off-road, and does not really have any power over motorists”.
If the DVLA are willing to use terms like “Penalty Notice” and in correspondence enquiring about this use terms like “he/she has no defence”, “evidence”, “mitigation”, “enforcement action”, “in accordance to the law”, “legally”, “constitute a defence” and quote various Acts of law (VERA for one) it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and intimidate its customers into paying an unenforceable “supplement” or administration fee by making it appear to be a fine. This is a gross misrepresentation and I question the legality of using such methods.
Yours sincerely,
BPD said:
Magistrates court.
I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
My advice would probably be contemptable in court. Get to a solicitor and get some proper legal advice. I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
Letter six draft three....
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff