DVLA vs Liquid Knight
Discussion
Variomatic said:
V8s ONLY said:
I'd be very careful about calling the Police,they are more than likely to side with the debt collectors and the DVLA.Do not expect help from the Police you will not get it.
Depends how confident you are in standing your ground.1. A debt collection agency who continues to chase a disputed debt is guilty of harassment, which is a criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment (potentially 5 years if there's fear of violence involved - big f-off debt collectors turning up on your doorstep and trying to gain entry might qualify for this but not if you invite them in for tea!)
2. It doesn't matter in the slightest what DVLA say, as long as you continue to deny that you owe this "penalty" it is still a disputed debt until they take you to court and a judge says you owe it.
3. The police should respond to harassment complaints but they quite often won't. That said, by reporting it you at least have it on record that you're being harassed if it needs to be taken further.
The bottom line is, if you did everyting you should have (ie: sent the forms off) then trying to frighten / coerce / force you into paying without a court order is against the law. Note that "everything you should have done" does NOT include contacting DVLA because they didn't send an acknowledgement because DVLA have no power whatsoever to make the law up as they go along, and the law does NOT require you to do so!
ncow82 said:
I have on several occasions from different sources heard that the DVLA cannot afford to attend court cases unless the values are above £1000. Both cases in this example were when the DVLA was at fault. I'd take them to court, they are well known for this behaviour by most judges in small claims court and as such are often thrown out.
I've gone one better than that. 
Will let you guys know when the results are in.
Variomatic said:
Liquid Knight said:
I've gone one better than that.
Will let you guys know when the results are in.
Looking forward to the final score - the more cases that go against them the more people will learn not to put up with incompetent beaurocrats bullying them outside what the law actually allows Will let you guys know when the results are in.
Edited by Liquid Knight on Tuesday 30th November 18:02
I wrote to the Minister of transport and it was redirected to the DVLA head office. They wrote to me basically saying they have the right to charge what they like and will be happy to pursue me through the courts. I wrote back forally requesting a date to appear before a Crown court (two months ago) and I'm now waiting to hear from them.
Since then I have recieved a SORN reminder for a bike I sold ten years ago! FFS!
Since then I have recieved a SORN reminder for a bike I sold ten years ago! FFS!
Making demands without court instruction to do so is not an offence by itself but once you have notified them they are acting unlawfully they have to stop or risk criminal harasment. That's how I got rid of "Philips Bailiffs and Collection Services".
I also may well have accidently given their website details to a "friend" who write and developes computer viruses.
The part about the DVLA no longer being a public service but a profiting organisation is also very usefull because DVLA inc' does not have the authority to make demands DVLA public service once had. Thanks to a "Freedom of Information" request made by someone else is a similar situation the DVLA admitted to making £22,000,000 Tax free profit in 2007-2008 and held that profit in an account instead of handing it to the treasury.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dvla_profits
As the DVLA can be lagally described as a profit lead organisation or business then the fact you have pre-paid for their services when you pay your road fund licence they can not demand further payments for the same service. So we don't have to pay them for their mistakes.
That is my last resort if I'm ever invited to court. I'll have a few other "friends" who work for channel four in the press pit as well.
I also may well have accidently given their website details to a "friend" who write and developes computer viruses.
The part about the DVLA no longer being a public service but a profiting organisation is also very usefull because DVLA inc' does not have the authority to make demands DVLA public service once had. Thanks to a "Freedom of Information" request made by someone else is a similar situation the DVLA admitted to making £22,000,000 Tax free profit in 2007-2008 and held that profit in an account instead of handing it to the treasury.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dvla_profits
As the DVLA can be lagally described as a profit lead organisation or business then the fact you have pre-paid for their services when you pay your road fund licence they can not demand further payments for the same service. So we don't have to pay them for their mistakes.
That is my last resort if I'm ever invited to court. I'll have a few other "friends" who work for channel four in the press pit as well.
Morningside said:
Well good luck as I think they way that they have treated you and myself for that matter is utterly wrong.
I am still getting grief from the DVLA about £80 (as it is now) for a car I sold over a year back as they did not have proof I had sold it.
Even though I got the chap to sign it, I and he signed the forms (photocopied), we both signed a sheet as proof of purchase including the date and also the eBay auction listing as well was given to then to show that I had complete the forms but because THEY had not received or lost the form it is somehow all MY fault.
bds, the lot of them.
And now we get this form with the DVLA saying that it now must be SORN or insured or else.
I wonder how many people are going to get caught in this trap?
£12,000,000 worth last year.I am still getting grief from the DVLA about £80 (as it is now) for a car I sold over a year back as they did not have proof I had sold it.
Even though I got the chap to sign it, I and he signed the forms (photocopied), we both signed a sheet as proof of purchase including the date and also the eBay auction listing as well was given to then to show that I had complete the forms but because THEY had not received or lost the form it is somehow all MY fault.
b
ds, the lot of them.And now we get this form with the DVLA saying that it now must be SORN or insured or else.
I wonder how many people are going to get caught in this trap?
The DVLA only keep postal records for six months so if it is and most likely is due to data entry error on the DVLA computer system they will have no record of reciept because of the alotted time period. They can not prove you didn't send it to them as much as you can not prove that you did. Neither is enough evidence for a judge to sway in favour to either party so it would ultimately be a waste of the courts time. As the DVLA have instigated the wasting of the Crowns time it is them who will have to pay the costs for doing so at £375 per session. For the sake of £80 I can't imagine I'll be hearing from the DVLA about my MGB again.
Morningside said:
Liquid Knight said:
...at £375 per session. For the sake of £80 I can't imagine I'll be hearing from the DVLA about my MGB again.
Not from the DVLA but mine has now been passed to a debt collection agency.Negative Creep said:
I now have a letter demanding payment within 72 hours. Does this mean the DVLA, who I still haven't heard from, are now taking control of it again?
"I formally demand you immediately refer this alleged debt back to the DVLA. By law you have no legal powers to demand a debt without an accompanying court order. Any further correspondence will be treated as harassment and presented as such in any resulting civil action"That sounds good, send it by recorded delivery first thing Monday. A seventy two hour deadling for an alleged debt is extremely unreasonable. Also consult the Citizens Advice or a half hour session with a solicitor. If you send a reply care of "So & So Solicitors" it will carry a lot more weight.
Arrived in the post today......
"Vehicle - RWU 975R
I am writing to you in reference to enforcement action taken against the above vehicle, for which further legal action has been requested. Your previous letters and associated paperwork have been forwarded to me for consideration as Manager of the Chelmsford Enforcement Centre.
Having studied your case in detail, I am satisfied that you did pursue your legal obligations in relation to notifying DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle. As such, whilst it remains evident that your notification was not recieved as required, I have decided to take no further action in relation to this matter. The Agency will not be pursuing this matter through the County Court and I can confirm that the vehicle record has been ammended to show that you are no longer the registered keeper.
I am sorry this decision was not arrived at sooner, and apologise for the protracted nature of correspondence that this has necessitated.
Yours sincerely
A nice chap from the DVLA.
"Vehicle - RWU 975R
I am writing to you in reference to enforcement action taken against the above vehicle, for which further legal action has been requested. Your previous letters and associated paperwork have been forwarded to me for consideration as Manager of the Chelmsford Enforcement Centre.
Having studied your case in detail, I am satisfied that you did pursue your legal obligations in relation to notifying DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle. As such, whilst it remains evident that your notification was not recieved as required, I have decided to take no further action in relation to this matter. The Agency will not be pursuing this matter through the County Court and I can confirm that the vehicle record has been ammended to show that you are no longer the registered keeper.
I am sorry this decision was not arrived at sooner, and apologise for the protracted nature of correspondence that this has necessitated.
Yours sincerely
A nice chap from the DVLA.
Negative Creep said:
Congratulations! Is that the first time they've contacted you since the whole sage started?
So you don't go back to the start of the thread. Seven letters to the DVLA(including one to the Minister of Transport), eight replies, two letters to Philips Bailiffs and Collections (one polite and the other go away or I'll report you for criminal harrasment) and about a thousand Christmas cards from various people from different forums across the country. Each reply from the DVLA costs aproximately £12 so even if I did pay the £80 it would have cost the DVLA more than that in administration.
If I can afford to pay or not I refused to do so because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The DVLA issue fines sorry "penalty notices" (designed to look like fines) and offer legal ramifications for not paying for a crime that can not be proven or disproven. This "crime" is not legally enforcable and is nothing more than a civil dispute. There is no legal recourse for a civil dispute and the DVLA have no powers to suggest there are; are well aware of this and are acting unlawfully by attempting to intimidate people into paying "or else".
We need to stand up for ourselves and hopefully if enough of us do the DVLA will stop doing it.
When we pay our "road fund licence" we are in actual fact paying in advance for all the services the DVLA all supposed to provide and nothing more. The DVLA failing for one reason or another to provide those services is their problem and we should not have to pay for someone elses mistakes.
I'm sorry that the DVLA are having to lay of 3,000 members of staff maybe they could use some of the £13,000,000 profit they made last year from SORN penaltys to keep people in work instead of spending £18 per letter getting legal bod's to talk rubbish (edited for Mary Whitehouse forum readers) for nine months.
Sorry rant over.
We need to stand up for ourselves and hopefully if enough of us do the DVLA will stop doing it.
When we pay our "road fund licence" we are in actual fact paying in advance for all the services the DVLA all supposed to provide and nothing more. The DVLA failing for one reason or another to provide those services is their problem and we should not have to pay for someone elses mistakes.
I'm sorry that the DVLA are having to lay of 3,000 members of staff maybe they could use some of the £13,000,000 profit they made last year from SORN penaltys to keep people in work instead of spending £18 per letter getting legal bod's to talk rubbish (edited for Mary Whitehouse forum readers) for nine months.
Sorry rant over.
Look what dropped on my friends welcome mat the other day...
...some people will never learn...
...by referring to the failure to declare SORN administrating charge, penalty notice or fee as a "fine" the DVLA is acting unlawfully. The DVLA are not court appointed judges, magistrates or officers/marshals of the law and therefore do no possess the legal powers to issue anything described as a "fine". The non-payment of a fine can result in criminal action brought against the individual, in extreme cases a custodial sentence. The non-payment of an administration fee is a civil matter at best. By describing their administration fee as a fine the DVLA are suggesting there are legal ramifications and consequences for non-payment. This is by definition completely untrue and if anyone has paid a "fine" as a result of this deliberate misuse of the term it is an act of fraud on the part of the DVLA.
Should I get back on this or leave it?
...some people will never learn...
...by referring to the failure to declare SORN administrating charge, penalty notice or fee as a "fine" the DVLA is acting unlawfully. The DVLA are not court appointed judges, magistrates or officers/marshals of the law and therefore do no possess the legal powers to issue anything described as a "fine". The non-payment of a fine can result in criminal action brought against the individual, in extreme cases a custodial sentence. The non-payment of an administration fee is a civil matter at best. By describing their administration fee as a fine the DVLA are suggesting there are legal ramifications and consequences for non-payment. This is by definition completely untrue and if anyone has paid a "fine" as a result of this deliberate misuse of the term it is an act of fraud on the part of the DVLA.
Should I get back on this or leave it?
It's not my car or threatening letter (reminder); it's the use of the word "fined" to describe their administration fee/charge.
It bloody annoys me to think people have been paying what they have been lead to believe is a fine while the DVLA do not have the legal authority to issue fine at all.
I'll have to be a bit sneaky this time and issue a "Freedom of Information Act" request for the number of people who have paid these alleged fines and how much revenue it has generated before I suggest it's misrepresentation to the point of being fraudulent.
It bloody annoys me to think people have been paying what they have been lead to believe is a fine while the DVLA do not have the legal authority to issue fine at all.
I'll have to be a bit sneaky this time and issue a "Freedom of Information Act" request for the number of people who have paid these alleged fines and how much revenue it has generated before I suggest it's misrepresentation to the point of being fraudulent.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff