Dvla-say Interpretation act 1978, will not apply
Discussion
streaky said:
DVLA vs. Peck - Claim 9BR0829 at Horsham county court.
The Judge found in Mr Pecks's favour stating the DVLA has no statutory power requiring anyone to contact them should they not receive an acknowledgment letter.
Also, DVLA vs. Kennedy at Chelmesford Crown Court.
DVLA offered no evidence, but were roundly b0ll0cked by the Judge. Interpretation Act formed the basis of Mr Kennedy's defence.
Streaky
AlsoThe Judge found in Mr Pecks's favour stating the DVLA has no statutory power requiring anyone to contact them should they not receive an acknowledgment letter.
Also, DVLA vs. Kennedy at Chelmesford Crown Court.
DVLA offered no evidence, but were roundly b0ll0cked by the Judge. Interpretation Act formed the basis of Mr Kennedy's defence.
Streaky
DVLA v Collins, Clerkenwell Magistrates Court, October 2009
DVLA v O’Sullivan, Staines County Court October 2009
Breadvan72 said:
Neither of those decisions bind any other Court, Streaky. If the DVLA wants to push the point, it's free to do so.
Indeed, but I reckon that those previous judgements would be persuasive. Especially Peck as the 'deliver' argument being put forward in the OP's case is the very same. The judge in that case was having none of it and concluded that under the definition it would be necessary to personally deliver the SORN notification to Swansea. He decided that this was a nonsense and that to require everyone in the UK to hand deliver all SORN notifications to Swansea would be ridiculous.It would appear that DVLA have learned nothing and are using ever more desparate tactics to coerce people, who have in fact done what is required of them, into submitting to their extortion racket.
It took Duncan Peck more than two years to see off the DVLA. We should be grateful to him and his victory should be used by everyone whose pocket the DVLA is trying to pick.
ETA. When sending paper documents to any government agency I always use Special Delivery where there is a potential penalty involved for non-receipt. Yes it costs me money, but a lot less than the financial consequences if I don't. I also keep photocopies of everything I send as well. That has proved advantageous more than once.
Edited by Red Devil on Tuesday 4th December 12:53
The argument doesn't require personal delivery. Use of a postal service that provides evidence of delivery would be adequate. I tend to agree that, if the court believes that the motorist is telling the truth, it ought to find in his or her favour, but it's not a slam dunker either way.
Breadvan72 said:
The argument doesn't require personal delivery. Use of a postal service that provides evidence of delivery would be adequate. I tend to agree that, if the court believes that the motorist is telling the truth, it ought to find in his or her favour, but it's not a slam dunker either way.
Quite. What rankles with honest people is that the default DVLA position appears to be that they are infallibly correct and we are all liars. It shouldn't be necessary to have to appear before a judge on account of their losing mail within their sprawling office complex and/or making up non-existant laws to suit their own ends.Breadvan72 said:
The argument doesn't require personal delivery. Use of a postal service that provides evidence of delivery would be adequate. I tend to agree that, if the court believes that the motorist is telling the truth, it ought to find in his or her favour, but it's not a slam dunker either way.
Not disagreeing, but, what I find iniquitous is that the road traffic legislation allows the sending of NIPs and name the driver documents (by the authorities) to be by 1st class post with therefore no evidence of delivery. If they are permitted to use 1st class post so should we, the citizens.Did the OP not recieve any other letters from dvla in the last 4 years?
Tax/sorn etc?
If you had still been getting them its reasonable to assume your V5 didn't get to them.
If you haven't had any mail surely this would be proof that the letter was received?
Tax/sorn etc?
If you had still been getting them its reasonable to assume your V5 didn't get to them.
If you haven't had any mail surely this would be proof that the letter was received?
Edited by Marti99 on Tuesday 4th December 14:16
KevinOctiScout said:
Not disagreeing, but, what I find iniquitous is that the road traffic legislation allows the sending of NIPs and name the driver documents (by the authorities) to be by 1st class post with therefore no evidence of delivery. If they are permitted to use 1st class post so should we, the citizens.
i made that exact point in court. if i knew then what i know now, i would keep hold of, but ignored every piece of correspondence from the DVLA, and claim i hadn't received them so they must not have been sentBreadvan72 said:
Hardly a big deal, and keeping important papers for at lest six years is not a bad idea in general, but if you no longer have the chit, just give truthful evidence that you used to have it.
On business, without question, this must be right. I believe that this is also best practice in personal matters. Comes of many many years as an accountant spent sorting out difficulties for clients who do not do this. Good advice.WRT sending items signed for/special delivery/tracked etc. What is to stop someone sending a blank piece of paper signed for. On the few occasions I have sent anything tracked I have never been asked for a return address.
Would the receiving party likely keep hold of it or throw it away?
Would the receiving party likely keep hold of it or throw it away?
Breadvan72 said:
Hardly a big deal, and keeping important papers for at lest six years is not a bad idea in general, but if you no longer have the chit, just give truthful evidence that you used to have it.
Surely though DVLA asking for proof of sending after 4/5 years is taking the piss. Assuming the OP had no other contact from them.
Why do people assume that if they send something in the post and the intended recipient claims they did not receive it then it follows that the recipient has received it but mislaid it somehow? Surely some post does not arrive or arrives late due to mistakes in the postal service.
Interestingly the need for an express reference to postal service for the same to be 'authorised' as per Section 7 IA was considered in a Trade Marks case.
[2005] R.P.C. 26
633-634
"As for s.7, I am not sure that this applies at all. The 1994 Act does not expressly authorise the service of documents by post, it merely confers a general rule-making power with respect to inter alia “the service of documents” ( s.78(2)(c)). As I have discussed, even the 2000 Rules do not expressly authorise the Registrar to send documents by post. I have concluded that it is within his powers under the Rules to do so, but I doubt that the mere fact that the Registrar is not acting ultra vires the Rules amounts to authorisation by the 1994 Act within the meaning of s.7 of the 1978 Act."
Interestingly the need for an express reference to postal service for the same to be 'authorised' as per Section 7 IA was considered in a Trade Marks case.
[2005] R.P.C. 26
633-634
"As for s.7, I am not sure that this applies at all. The 1994 Act does not expressly authorise the service of documents by post, it merely confers a general rule-making power with respect to inter alia “the service of documents” ( s.78(2)(c)). As I have discussed, even the 2000 Rules do not expressly authorise the Registrar to send documents by post. I have concluded that it is within his powers under the Rules to do so, but I doubt that the mere fact that the Registrar is not acting ultra vires the Rules amounts to authorisation by the 1994 Act within the meaning of s.7 of the 1978 Act."
Zeeky said:
Why do people assume that if they send something in the post and the intended recipient claims they did not receive it then it follows that the recipient has received it but mislaid it somehow? Surely some post does not arrive or arrives late due to mistakes in the postal service.
Interestingly the need for an express reference to postal service for the same to be 'authorised' as per Section 7 IA was considered in a Trade Marks case.
[2005] R.P.C. 26
633-634
"As for s.7, I am not sure that this applies at all. The 1994 Act does not expressly authorise the service of documents by post, it merely confers a general rule-making power with respect to inter alia “the service of documents” ( s.78(2)(c)). As I have discussed, even the 2000 Rules do not expressly authorise the Registrar to send documents by post. I have concluded that it is within his powers under the Rules to do so, but I doubt that the mere fact that the Registrar is not acting ultra vires the Rules amounts to authorisation by the 1994 Act within the meaning of s.7 of the 1978 Act."
It this not referring to the conveying of a 'power' to send the documents by post, rather than dealing with the question of whether there is a requirement to send them by such means so as to obtain the 'protection' of the Interpretation Act?Interestingly the need for an express reference to postal service for the same to be 'authorised' as per Section 7 IA was considered in a Trade Marks case.
[2005] R.P.C. 26
633-634
"As for s.7, I am not sure that this applies at all. The 1994 Act does not expressly authorise the service of documents by post, it merely confers a general rule-making power with respect to inter alia “the service of documents” ( s.78(2)(c)). As I have discussed, even the 2000 Rules do not expressly authorise the Registrar to send documents by post. I have concluded that it is within his powers under the Rules to do so, but I doubt that the mere fact that the Registrar is not acting ultra vires the Rules amounts to authorisation by the 1994 Act within the meaning of s.7 of the 1978 Act."
Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff