Dvla-say Interpretation act 1978, will not apply

[ssray]

Hello,
I sold a bike in 2008 and recently I received a nice letter that i owed £35 or £55 to the nice dvla for not sending in my v5, I wrote back quoting the said act and as I pleaded not guilty by post I have a date on the 10th of dec, I received a nice letter from Mrs J. Edwards(prosecutor) telling me that

`it is not a defence to claim that the documents were sent,The wording of the legislation which requires the disposing keeper to deliver(in darker type) their notification places a heaver emphasis on you as the disposing keeper than simply relying on posting the documents and believing that is the end to your responsibilities.

It continues- Please note the Interpretation act 1978 does not apply to this case. The interpretation act applies "where an act authorises or requires any document to be served by post."
The regulations that pertain to this particular case required delivery and do not require service by post.

It continues explaining the acknowledgement letter and that this is my proof that i advised the dvla that i had disposed of the vehicle

I have been offered a £35 get out of jail fee

I also have found the orig ad online with sold as the next post from 2008, no other posts so i cant trace the buyer

as its next week do I pay or go to court ?

Ta Ray

[Caulkhead]

Ignore them completely. When they finally ring you or knock on your door tell them you never received their letter regarding the matter and quote:

`it is not a defence to claim that the documents were sent,The wording of the legislation which requires the disposing keeper to deliver(in darker type) their notification places a heaver emphasis on you as the disposing keeper than simply relying on posting the documents and believing that is the end to your responsibilities.'

[Zeeky]

I have my doubts as to whether or not the IA 1978 applies to the DVLA legislation. The legislation certainly does not expressly require or authorise providing documents by post. It could be argued that it implies that postal service is authorised by its silence.

[bertieg]

the interpretation act didnt get me out of a fine when my case went to court. funnily enough, plenty of people who have never tried to argue it in court, will tell you otherwise......

[anonymous-user]

I have to say that I think the prosecutor has a point. The relevant regulation uses the term "shall deliver".

[LoonR1]

This is quite boring. Will the those of a legal persuasion please refrain from posting in SP&L. I much prefer the laymen comments.

[Zeeky]

Have you come across a case in which S7 IA has considered legislation which did not express post as means of service? I haven't but cannot be sure there isn't.

[anonymous-user]

I can't think of one, but I have a rubbish memory.

[rigga]

So if post is not deemed as service, have we gone back in time whereby a rider on horseback ala the olde postal service in the USA needs to deliver it in person to dvla door. ?



So they then can lose it internally.

[anonymous-user]

The Regulation requires delivery. The solution is to send the V5 using a postal service that provides proof of delivery.

[davepoth]

Breadvan72 said:

The Regulation requires delivery. The solution is to send the V5 using a postal service that provides proof of delivery.

That seems sensible. I guess it would take someone with very deep pockets to push it far enough to get something binding. How much is recorded delivery now?

[rigga]

Couple of quid, lots cheaper than the £35 get out if jail card and less hassle.

[vdp1]

I thought the interpretations act said that a letter was deemed served, ie delivered if it was posted. And it then put the onus on the recipient to prove that it wasn't.
Surely if it is served then it is delivered. If this is not true then we can ignore all the NIP's from now on.

[anonymous-user]

You are mis reading the Act and missing the point. The provision of the 1978 Act relied on only applies to legislation that requires or authorises postal service. The argument is that the relevant rule calls for actual delivery. It makes no reference to posting, sending, serving, or whatever. It calls for delivery. The point is arguable either way, but by no means a dead cert for the OP.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 3rd December 22:49

[Steffan]

vdp1 said:

I thought the interpretations act said that a letter was deemed served, ie delivered if it was posted. And it then put the onus on the recipient to prove that it wasn't.
Surely if it is served then it is delivered. If this is not true then we can ignore all the NIP's from now on.

That has always been my understanding of the effects of the Interpretation Act. I have succeeded in getting a number of such charges cancelled over the years. It would seem that the DVLA are changing their approach to a more aggressive stance.

Using recorded delivery or similar must be the safest way. I do wonder whether anyone can find a definitive case.

[Steffan]

Dont know whether anyone is aware of this PH post from some time ago:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I think may be relevant here.

[anonymous-user]

I think it's irrelevant. It tells a tale of someone arguing a somewhat different point, with no effective opposition from DVLA. If the DVLA chooses to argue the point and uses a decent lawyer, it might succeed, although it's not a clear cut point.

[randlemarcus]

Breadvan72 said:

I think it's irrelevant. It tells a tale of someone arguing a somewhat different point, with no effective opposition from DVLA. If the DVLA chooses to argue the point and uses a decent lawyer, it might succeed, although it's not a clear cut point.

The ridiculous thing is that we'd happily use an online service that provided proof of action, rather than trusting to the vagaries of both the Royal Mail, and then the Swansea post room of Doom.

[anonymous-user]

Companies House now uses online filing, with password protection. It would of course be a large scale project to implement that for DVLA, but not impossible, subject as always to funding.

[randlemarcus]

Breadvan72 said:

Companies House now uses online filing, with password protection. It would of course be a large scale project to implement that for DVLA, but not impossible, subject as always to funding.

With my solutions hat on, I'd stick a finger in the air, and guess at around a million or so. Not hugely worth it, especially with the £35 x squizillions revenue stream.