DVLA lose V5, charge me for failing to insure sold vehicle
Discussion
It doesn't alter the fact that if the OP sold the vehicle and it was his understanding that the buyer was going to insure it then as long as he sent off the paperwork to DVLA then they don't have a case against the OP.
The b
ks that DVLA will come up with that he should have contacted them if no confirmation received has no - zero - nada foundation in law which they have publicly admitted previously.
However the fools continue to waste ourmoney by proceeding with a prosecution where one would expect their argument to be that at the time of issuing the fine their records incorrectly showed that the OP was registered keeper. Therefore the fine is valid they will argue.
What's to say they don't start until a prosecution against the buyer. Two bites at the same cherry.
Anyone who supports this carry on is not sane imo.
The b
ks that DVLA will come up with that he should have contacted them if no confirmation received has no - zero - nada foundation in law which they have publicly admitted previously. However the fools continue to waste ourmoney by proceeding with a prosecution where one would expect their argument to be that at the time of issuing the fine their records incorrectly showed that the OP was registered keeper. Therefore the fine is valid they will argue.
What's to say they don't start until a prosecution against the buyer. Two bites at the same cherry.
Anyone who supports this carry on is not sane imo.
LoonR1 said:
I've been saying this all along, but we keep being steered back to RK / owner by the OP. This is despite him being certain that his friend can prove the car was insured.
I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
There are too many people to quote on this, but you are making some assumptions about the various policies.I remain less than convinced that his friend insured the car correctly. "Any vehicle" is not a modern motor trade policy. They need to list each and every vehicle and often exclude SD&P for personal vehicles. As the OP clearly states that his friends wife will be driving the car as her own personal transport and therefore not connected to the business then this is where his problem is.
I know of many trade policies that cover the policy holder, spouse/partner and anyone else nominated for business use and SD&P.
The policies also don't need every vehicle to be added to the MID, although it is good practice to have them logged on.
For example, if the car is in for repair, it doesn't need to be added, but the policy holder is insured for it.
Another example, they have bought a car late at night, no computer access to log it on, get it back to the premises and it is parked up.
As for the sending of the V5C and then chasing it up after 4 weeks.
It says this on the V5C, the one that you have sent off to the DVLA.
If you aren't a "car person", how are you supposed to know about chasing something up if you have sent the form with those details away to the DVLA!
I'm expecting to go through a similar saga on one of my cars, as i've received nothing back from the DVLA, despite numerous reminders!
FiF said:
The bks that DVLA will come up with that he should have contacted them if no confirmation received has no - zero - nada foundation in law which they have publicly admitted previously.
They tried that on with me in a case involving a tax disc refund that was only slightly more complicated than standard. In essence their inability to cope with postal deliveries led to the clock ticking away any refund due. After a polite phone call the full refund due arrived within a week.ks that DVLA will come up with that he should have contacted them if no confirmation received has no - zero - nada foundation in law which they have publicly admitted previously.So, OP, you have seen the insurance docs showing this reg was insured at relevant time, are satisfied those were genuine documents and there was no subsequent problem with them, the guy is definitely going to help in every way and has told you everything that could possibly be relevant?
I can't see why this is causing so much comment.
A quick read seems to show that (in chronological order)
1) the car was sold on 28 February
2) the change of ownership form was sent off within a few days
3) a check showed that the car was not insured and the registered keeper was sent a letter demanding money for an alleged insurance offence that took place after 28 February
4) the DVLA processed the change of keeper and sent a notification to the previous keeper and the V5C to the current keeper, both showing that ownership/keepership changed on 28 February
5) the DVLA, being both omnipotent and infallible, refuses to accept the (belated) evidence of its own records that the previous keeper no longer owned the car at the date of the alleged insurance offence.
in short, they are chasing the wrong keeper.
(Or have I missed something?)
A quick read seems to show that (in chronological order)
1) the car was sold on 28 February
2) the change of ownership form was sent off within a few days
3) a check showed that the car was not insured and the registered keeper was sent a letter demanding money for an alleged insurance offence that took place after 28 February
4) the DVLA processed the change of keeper and sent a notification to the previous keeper and the V5C to the current keeper, both showing that ownership/keepership changed on 28 February
5) the DVLA, being both omnipotent and infallible, refuses to accept the (belated) evidence of its own records that the previous keeper no longer owned the car at the date of the alleged insurance offence.
in short, they are chasing the wrong keeper.
(Or have I missed something?)
Nope that more or less sums it up. Though they have previous for chasing prosecutions based on incorrect data and continuing to chase even when said data has been corrected or at best coming out with the mealy mouthed "on this occasion we will waive the penalty" as if they are doing you a huge favour.
Plus it's gone on so long to provide maximum opportunity to call DVLA a cunch of bunts.
Hth.
Plus it's gone on so long to provide maximum opportunity to call DVLA a cunch of bunts.
Hth.
Gareth R - that is a very accurate and concise chain of events.
Even the new owner's broker says it should be his problem, not mine.
Anyway, copies of all documentation are now here and the new owner IS and HAS BEEN covered for the vehicle in question since the date of the sale in February.
I'll be writing back to the DVLA quoting policy numbers and dates left right and centre.
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
Thanks people.
Even the new owner's broker says it should be his problem, not mine.
Anyway, copies of all documentation are now here and the new owner IS and HAS BEEN covered for the vehicle in question since the date of the sale in February.
I'll be writing back to the DVLA quoting policy numbers and dates left right and centre.
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
Thanks people.
Phil303 said:
I'll be writing back to the DVLA quoting policy numbers and dates left right and centre.
Mistake - they can't see the wood from the treesReally Simple
Two lines - nothing else
Not owner keeper at time of offence - confirmed by DVLA records - so not liable for any penalty
Foxtrot Oscar
Phil303 said:
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
See previous replysim16v said:
There are too many people to quote on this, but you are making some assumptions about the various policies.
I know of many trade policies that cover the policy holder, spouse/partner and anyone else nominated for business use and SD&P.
The policies also don't need every vehicle to be added to the MID, although it is good practice to have them logged on.
For example, if the car is in for repair, it doesn't need to be added, but the policy holder is insured for it.
Another example, they have bought a car late at night, no computer access to log it on, get it back to the premises and it is parked up.
As for the sending of the V5C and then chasing it up after 4 weeks.
It says this on the V5C, the one that you have sent off to the DVLA.
If you aren't a "car person", how are you supposed to know about chasing something up if you have sent the form with those details away to the DVLA!
I'm expecting to go through a similar saga on one of my cars, as i've received nothing back from the DVLA, despite numerous reminders!
I said a modern policy still needs cars listing as a free for all any vehicle policy doesn't exist. I know of many trade policies that cover the policy holder, spouse/partner and anyone else nominated for business use and SD&P.
The policies also don't need every vehicle to be added to the MID, although it is good practice to have them logged on.
For example, if the car is in for repair, it doesn't need to be added, but the policy holder is insured for it.
Another example, they have bought a car late at night, no computer access to log it on, get it back to the premises and it is parked up.
As for the sending of the V5C and then chasing it up after 4 weeks.
It says this on the V5C, the one that you have sent off to the DVLA.
If you aren't a "car person", how are you supposed to know about chasing something up if you have sent the form with those details away to the DVLA!
I'm expecting to go through a similar saga on one of my cars, as i've received nothing back from the DVLA, despite numerous reminders!
I also said it OFTEN excludes SD&P. I didn't say always.
Phil303 said:
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
This may not be the type of case she normally deals with, but try - http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/Bear in mind that the DVLA are banking on the fact that you won't be willing to spend on this more than the amount of the penalty they are trying to stiff you for. One well known tactic of theirs is to fold at the door of the court which means you have to swallow your legal costs to that point.
You may find this of interest - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Note that another judge has found that the Interpretation Act does not apply. The DVLA are relying heavily on this (imo flawed) judgement. It has been much discussed on various motoring forums.
If DVLA do take it all the way it may be worth trying to get the press interested in reporting their relentless zeal in trying to extract money from people who have committed no offence.
Phil303 said:
Update:
DVLA have sent new V5 to current owner and last week I received an acknowledgement I no longer own the car.
However I've just received a letter saying their records still show I owned the car at the time in July they claim it wasn't insured. The fact is I didn't own the car and it was insured.
In my last correspondence I gave the details of the new owner and told them that if they checked on the MID they would see it was insured. I can't think how else to spell it out clearly to them. Any advice?
Is DVLA under the umbrella of complaints to the LGO, for Maladministration issues?DVLA have sent new V5 to current owner and last week I received an acknowledgement I no longer own the car.
However I've just received a letter saying their records still show I owned the car at the time in July they claim it wasn't insured. The fact is I didn't own the car and it was insured.
In my last correspondence I gave the details of the new owner and told them that if they checked on the MID they would see it was insured. I can't think how else to spell it out clearly to them. Any advice?
I have a motor trade policy and it covers me to drive any vehicle for which I hold a valid licence and also covers my wife. I am meant to notify any vehicle which I intend to keep for more than 14 days, for this purpose I have a user name and password to MID to self change vehicles. At one point while registering one vehicle I managed to remove 2 others and a few months later got pulled by Police claiming no insurance, gave them the reg of one of my other vehicles, PNC came back covered for any vehicle whether owned by me or not.
Good news: 2 weeks after sending the DVLA a letter saying I'm looking forward to my day in court in light of the hard facts that support my defense, I received a letter today. After reviewing the case they are not proceeding with any further action, although they couldn't resist claiming the V5 hadn't been returned at the correct time. It had but whatever.
Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
FiF said:
Bet the letter included the mealy mouthed "on this occasion we will waive..."
Yup. Apparently the decision came about from the email I sent their chief exec, Oliver Morley, not from the written correspondence. I'll be writing back to say that the V5 was returned in time, drop a reference to the Interpretation Act and leave it at that.
Phil303 said:
FiF said:
Bet the letter included the mealy mouthed "on this occasion we will waive..."
Yup. Apparently the decision came about from the email I sent their chief exec, Oliver Morley, not from the written correspondence. I'll be writing back to say that the V5 was returned in time, drop a reference to the Interpretation Act and leave it at that.
Consider it a victory with minimal costs and move on
Phil303 said:
Good news: 2 weeks after sending the DVLA a letter saying I'm looking forward to my day in court in light of the hard facts that support my defense, I received a letter today. After reviewing the case they are not proceeding with any further action, although they couldn't resist claiming the V5 hadn't been returned at the correct time. It had but whatever.
Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
Result! Well done for standing firm.Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
They always come out with this sort of ridiculous response.
Like a spoiled brat caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar.
Puerile and pathetic self-justification for their incompetence.
I don't know whether or not the LGO has any remit.
If not, it's high time somebody was given powers to impose effective sanctions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff