I got a speeding ticket for a car I sold! Help!

[Sheepshanks]

Pontoneer said:

The legally mandated process is that you have to complete the new keeper's details on the V5 and post it to DVLA - end of .

Thanks to the Interpretations Act they are then deemed to have received it in the normal course of the post - if they don't , it isn't your problem and there is no requirement in law for you to chase anything .

If DVLA want to make an issue of it , they would have to prove , on the balance of probability , that you never posted it - since that is virtually impossible there is nothing more that can do .

I know all that - but you're opening yourself up to a load of hassle by not retaining details and following up.

Say you get to court (hassle itself) and swear you popped it in the post. Judge, for whatever reason, decides he/she doesn't believe you. What do you do then?

[BertBert]

Sheepshanks said:

I know all that - but you're opening yourself up to a load of hassle by not retaining details and following up.

Say you get to court (hassle itself) and swear you popped it in the post. Judge, for whatever reason, decides he/she doesn't believe you. What do you do then?

But that is not the case being heard. The case is a speeding case against the OP which might possibly turn into failing to furnish. Following or not the process for selling a car has no relevance at all.
Bert

[AWRacing]

I had something similar in that i bought a car and the received a speeding ticket for the car from the morning of the day i bought (i bought it in the evening). I wrote back to the issuing force and explained everything (including the fact i was at work in an office 60odd miles away at the time of the offence) and gave the name of the seller, didnt hear anything after that. I realised then why the guy was so insistant i pick the car up that day

[Pontoneer]

Sheepshanks said:

I know all that - but you're opening yourself up to a load of hassle by not retaining details and following up.

Say you get to court (hassle itself) and swear you popped it in the post. Judge, for whatever reason, decides he/she doesn't believe you. What do you do then?

The point of law is that the onus isn't upon you to prove that you did post it : it is incumbent on the other side to prove that you didn't .

In the absence of proof , the judge must be guided by law and presume that you did .

If he can't , or won't , do his job then you escalate to a higher authority .

While I do retain copies of things , I don't go jumping through hoops to chase up other peoples' incompetencies .

[Variomatic]

Pontoneer said:

If DVLA want to make an issue of it , they would have to prove , on the balance of probability , that you never posted it - since that is virtually impossible there is nothing more that can do .

They don't have to prove you didn't send it, they have to prove they didn't receive it. And, since ailing to notify is a criminal matter, they have to do so beyond reasonable doubt.

Which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing.

[Jasandjules]

Did you copy the documents before you sent them to the DVLA? Did you send them proof of postage? Do you have a receipt for the sale of the vehicle?

[Sheepshanks]

BertBert said:

But that is not the case being heard. The case is a speeding case against the OP which might possibly turn into failing to furnish. Following or not the process for selling a car has no relevance at all.
Bert

It has a lot of relevance. From the OPs post, it seems he did follow the process.

He should be fine.

But...if DVLA say they never received his seller slip AND he can't ID the buyer, then he's at the very least going to put to some trouble.

[Sheepshanks]

Pontoneer said:

If he can't , or won't , do his job then you escalate to a higher authority .

And that's not hassle?

[SS2.]

BertBert said:

The case is a speeding case against the OP which might possibly turn into failing to furnish. Following or not the process for selling a car has no relevance at all.

Quite..

[Pontoneer]

Variomatic said:

They don't have to prove you didn't send it, they have to prove they didn't receive it. And, since ailing to notify is a criminal matter, they have to do so beyond reasonable doubt.

Which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing.

Yes , they would have to prove you never SENT it .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30

"References to service by post.

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."

Unlike mandatory notification of medical conditions , where DVLA paperwork expressly states that non compliance is a criminal offence , the guidance notes on the V5 re notification of transfer only states that prosecution and a fine may result : this implies a civil offence rather than a criminal one , just like most traffic offences , therefore the burden of proof would be on the balance of probability .

[Variomatic]

Pontoneer said:

Yes , they would have to prove you never SENT it .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30

"References to service by post.

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."

Unlike mandatory notification of medical conditions , where DVLA paperwork expressly states that non compliance is a criminal offence , the guidance notes on the V5 re notification of transfer only states that prosecution and a fine may result : this implies a civil offence rather than a criminal one , just like most traffic offences , therefore the burden of proof would be on the balance of probability .

No, if they can prove that it wasn't received then that's enough to show that service hasn't been affected. Which is exactly the same position as if, for instance, you don't receive an NIP or a summons that they post because the postman looses it. A simple statutory declaration is enough to require the to re-serve. In the case of DVLA they can't make a stat dec to that effect because of the volume of mail they receive and the fact that they admit some gets lost in their system.

As for the level of proof, anything that leaves you open to prosecution (including all traffic offences) are criminal matters and carry the criminal level of proof - beyond reasonable doubt. Civil matters relate to disputes between various parties and carry the lesser burden of balance of probabilities.

Simply, if there's a law somewhere that says "...commits an offence" then it's a criminal matter because there's no such thing as a "civil offence" in UK law.

[Pontoneer]

That isn't what the passage from the Act I posted above says .

Anyone could claim they never received something , but they ARE deemed to have received it if the sender claims to have posted it , or indeed has proof that they did so , 'unless the contrary is proved' . Beyond finding an unposted document still in the sender's possession , that is virtually impossible .

Most motoring offences which are dealt with by means of cofp ( conditional offer of fixed penalty ) where you can avoid prosecution by paying the fixed penalty are NOT regarded as criminal matters .

[Variomatic]

Pontoneer said:

That isn't what the passage from the Act I posted above says .

Anyone could claim they never received something , but they ARE deemed to have received it if the sender claims to have posted it , or indeed has proof that they did so , 'unless the contrary is proved' . Beyond finding an unposted document still in the sender's possession , that is virtually impossible .

Most motoring offences which are dealt with by means of cofp ( conditional offer of fixed penalty ) where you can avoid prosecution by paying the fixed penalty are NOT regarded as criminal matters .

To give the interpretation you suggest the Act would have to say something along the lines of:

Modified Act said:

Where an Act authorises [...] then, if it's claimed that the document was properly addressed, pre-paid and posted, the service is deemed to be effected 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.

But it doesn't say that. It gives the posting as a matter of fact (so nothing to the contrary could ever be proved) and allows that it can be shown that it wasn't delivered.

Under your interpretation if something was sent recorded delivery then it would still be deemed as served even if there was never any delivery signature. Which would be nonsensical.

Matters dealt with by some means as an alternative to prosecution are still criminal matters - and subject to criminal evidence standards if they do go to court - if they're in breach of a law that creates an offence (such as speeding or failing to notify a change of keeper), regardless of the disposal method.

If you "break the law" you commit a crime and (whether or not you are) you can be prosecuted for that criminal offence.

If you do another legal person an injustice you commit a civil wrong against them and they can sue, but they can't prosecute.