DVLA SORN flaws exposed in court.
Discussion
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/dvla_court...
I didn't feel the need to waste my time trying to telephone DVLA - it is a waste of my time, so I await the outcome with interest in the light of this information!
The Register said:
..over the matter of a lost SORN. In Horsham County Court last month, Mr Peck explained that he had sent back his notice in compliance with the law.
The DVLA first claimed that he hadn’t: then that he had done so late. Besides, even if it had lost it, he should have phoned it when they failed to send him an acknowledgement. In this, it was relying on the small print on the relevant forms (V11 and V890) which stated that if do not receive an acknowledgment letter within four weeks, you need to ring.
Once more, according to Mr Peck, a judge begged to differ. In his view, the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them – or otherwise respond - should they not receive an acknowledgment letter.
This could turn out to be a serious blow for an organisation which has the until recently covered up its own inadequacies with a mixture of bluster and bluff, claiming legal powers it does not have, and being quick to send in the bailiffs should anyone dare to cross it.
Well worth reading the article in full - I SORNd a vehicle on April 1st, and have still not received an acknowledgment in the post, but have kept the emailed confirmation.The DVLA first claimed that he hadn’t: then that he had done so late. Besides, even if it had lost it, he should have phoned it when they failed to send him an acknowledgement. In this, it was relying on the small print on the relevant forms (V11 and V890) which stated that if do not receive an acknowledgment letter within four weeks, you need to ring.
Once more, according to Mr Peck, a judge begged to differ. In his view, the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them – or otherwise respond - should they not receive an acknowledgment letter.
This could turn out to be a serious blow for an organisation which has the until recently covered up its own inadequacies with a mixture of bluster and bluff, claiming legal powers it does not have, and being quick to send in the bailiffs should anyone dare to cross it.
I didn't feel the need to waste my time trying to telephone DVLA - it is a waste of my time, so I await the outcome with interest in the light of this information!
I sold a Motor Bike to a garage as p/x way back in 06. signed all the paper work over and that was that. I never heard any more and I recieved a copy from DVLA informing me that the transfer had taken place. I was no longer the keper. end of story, think again.
In 2008 I got a nasty letter stating that I had not taxed my bike and that I was duely lible to pay an £80 fine and pay for the tax. considering I no longer owned it or had any paper work for it. (I hord stuff but 2 years later?)
Any way I called them up and got a customer service guy that bounced me from pillar to post and then back to him?? I had explained that I didn't own it that I had had paper work telling me so that the details of where it was p/x'd to the address etc, I gave them the dates of transfer and all that and he said - "well if you have the original paper work then send it in to us and we will consider your case" I informed him that I had no longer got the paper work following a house move and he said "well in which case your still the owner and you are therfore the one to pay the fine and tax" My reply was in which case can I go into the bike shop and get my key and drive my bike out of the shop and use your logic as account in a court of law? "no if you sold the bike it's not yours now!" I know replied I. So what makes me responsible for paying for the tax on a bike I do not own and have not owned for a long period of time? "your the registered keeper!" So I can take your name and go and drive it away as its mine? "No you sold it you'd need to buy it"
And so this continued the monkey wouldn't take the logic that was the garage had not sold it and it was still there in the garage he could check as gosspel. And he would not do anything at all to help other than this - "As you have contacted us soon, I have the powert to reduce the fine to £40." Oh freaking joy why can't you fine the garage they have the damn thing! "As it's your bike sir" So I can drive it away???? and so on.
So I paid the £40 told him carringly what I thought of him and asked them to take my details off record amazingly he could following the £40. It really would not have hurt him to call the garage and ask whats going on considering I had a letter from the DVLA saying it was no longer mine at sale, to then come back a few yrs later was a bit of a poor show.
Yes I know it says on the poor quality letter that you should keep this letter for your records, but 2 yrs??? I know keep them all in frames on the wall!!!!!
Rant off
In 2008 I got a nasty letter stating that I had not taxed my bike and that I was duely lible to pay an £80 fine and pay for the tax. considering I no longer owned it or had any paper work for it. (I hord stuff but 2 years later?)
Any way I called them up and got a customer service guy that bounced me from pillar to post and then back to him?? I had explained that I didn't own it that I had had paper work telling me so that the details of where it was p/x'd to the address etc, I gave them the dates of transfer and all that and he said - "well if you have the original paper work then send it in to us and we will consider your case" I informed him that I had no longer got the paper work following a house move and he said "well in which case your still the owner and you are therfore the one to pay the fine and tax" My reply was in which case can I go into the bike shop and get my key and drive my bike out of the shop and use your logic as account in a court of law? "no if you sold the bike it's not yours now!" I know replied I. So what makes me responsible for paying for the tax on a bike I do not own and have not owned for a long period of time? "your the registered keeper!" So I can take your name and go and drive it away as its mine? "No you sold it you'd need to buy it"
And so this continued the monkey wouldn't take the logic that was the garage had not sold it and it was still there in the garage he could check as gosspel. And he would not do anything at all to help other than this - "As you have contacted us soon, I have the powert to reduce the fine to £40." Oh freaking joy why can't you fine the garage they have the damn thing! "As it's your bike sir" So I can drive it away???? and so on.
So I paid the £40 told him carringly what I thought of him and asked them to take my details off record amazingly he could following the £40. It really would not have hurt him to call the garage and ask whats going on considering I had a letter from the DVLA saying it was no longer mine at sale, to then come back a few yrs later was a bit of a poor show.
Yes I know it says on the poor quality letter that you should keep this letter for your records, but 2 yrs??? I know keep them all in frames on the wall!!!!!
Rant off
Yes this 'assumed guilty' stance with the SORN letters from the dvla is a bit rubbish. I can see that they're trying to encourage people to tax their cars and deal with that problem - but most SORN cars should not need 'renewing' their SORN each 12 months. It's almost a tax on owning a car that you do nothing with and store on private property.
I sold a bike 4 years ago.
Filled out all the forms etc and sent them off
Last year I got a tax reminder.
I contacted them to tell them I was not the RK as I sold the bike years before.
Bint on the phone then threatens legal action as I did not inform them.
I corrected her as I had sent them the form and they could not prove that I hadn't.
She was having none of it until I pointed out that the bike had been sold with 3 months tax 3 years earlier and asked her to explain why I had never recieved a reminder or SORN request in that time.
The phone went very quiet and she promised to get back to me.
£ days later I get a letter thanking me for informing them that I am no longer the owner of the bike.
Filled out all the forms etc and sent them off
Last year I got a tax reminder.
I contacted them to tell them I was not the RK as I sold the bike years before.
Bint on the phone then threatens legal action as I did not inform them.
I corrected her as I had sent them the form and they could not prove that I hadn't.
She was having none of it until I pointed out that the bike had been sold with 3 months tax 3 years earlier and asked her to explain why I had never recieved a reminder or SORN request in that time.
The phone went very quiet and she promised to get back to me.
£ days later I get a letter thanking me for informing them that I am no longer the owner of the bike.
Ollyc said:
Cyberprog said:
Once it's in the post, it's legally theirs and their responsibility.
Interesting fact to shout at them if it happens again.IANAL though
dave87 said:
True, but only if it is sent by recorded post.
If it was sent in the normal post it would be dealt with as a rebuttable presumption (ie the Court would presume that the item was posted unless the DVLA were to contest otherwise.) With recorded delivery it is deemed an irrebuttable presumption and as such, the DVLA, in the courts eyes, would have received it.
Not convinced. Recorded doesnt guarantee it gets there, as it still uses the noraml post and only gets signed for if it pops out the other end at a real person. DVLA tries to automate things so the letter may not surface on its way to the shredder. You do get a receipt of posting though - which I think you can get for a normal letter anyway if you buy the postage at the counter.If it was sent in the normal post it would be dealt with as a rebuttable presumption (ie the Court would presume that the item was posted unless the DVLA were to contest otherwise.) With recorded delivery it is deemed an irrebuttable presumption and as such, the DVLA, in the courts eyes, would have received it.
Isnt all you really need to do is be able to show you're prepared to swear an affidavit to having posted on whatever date?
s7 Interpretation Act 1978:
7. 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.
So that creates a rebuttable presumption for normal postal service if I'm reading that correctly. It would be significantly more difficult to rebut the presumption that it had been received if you had say, the signed for service, and proof that it was signed for at the other end.
The bit about the irrebuttable presumption by using recorded delivery came from the case Giddon v DPP, which was one of the members on here's victory because of the late arrival of a NIP. Having just re-read it, it does seem the analysis of an irrebuttable presumption only applies to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, so I may be wrong on that point.
7. 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.
So that creates a rebuttable presumption for normal postal service if I'm reading that correctly. It would be significantly more difficult to rebut the presumption that it had been received if you had say, the signed for service, and proof that it was signed for at the other end.
The bit about the irrebuttable presumption by using recorded delivery came from the case Giddon v DPP, which was one of the members on here's victory because of the late arrival of a NIP. Having just re-read it, it does seem the analysis of an irrebuttable presumption only applies to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, so I may be wrong on that point.
Edited by dave87 on Monday 3rd May 21:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff