Nice letter to the DVLA?
Discussion
Liquid Knight said:
Five letters all mentioning the interpetitions act and inviting the DVLA to court have done apsolutely nothing, why would another? 
So what makes you think that your more loquacious approach is going to work any better? Just send a short, to the point, letter (like Streaky suggests) and then cease correspondence. If they want to pursue it, they will take you to court.Liquid Knight said:
Five letters all mentioning the interpetitions act and inviting the DVLA to court have done apsolutely nothing, why would another?
Stop feeding them, you'll get nowhere; especially the fare you're giving them. You appear (to me, and I'm sure your correspondents at DVLA too) to be simply venting your ire. Best to leave it. They'll either 'put up' or shut up. If they 'put up', the indications are that they'll back down at the eleventh hour. Still, you pays your money ...Streaky
Liquid Knight said:
Five letters all mentioning the interpetitions act and inviting the DVLA to court have done apsolutely nothing, why would another?
You say "mentioning the interpetitions (sic) act" - yes but that's among a whole load of other stuff, and the message is lost. Streaky's advice is to write to them and say that AND ONLY THAT. Spelling it correctly would help too.On the other hand, fire ahead and do what you like. Why are you bothering to ask for opinions if you know what to do?
Liquid Knight said:
Sorry to hijack the thread. I have been reading through the thread with interest as I informed the DVLA of a sale of a car and now they are saying that I didn't. I sent them one letter saying that it was sent etc and I have today just had a lovely requisition to head to court on the 25th. So when I am at court and I use the Interpretations Act as my defence, what are the chances of it going my way? Not sure if it makes any difference but the car was registered to a ltd company, not owned by the company though.
Magistrates court.
I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
BPD said:
Magistrates court.
I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
My advice would probably be contemptable in court. Get to a solicitor and get some proper legal advice. I haven't sent the form back yet to enter the not guilty plea, will do that tomorrow. As all you can do on the form is plea not guilty, should I attach another letter explaining the basis of the defense or just enter the not guilty plea? Out of interest, has anyone ticked the box to say that you wish the witness to attend court? I'm not planning on doing that but was just interested to see as I can't see them wanting to send the person to court for the day.
Letter six draft three....
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
If you must get into a debate with them and quote legislation - it might help if you get the correct Acts.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegTy...
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegTy...
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegTy...
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegTy...
Liquid Knight said:
Letter six draft three....
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
I just wonder if they are watching this thread and waiting for your letter with baited breath?Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
Liquid Knight said:
Letter six draft three....
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,Dear Mr Whoop-whoop
I write with reference to the continuing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me and my refusal to pay a “fine” for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN over a year after the vehicle was disposed of and the documents sent to the DVLA.
In all five of my previous letters to your department I have consistently referred to the “SORN Penalty Notice” as a “fine” and questioned why I was issued a “fine” when I had committed no criminal offence. The language used in replies sent to me and references to various laws compounded the impression that the “SORN Penalty Notice” was a “fine” and carried legal ramifications should I decide not to pay. So; in my last letter I invited the DVLA to take me to my local Magistrates court to deal with this situation through the correct and proper channels. You declined due to the fact; and freely admitted I have committed no criminal offence.
Therefore the use of the term “Penalty Notice” in relation to the non-declaration of a SORN is completely inappropriate considering the DVLA “SORN Penalty Notice” is in actual fact; nothing more than an administration charge or in your own words “a supplement of £80.00 owed to the DVLA”. The fact it took five letters to reveal this demonstrates a deliberate act on the part of the DVLA and your department to withhold this information and not an accidental misuse of language or oversight.
The use of such language is designed to deceive members of the public by making it appear to be a fine. This is a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to intimidate people into handing over money they do not legally have any obligation to. This has been proven by the DVLAs failure to recognise the “Interpretations Act” in my previous letters.
I hope this will finally be the end of the matter and I do not have to report the members of your department who have been involved to the Police for attempted fraud (under the “Theft Act 1968”).
Yours sincerely,
Me
The whole protesting my innocence has failed so looking at a different angle. Nothing's likely to happen over £80 but the £10,000,000 they made last year could end up in some prison time for the Minister of Transport.
I refer you to the interpretations 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."
As per the above act my notification was correctly and lawfully served.
Luv ya.
xxx
Liquid Knight said:
Letter six draft three....
You're still diluting the message.BliarOut said:
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I refer you to the interpretations 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."
As per the above act my notification was correctly and lawfully served.
Luv ya.
xxx
That's the message! That's all you need to say, seriously. I refer you to the interpretations 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."
As per the above act my notification was correctly and lawfully served.
Luv ya.
xxx
This one...
Either say "take me to court", or "i've served it according to this legislation". You need say nothing else. Anything else is padding.
streaky said:
Dear DVLA
I note your comments. I rest my case on the fact that I served the documents upon yourselves as set out in the Interpretation Act 1978.
I shall not enter into any further correspondence in this matter. Should you wish to continue your attempt to unlawfully obtain monies, you must to bring charges in court.
Yours in exhausted faith,
Liquid Knight
or this one...I note your comments. I rest my case on the fact that I served the documents upon yourselves as set out in the Interpretation Act 1978.
I shall not enter into any further correspondence in this matter. Should you wish to continue your attempt to unlawfully obtain monies, you must to bring charges in court.
Yours in exhausted faith,
Liquid Knight
BliarOut said:
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I refer you to the interpretations 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."
As per the above act my notification was correctly and lawfully served.
Luv ya.
xxx
Stop trying to engage them in conversation, give them points that they can reply to or discuss and continue to question your letters.I refer you to the interpretations 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."
As per the above act my notification was correctly and lawfully served.
Luv ya.
xxx
Either say "take me to court", or "i've served it according to this legislation". You need say nothing else. Anything else is padding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff