Nice letter to the DVLA?
Discussion
Liquid Knight said:
J5 said:
Liquid Knight said:
chriscpritchard said:
Liquid Knight said:
I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I write my reply.
start adding an admin fee onto each further letter you send :P
If you pay them the money, it'll be a ball ache to get it back!
J5 said:
Liquid Knight said:
J5 said:
Liquid Knight said:
chriscpritchard said:
Liquid Knight said:
I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I write my reply.
start adding an admin fee onto each further letter you send :PIf you pay them the money, it'll be a ball ache to get it back!
Liquid Knight said:
Recieved a reply today....
"Although you have again indicated that you are no longer the keeper of the vehicle, the Department has not recieved notification of this (2). Although you have further stated that you personally notified DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle and therefore feel that you have fully complied with the law, as you are unable to provide an acknowledgement letter from DVLA Swansea that this was recieved you would still remain liable".
"Whilst the Acknowledgement Letter issued to conform Statutory Off Road Notification SORN) and disposal notifications is not in legislation, it has been designed to remove any uncertainty that may be expected by either the sender or the intended recipient as to whether a notification of SORN or disposal has actually been sent or recieved. The DVLA would be failing to correctly discharge its responsibilities if it disregarded the role this letter plays in Continuous Registration (CR) and the obligation placed on the individual to act in the case of non-receipt".
"However on the information before us you are still liable for the £80 penalty. Only payments recieved by 19 September 2010 are at the reduced rate of £40.00."
(highlighted in Bold in the letter)
This means war!
Read my post on Page 1. Quote that act. You did properly serve notice. the end."Although you have again indicated that you are no longer the keeper of the vehicle, the Department has not recieved notification of this (2). Although you have further stated that you personally notified DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle and therefore feel that you have fully complied with the law, as you are unable to provide an acknowledgement letter from DVLA Swansea that this was recieved you would still remain liable".
"Whilst the Acknowledgement Letter issued to conform Statutory Off Road Notification SORN) and disposal notifications is not in legislation, it has been designed to remove any uncertainty that may be expected by either the sender or the intended recipient as to whether a notification of SORN or disposal has actually been sent or recieved. The DVLA would be failing to correctly discharge its responsibilities if it disregarded the role this letter plays in Continuous Registration (CR) and the obligation placed on the individual to act in the case of non-receipt".
"However on the information before us you are still liable for the £80 penalty. Only payments recieved by 19 September 2010 are at the reduced rate of £40.00."
(highlighted in Bold in the letter)
This means war!
Unfortunately its exactly the same reply that I received, I then went on to write 2 more letters that each then got personal replies. The £40 fine is probably as good as it will get. The DVLA is basically a computer that says NO and they will use all their might to extract more money from drivers that, like me, fail to read the small print and get hit in the wallet (only once mind)
oldsoak said:
Dear DVLA,
Vehicle reg xxx123xxx scrapped on (date) V5 sent to DVLA via Royal Mail as I was required to do advising of this.
That is the end of my liability for that vehicle.
Should you disagree, feel free to waste more money by beginning a court action against me.
Luv and kisses
You.
I'd feel a whole lot better if, when an action pursued on the tax-payers' purse failed 'contrary to law', the person who decided to pursue the action had to pay at least some of the costs from their own pocket - StreakyVehicle reg xxx123xxx scrapped on (date) V5 sent to DVLA via Royal Mail as I was required to do advising of this.
That is the end of my liability for that vehicle.
Should you disagree, feel free to waste more money by beginning a court action against me.
Luv and kisses
You.
From another thread.
found this and thought it might be handy!!!
also this link too
http://www.strikeengine.com/gov/dvla_sorn.html
for all those people who have received fines from the DVLA, please feel free to adjust the Template for your own circumstances:
The DVLA has issued me with a "penalty" for allegedly not registering my vehicle as SORN.
By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:
Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that -
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
in that:
The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom –
which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -
have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.
In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) –
which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,
Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides -
(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the
institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an
act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling
thereon.
ions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court
or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.
"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."
I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-
"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"
I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234
found this and thought it might be handy!!!
also this link too
http://www.strikeengine.com/gov/dvla_sorn.html
for all those people who have received fines from the DVLA, please feel free to adjust the Template for your own circumstances:
The DVLA has issued me with a "penalty" for allegedly not registering my vehicle as SORN.
By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:
Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that -
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
in that:
The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom –
which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -
have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.
In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) –
which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,
Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides -
- that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to
(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the
institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an
act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
- Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling
thereon.
- Where any such question is raised in a case pending before
ions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court
or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.
"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."
I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-
"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"
I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234
worsy said:
LK, you say you scrapped it two years ago and it was previously SORN. In that time have you ever had a SORN request issued as you would have had to have at least one in that time. This would prove if the DVLA ever received your notice.
The first I heard of it was when I got a fine in the post. If I had a SORN notice/reminder I would have acted on it. The basic jist of the letter above is the DVLA have acted unlawfully by being Judge, Jury and Executioner they have bypassed the court system completely in direct violation of my civil/human rights. The basic right of due process in accordance to the law they have been making up and enforcing (trying to enforce at least). So now I have two options 1/ Invite the DVLA to take me to the European Court or 2/ Pay the fine and report the DVLA to the Police/another authority for theft.
Liquid Knight said:
worsy said:
LK, you say you scrapped it two years ago and it was previously SORN. In that time have you ever had a SORN request issued as you would have had to have at least one in that time. This would prove if the DVLA ever received your notice.
The first I heard of it was when I got a fine in the post. If I had a SORN notice/reminder I would have acted on it. The basic jist of the letter above is the DVLA have acted unlawfully by being Judge, Jury and Executioner they have bypassed the court system completely in direct violation of my civil/human rights. The basic right of due process in accordance to the law they have been making up and enforcing (trying to enforce at least). So now I have two options 1/ Invite the DVLA to take me to the European Court or 2/ Pay the fine and report the DVLA to the Police/another authority for theft.
The DVLA fine system is illegal or unlawful at least so technically they are trying to steal £40 from me and every other driver who has ever recieved such a SORN notice in these circumstances.
Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
Liquid Knight said:
The DVLA fine system is illegal or unlawful at least so technically they are trying to steal £40 from me and every other driver who has ever recieved such a SORN notice in these circumstances.
Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
Whilst you're on one...Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
It's 'whether'.
HTH
Just had the same thing with them for change of ownership. Informed them that it had been sent off on the day of the sale. Still waiting to hear back. Been to court for this a few years ago. I can't remember what the fine was, less than DVLA wanted. Judge didn't like the fact that I said it was put in with all of our mail from work, was working for a dealer at the time, as he said I couldn't of been sure it was. Said fair enough as I didn't deal with the post just had to hand it to the person that did.
Piersman2 said:
Liquid Knight said:
The DVLA fine system is illegal or unlawful at least so technically they are trying to steal £40 from me and every other driver who has ever recieved such a SORN notice in these circumstances.
Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
Whilst you're on one...Theft is theft weather it's a Penny or a million Pounds. If someone took £40 out of my wallet I'd nail them to a wall for it so why should the DVLA get away with it? Grrrr! Time to write another letter I think.
It's 'whether'.
HTH
Should I send this next one to the bod who send me the last letter (different person every time) or the address I mentioned before?
When I said write I actually meant copy, paste and personalise.
Mr Whoop-whoop
Continuous Registration Centre
Sidcup House
12/18 Station Road
Sidcup
Kent
DA15 7DA
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I’m writing to you in reference to an ongoing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me Blah (your reference blah-Blah) and my refusal to pay a fine for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN. This is due to the fact the car was previously scrapped and in accordance to the law I had done everything required of me to inform the DVLA of this. I did not receive an “Acknowledgement” letter from the DVLA nor have I received any SORN reminders either. If I had received any such SORN reminder I would have queried it at the time.
I refer you to the Interpretations Act 1978, Sec 7 which states “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.”
I contend that I have complied with the requirements of current legislation to notify the DVLA of the change of keeper and/or disposal of the vehicle by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the document. Therefore I have commited no offence but have been found guilty and fined by the DVLA without any form of due process. I have made an appeal against this decision and presented evidence in my favor but this has been to no avail.
By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:
Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that -
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
in that:
The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom –
which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -
have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.
In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) –
which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,
Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides -
• that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to
give preliminary rulings concerning -
(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the
institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an
act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
• Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal
of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling
thereon.
• Where any such question is raised in a case pending before
a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decis-
ions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court
or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.
"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."
I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-
"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"
I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234
Yours Sincerely
Me
The short letter didn't work so lets see how this one goes.
Mr Whoop-whoop
Continuous Registration Centre
Sidcup House
12/18 Station Road
Sidcup
Kent
DA15 7DA
Dear Mr Whoop-whoop,
I’m writing to you in reference to an ongoing issue concerning a vehicle previously registered to me Blah (your reference blah-Blah) and my refusal to pay a fine for failing declare the foresaid vehicle as SORN. This is due to the fact the car was previously scrapped and in accordance to the law I had done everything required of me to inform the DVLA of this. I did not receive an “Acknowledgement” letter from the DVLA nor have I received any SORN reminders either. If I had received any such SORN reminder I would have queried it at the time.
I refer you to the Interpretations Act 1978, Sec 7 which states “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.”
I contend that I have complied with the requirements of current legislation to notify the DVLA of the change of keeper and/or disposal of the vehicle by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the document. Therefore I have commited no offence but have been found guilty and fined by the DVLA without any form of due process. I have made an appeal against this decision and presented evidence in my favor but this has been to no avail.
By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:
Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that -
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -
in that:
The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom –
which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed -
have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.
In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) –
which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,
Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides -
• that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to
give preliminary rulings concerning -
(a) the interpretation of the Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the
institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an
act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
• Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal
of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling
thereon.
• Where any such question is raised in a case pending before
a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decis-
ions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court
or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.
"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."
I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-
"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"
I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle licence. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234
Yours Sincerely
Me
The short letter didn't work so lets see how this one goes.
Liquid Knight said:
[... Invite the DVLA to take me to the European Court ...
They'll start with the Magistrates Court, then (if you lose) you appeal to the Crown Court, then (if you lose) you appeal to the Court of Appeal, then to the Supreme Court. You have no right of appeal to the ECJ. The DVLA has no ability to take you to the ECJ.If you want to go to the ECHR, then you must first bring an action under the HRA in the UK courts. It's a slow and potentially ruinous process.
Streaky
PS - the Bill of Rights argument has been tried and lost in the modern Courts, it's probably sensible to avoid it - Streaky
Edited by streaky on Thursday 9th September 10:33
Liquid Knight said:
...a whole raft of what could be construed as irrelevant hot air........
Yours Sincerely
Me
The short letter didn't work so lets see how this one goes.
It'll work just as well as you last one.Yours Sincerely
Me
The short letter didn't work so lets see how this one goes.
Just tell them you scrapped the car and sent them the reg docs etc as you were obliged to within the stated time frame allowed and that concludes your responsibility in the matter.
Whether or not they say they didn't receive it or not is none of your concern you did your bit and they're gonna have a hell of a job proving you didn't. As it was posted it's now their responsibility...FULL STOP. End of.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff