DVLA vs Liquid Knight
Discussion
I have already told Inter-Credit I will entertain no further correspondence. Would it be best just to keep filing them under 'B' or write a letter along the lines of "I formally demand you immediately refer this alleged debt back to the DVLA. By law you have no legal powers to demand a debt without an accompanying court order. Any further correspondence will be treated as harassment and presented as such in any resulting civil action"?
Morningside said:
Well good luck as I think they way that they have treated you and myself for that matter is utterly wrong.
I am still getting grief from the DVLA about £80 (as it is now) for a car I sold over a year back as they did not have proof I had sold it.
Even though I got the chap to sign it, I and he signed the forms (photocopied), we both signed a sheet as proof of purchase including the date and also the eBay auction listing as well was given to then to show that I had complete the forms but because THEY had not received or lost the form it is somehow all MY fault.
b
ds, the lot of them.
And now we get this form with the DVLA saying that it now must be SORN or insured or else.
I wonder how many people are going to get caught in this trap?
£12,000,000 worth last year.I am still getting grief from the DVLA about £80 (as it is now) for a car I sold over a year back as they did not have proof I had sold it.
Even though I got the chap to sign it, I and he signed the forms (photocopied), we both signed a sheet as proof of purchase including the date and also the eBay auction listing as well was given to then to show that I had complete the forms but because THEY had not received or lost the form it is somehow all MY fault.
b
ds, the lot of them.And now we get this form with the DVLA saying that it now must be SORN or insured or else.
I wonder how many people are going to get caught in this trap?
The DVLA only keep postal records for six months so if it is and most likely is due to data entry error on the DVLA computer system they will have no record of reciept because of the alotted time period. They can not prove you didn't send it to them as much as you can not prove that you did. Neither is enough evidence for a judge to sway in favour to either party so it would ultimately be a waste of the courts time. As the DVLA have instigated the wasting of the Crowns time it is them who will have to pay the costs for doing so at £375 per session. For the sake of £80 I can't imagine I'll be hearing from the DVLA about my MGB again.
Morningside said:
Liquid Knight said:
...at £375 per session. For the sake of £80 I can't imagine I'll be hearing from the DVLA about my MGB again.
Not from the DVLA but mine has now been passed to a debt collection agency.Negative Creep said:
I now have a letter demanding payment within 72 hours. Does this mean the DVLA, who I still haven't heard from, are now taking control of it again?
"I formally demand you immediately refer this alleged debt back to the DVLA. By law you have no legal powers to demand a debt without an accompanying court order. Any further correspondence will be treated as harassment and presented as such in any resulting civil action"That sounds good, send it by recorded delivery first thing Monday. A seventy two hour deadling for an alleged debt is extremely unreasonable. Also consult the Citizens Advice or a half hour session with a solicitor. If you send a reply care of "So & So Solicitors" it will carry a lot more weight.
Another update. This time I received another "pay within 7 days or face court, extra costs blah blah blah" but this time it's from P W Moody solicitors. A quick search reveals they are no different from inter credit and have no legal powers to demand the fine without a court order. I will send them the same letter stating refer the debt to the DVLA (still no reply from them) and don't contact me again or I'll consider it harassment.
What does cross my mind is there not something illegal about 2 organisations demanding payment? If the DVLA have sold on the debt, then it could only have been to one firm?
What does cross my mind is there not something illegal about 2 organisations demanding payment? If the DVLA have sold on the debt, then it could only have been to one firm?
Liquid Knight said:
Have you consulted a solicitor yourself yet?
The honest answer is that I cannot afford the £80 fine, let alone any sort of legal advice or representation. Further checking reveals the 2 companies may well be linked and there is another firm, Trust Recoveries, who often send these demands out yet have the exact same address as Inter Credit. What a coincidence.............
No it's not legal because this alleged debt doesn't exist until proved in court and only the original creditor can do that (in this case the DVLA).
All that intercredit and their associated solicitors are doing are acting as agents for DVLA in an attempt to recover the "debt" without proving it. There was an answer in Hansard some time ago where it was explained that DVLA use this method because going to court and actually proving the money was owed didn't work very well:
Initially, the Agency used the Civil Court procedure to deal with non payment but this process gave poor results and costs were high.[...] The use of debt collectors was found to be far more efficient and effective.
With regard to solicitors, tell them to refer it back to DVLA until proved in court and, as well as advising them you'll consider it harassment if they don't, make sure they're aware you'll refer the matter to the SRA as breaches of rules 1 (Core Duties) and 10 (Relations with Third Parties) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct if they continue to harass you.
edited for speeling
All that intercredit and their associated solicitors are doing are acting as agents for DVLA in an attempt to recover the "debt" without proving it. There was an answer in Hansard some time ago where it was explained that DVLA use this method because going to court and actually proving the money was owed didn't work very well:
Initially, the Agency used the Civil Court procedure to deal with non payment but this process gave poor results and costs were high.[...] The use of debt collectors was found to be far more efficient and effective.
With regard to solicitors, tell them to refer it back to DVLA until proved in court and, as well as advising them you'll consider it harassment if they don't, make sure they're aware you'll refer the matter to the SRA as breaches of rules 1 (Core Duties) and 10 (Relations with Third Parties) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct if they continue to harass you.
edited for speeling
Edited by Variomatic on Friday 1st April 22:18
Arrived in the post today......
"Vehicle - RWU 975R
I am writing to you in reference to enforcement action taken against the above vehicle, for which further legal action has been requested. Your previous letters and associated paperwork have been forwarded to me for consideration as Manager of the Chelmsford Enforcement Centre.
Having studied your case in detail, I am satisfied that you did pursue your legal obligations in relation to notifying DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle. As such, whilst it remains evident that your notification was not recieved as required, I have decided to take no further action in relation to this matter. The Agency will not be pursuing this matter through the County Court and I can confirm that the vehicle record has been ammended to show that you are no longer the registered keeper.
I am sorry this decision was not arrived at sooner, and apologise for the protracted nature of correspondence that this has necessitated.
Yours sincerely
A nice chap from the DVLA.
"Vehicle - RWU 975R
I am writing to you in reference to enforcement action taken against the above vehicle, for which further legal action has been requested. Your previous letters and associated paperwork have been forwarded to me for consideration as Manager of the Chelmsford Enforcement Centre.
Having studied your case in detail, I am satisfied that you did pursue your legal obligations in relation to notifying DVLA of the disposal of the vehicle. As such, whilst it remains evident that your notification was not recieved as required, I have decided to take no further action in relation to this matter. The Agency will not be pursuing this matter through the County Court and I can confirm that the vehicle record has been ammended to show that you are no longer the registered keeper.
I am sorry this decision was not arrived at sooner, and apologise for the protracted nature of correspondence that this has necessitated.
Yours sincerely
A nice chap from the DVLA.
Negative Creep said:
Congratulations! Is that the first time they've contacted you since the whole sage started?
So you don't go back to the start of the thread. Seven letters to the DVLA(including one to the Minister of Transport), eight replies, two letters to Philips Bailiffs and Collections (one polite and the other go away or I'll report you for criminal harrasment) and about a thousand Christmas cards from various people from different forums across the country. Each reply from the DVLA costs aproximately £12 so even if I did pay the £80 it would have cost the DVLA more than that in administration.
Just wanted to say thank you to the people that reply to these posts on the forums. I've been reading through these forums for a while whilst battling with the DVLA after receiving a similar threat from a DCA. After 4 letters (final one to Simon Tse Chief Executive) I finally got confirmation my records will be amended accordingly and I have no fine to pay.
Thanks a lot guys!
Thanks a lot guys!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff