DVLA lose V5, charge me for failing to insure sold vehicle

DVLA lose V5, charge me for failing to insure sold vehicle

Author
Discussion

trevt

117 posts

145 months

Tuesday 19th August 2014
quotequote all
Surely the V5 your friend has received (& the acknowledgement letter you received) show date of sale/change of owner? Does this match with the date you put on the V5C when sold?

If so, and you had it insured until date of sale, then that proves the question. If the date is different then that's what you complain about?

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Phil303 said:
Update:

DVLA have sent new V5 to current owner and last week I received an acknowledgement I no longer own the car.

However I've just received a letter saying their records still show I owned the car at the time in July they claim it wasn't insured. The fact is I didn't own the car and it was insured.
Of course they are going to carry on pursuing you because their precious records STILL don't reflect the actual date of change of the RK (not the same thing as ownership btw). Ask your garage owning mate to look at his V5C. I will bet any sum you care to name that the date in Section 5 is later than that on the paperwork which the DVLA (or RM) has lost.

Phil303 said:
In my last correspondence I gave the details of the new owner and told them that if they checked on the MID they would see it was insured. I can't think how else to spell it out clearly to them. Any advice?
See the pepipoo link I mentioned earlier - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=8187... One DJ was not impressed by the invocation of the Interpretation Act (a fundamentally flawed judgement imo and not binding, although the DVLA will no doubt trumpet it from the rooftops). However there have been other cases about notification (mostly SORN declarations) where the DVLA have lost. Go figure!

As I said before, it depends whether you are prepared to stick to your guns and fight them all the way. If they won't see sense then use every avenue open to you to make them breathe the oxygen of negative publicity.

YOUR liability to insure under CIE ends once you are no longer the RK. What your friend does (or does not) do subsequently is irrelevant. The true transfer date is critical here.

I have no time for scofflaws but this relentless pursuit (which has no foundation in law) of people who HAVE done all that is required of them has to be stopped.

Wishing you all the best in getting the monkey off your back.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
I have no time for scofflaws but this relentless pursuit (which has no foundation in law) of people who HAVE done all that is required of them has to be stopped.

Wishing you all the best in getting the monkey off your back.
Quoted simply to add my total support of this view.



anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Thanks everyone. Will use all applicable suggestions.

"I will bet any sum you care to name that the date in Section 5 is later than that on the paperwork which the DVLA (or RM) has lost."

Yup, I had the very same thought. And the acknowledgment that ownership had changed was unsurprisingly date free. At least they've found the docs that were sent in.

They are staggeringly stupid and obstinate, it's infuriating. Ignoring the change of ownership, the car has never been uninsured. It took me all of 30 seconds to get confirmation of insurance up on the MID website. I'm tempted to print out a screen shot and include it in my next, tempered but no less angry letter to them.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Phil303 said:
Thanks everyone. Will use all applicable suggestions.

"I will bet any sum you care to name that the date in Section 5 is later than that on the paperwork which the DVLA (or RM) has lost."

Yup, I had the very same thought. And the acknowledgment that ownership had changed was unsurprisingly date free. At least they've found the docs that were sent in.

They are staggeringly stupid and obstinate, it's infuriating. Ignoring the change of ownership, the car has never been uninsured. It took me all of 30 seconds to get confirmation of insurance up on the MID website. I'm tempted to print out a screen shot and include it in my next, tempered but no less angry letter to them.
I know it's pretty obvious but I ALWAYS send anything to the DVLA by recorded delivery and retain proof of posting. I also make a note to call them after 4 weeks if I haven't had confirmation of whatever I have instigated; SORN, sale of vehicle, number retention, whatever.

They just aren't to be trusted to get it right nor to deal with customers professionally when they don't.

25NAD90TUL

666 posts

130 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Phil303 said:
In July I receive a letter from the DVLA with a penalty of £100 for failing to insure the car on X date.
Hang on, so now you get fined for not renewing your insurance?

How does this work if say, you take a vehicle off the road for a while, perhaps to restore it or just garage it while you use a different vehicle?

Or is it acceptable to not renew ins as long as you SORN?

Where does all this bullst end?

I currently run 5 vehicles, all on separate policies, it's hard to keep track of what's going on at times.

Perhaps I'm just having a senior citizen moment and this is all about SORNing?

Edited by 25NAD90TUL on Wednesday 20th August 12:15

FunkySon

139 posts

222 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.

When did you sell the car?

rewc

2,187 posts

232 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?

25NAD90TUL

666 posts

130 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
The DVLA is absolutely terrible over things like this.

I knew a bikey once who changed his address. When his license came back, no full-bike. The guy wrote to them and proved to them that he had been an IAM advanced bikey senior observer for many years and considered that as proof that he had passed his bike test.

No dice, had to buy a little bike and go through whole test pollava again.

Another friend changed address, came back with full-bike. He'd never owned a bike in his life. Went straight out and bought a 750 slingshot.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
rewc said:
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?
No it isn't the law. It's sensible to do so, same as it's sensible to check askmid when you've taken out a new policy, and, given the staggering ineptness of DVLA to keep copies and evidence all communications by fully tracked deliveries.

It's as I keep saying on the various computer says no threads.

You've taxed your vehicle and are displaying the disc, though that will alter soon.
You've got a current MoT and presented the certificate.
You've got valid insurance, and presented the certificate to show that the vehicle is insured by a policy which meets the THIS test.
You've got and presented both parts of a valid and current driving licence for the class of vehicle concerned.

YOU'VE DONE WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO.

The accuracy or otherwise of databases and other information in the care of the government, their agencies or other statutory bodies is not your concern. YOU'VE DONE WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.


FunkySon

139 posts

222 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
rewc said:
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?
I didn't say it was. It's one of their rules so if the OP hasn't complied then the issue doesn't necessarily go away and may well end up in court just like the other thread that was linked to earlier.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
FunkySon said:
rewc said:
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?
I didn't say it was. It's one of their rules so if the OP hasn't complied then the issue doesn't necessarily go away and may well end up in court just like the other thread that was linked to earlier.
He has FULLY complied with the law by placing the notification in a post box. The DVLA has no lawful right to require you to contact them.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Jim1556 said:
If only they'd behave like a normal 'accountable' business!
...and you could flick them off by going to the opposition and get a better standard of service! smile

FunkySon

139 posts

222 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
FunkySon said:
rewc said:
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?
I didn't say it was. It's one of their rules so if the OP hasn't complied then the issue doesn't necessarily go away and may well end up in court just like the other thread that was linked to earlier.
He has FULLY complied with the law by placing the notification in a post box. The DVLA has no lawful right to require you to contact them.
In your opinion. It appears that that is not a view shared by all courts. Have you not read the other posts and linked topics?

OP needs to be aware that DVLA do, sometimes, take you to court and they do, sometimes, win. He'll have to roll the dice and decide how much time, effort and money he wishes to invest in defending something that, ultimately, he might lose.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
FunkySon said:
WinstonWolf said:
FunkySon said:
rewc said:
FunkySon said:
It says on the back of the V5C that if you don't receive the acknowledgement letter within 4 weeks then you have to phone them.
Is that the law?
I didn't say it was. It's one of their rules so if the OP hasn't complied then the issue doesn't necessarily go away and may well end up in court just like the other thread that was linked to earlier.
He has FULLY complied with the law by placing the notification in a post box. The DVLA has no lawful right to require you to contact them.
In your opinion. It appears that that is not a view shared by all courts. Have you not read the other posts and linked topics?

OP needs to be aware that DVLA do, sometimes, take you to court and they do, sometimes, win. He'll have to roll the dice and decide how much time, effort and money he wishes to invest in defending something that, ultimately, he might lose.
A judge who doesn't know the law is a dangerous thing. It still doesn't change the fact that he's wrong. If the Interpretation Act isn't valid (which it is) every single NIP has a get-out clause...

Hackney

6,810 posts

207 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
I know it's pretty obvious but I ALWAYS send anything to the DVLA by recorded delivery and retain proof of posting. I also make a note to call them after 4 weeks if I haven't had confirmation of whatever I have instigated; SORN, sale of vehicle, number retention, whatever.

They just aren't to be trusted to get it right nor to deal with customers professionally when they don't.
Life's too short for this isn't it?
I understand it's a necessity given the incompetence but its depressing that you have to go through all this when it should be a simple process.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 20th August 2014
quotequote all
Car was sold in early March as we were right on the cusp of moving home a few weeks later, so in all the excitement that packing and unpacking brings I'd hadn't given the DVLA another thought with regards chasing them up and making sure they were capable of doing their job properly.

They obviously have the V5 now as they've acknowledged the change. If it's only just been delivered then that's Royal Mail's failing; if they lost it then that's their error. Why should the car owner be held accountable for their ineptitude?

I'm pretty laid back but the one thing guaranteed to bring out the fight in me is being blamed and possibly punished for something that is not my fault. It's only £100 and in all likelihood that would be split between myself and the mate who owns the car, but that's not the point.

gareth_r

5,712 posts

236 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
Jim1556 said:
...I resent the fact I have to apply for SORN though. What's wrong with 'I'll tell you when it's back on the road, leave it SORNed til further notice!'?
That's how SORN works now. You only have to SORN it once.



25NAD90TUL said:
The DVLA is absolutely terrible over things like this.

I knew a bikey once who changed his address. When his license came back, no full-bike. The guy wrote to them and proved to them that he had been an IAM advanced bikey senior observer for many years and considered that as proof that he had passed his bike test.

No dice, had to buy a little bike and go through whole test palaver again.

Another friend changed address, came back with full-bike. He'd never owned a bike in his life. Went straight out and bought a 750 slingshot.
You can now check your current entitlements online, which should mean that you can have the records corrected to match the licence if there is a discrepancy (although the DVLA would probably try to have you prosecuted for forging the licence, because their records are never wrong).



FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
Problem is that this trend of providing a website so that MoP can check if the information is correct may be Ok for simple checks.

I have taxed / insured my car, do the idiots who only believe a computer also think the same. .

But what when the computer record is THE definitive proof, e.g. MoT test. To be fair VOSA doesn't seem to be as bad as DVLA in record keeping.

Or what about if the error isn't so easy to correct? For example proof of taking a driving test 30 years ago isn't so easy to produce.

Or what about when it's something that's not so easy to check. Suppose they give you the opportunity to check your state pension entitlements based on an entire life and all the rules that have applied over the years. Last time I checked they tell me I am /will be entitled to something above the basic. I have no idea where this came from. Presumably Serps. Possibly from a holiday job as a student in the 70s. Now imagine rolling forward with DVLA levels of incompetence in that area.

Berlin Mike

266 posts

196 months

Tuesday 26th August 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
Jim1556 said:
If only they'd behave like a normal 'accountable' business!
...and you could flick them off by going to the opposition and get a better standard of service! smile
Perhaps that's why you see Polish and Romanian cars driving around...