DVLA lose V5, charge me for failing to insure sold vehicle
Discussion
In summary, I sold my previous car to a friend who happens to run a garage (repairs, not car sales). He and his wife wanted the car for their personal use.
V5 was signed at time of sale by both parties and sent off to the DVLA. I cancelled my insurance and he added the car to his trade insurance, so it will be listed on the MID.
In July I receive a letter from the DVLA with a penalty of £100 for failing to insure the car on X date. I reply I no longer owned the car on that date, they reply that retrospectively informing them is no mitigation and I should have returned the paperwork at the time of disposing of the vehicle. I contacted the new owner and he still hasn't had the V5 back.
I've now written to the DVLA telling them the car was and is insured by the new owner on the date in question and that they've lost the V5 which will show the date the ownership changed.
Is there anything else I should consider to add to my argument?
Thanks.
V5 was signed at time of sale by both parties and sent off to the DVLA. I cancelled my insurance and he added the car to his trade insurance, so it will be listed on the MID.
In July I receive a letter from the DVLA with a penalty of £100 for failing to insure the car on X date. I reply I no longer owned the car on that date, they reply that retrospectively informing them is no mitigation and I should have returned the paperwork at the time of disposing of the vehicle. I contacted the new owner and he still hasn't had the V5 back.
I've now written to the DVLA telling them the car was and is insured by the new owner on the date in question and that they've lost the V5 which will show the date the ownership changed.
Is there anything else I should consider to add to my argument?
Thanks.
Luckily the person who bought it is a friend so between us we'll give the DVLA whatever evidence they want. He didn't buy the car to trade; he bought it for his wife to use but it's insured on his garage insurance. If the DVLA could be bothered to check they'd see when the policy on the car started. I told them as much in my reply.
Thanks to all for the advice so far.
Thanks to all for the advice so far.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Jim1556 said:
'Dear DVLA,
You are a bunch of useless
s and can fk off!
I did not own the car from dd mmm yyyy!!!
Stop bothering me! I will not respond again!
Yours, really pissed off now!
Phil.'
If only they'd behave like a normal 'accountable' business!
I suppose, the best advice is to (once again?) send them a letter detailing dates, a copy of any receipts and if possible, a copy of your mates' insurance confirming when the car was added to his policy.
Just be glad you sold it to a mate and not some scrote who refuses to co-operate...
All the best!
ETA: And since when was it the DVLA's job to chase 'uninsured' vehicles??? Hmmm...
You forgot to mention PP in your local MP, Patrick Mcloughlin and the press, Best to expose stupidity and incompetence at all available levels to press for change. You are a bunch of useless
s and can fk off!I did not own the car from dd mmm yyyy!!!
Stop bothering me! I will not respond again!
Yours, really pissed off now!
Phil.'
If only they'd behave like a normal 'accountable' business!
I suppose, the best advice is to (once again?) send them a letter detailing dates, a copy of any receipts and if possible, a copy of your mates' insurance confirming when the car was added to his policy.
Just be glad you sold it to a mate and not some scrote who refuses to co-operate...
All the best!
ETA: And since when was it the DVLA's job to chase 'uninsured' vehicles??? Hmmm...
LoonR1 said:
There's a good chance that it's not really insured then. Trade policies are normally for vehicles being used in the course of that trade, not for SD&C of the spouse of the owner of that business, even if she's a director of that business.
It's insured under the business insurance but they aren't using it for SD&C just yet. They currently use a Golf for SD&C which they have on lease until the end of the year and when they give that back they'll start using the car I sold them. Until then, it sits in their driveway insured and possibly only used for the odd business errand.
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 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.
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."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.
They just aren't to be trusted to get it right nor to deal with customers professionally when they don't.
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.
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.
Yes, no problem with him appearing as a witness.
I'm inclined to think that representation would be a good idea. Not that the facts don't speak for themselves but from experience in a situation involving small claims courts years ago, I know that I can find it hard to present information precisely and clearly when under duress. I tend to let opinion take share the stage with fact.
Next question, can anyone recommend anyone? I'm in Norwich but I've no idea where the proceedings will be heard.
I'm inclined to think that representation would be a good idea. Not that the facts don't speak for themselves but from experience in a situation involving small claims courts years ago, I know that I can find it hard to present information precisely and clearly when under duress. I tend to let opinion take share the stage with fact.
Next question, can anyone recommend anyone? I'm in Norwich but I've no idea where the proceedings will be heard.
3Dee said:
Can I come and watch the case? I'd love to see the DVLA get a bloody nose!
...hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
I promise you, as I have explained to Loon R1 several times, there is NOTHING omitted. Everything I've written here is precisely what happened....hang on... why not invite the press to attend... If you have a purchasing witness that can confirm you did all that was said I can't believe any Mag would find against you... unless of course there is more to this than has been said here...
I've written to the Secretary of State for Transport and once I have the court dates through I'll let the press know too.
Sheepshanks: As has been stated, it's not a legal requirement. 4 weeks after the sale was precisely when I was moving house and subsequently not ideal circumstances to start contacting the DVLA telling them how to do their job. It's not an excuse but a mitigating factor and I was not breaking any law by not contacting them. They've said on the phone if the fine was issued after they were aware of the change then it still stands. My argument was that it's not my fault that it took them 6 months to process. If they or the Royal Mail sat on it, how am I liable?
The new V5 has the change recorded as the 28 Feb so from that point on I am not liable for the vehicle as I am not the registered keeper. The DVLA got round to processing it in August but my legal obligations were fulfilled in February.
All of this is irrelevant as the car has been insured all the time anyway.
The new V5 has the change recorded as the 28 Feb so from that point on I am not liable for the vehicle as I am not the registered keeper. The DVLA got round to processing it in August but my legal obligations were fulfilled in February.
All of this is irrelevant as the car has been insured all the time anyway.
tenpenceshort said:
If your friend has a policy that insures him for what is effectively 'any vehicle', he is named on the policy and he owns the vehicle, then no offence is committed. Confusion may reign here where 'Registered Keeper' is confused with 'Owner'. You will note they are treated as different things by the legislation above.
In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Good point well made. It can be shown he owned and insured the vehicle.In that case, it doesn't matter who the Registered Keeper was at the material time when considering whether the car was insured for the purposes of the Act.
Gareth R - that is a very accurate and concise chain of events.
Even the new owner's broker says it should be his problem, not mine.
Anyway, copies of all documentation are now here and the new owner IS and HAS BEEN covered for the vehicle in question since the date of the sale in February.
I'll be writing back to the DVLA quoting policy numbers and dates left right and centre.
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
Thanks people.
Even the new owner's broker says it should be his problem, not mine.
Anyway, copies of all documentation are now here and the new owner IS and HAS BEEN covered for the vehicle in question since the date of the sale in February.
I'll be writing back to the DVLA quoting policy numbers and dates left right and centre.
I could still do with any suggestions for legal representation.
Thanks people.
Good news: 2 weeks after sending the DVLA a letter saying I'm looking forward to my day in court in light of the hard facts that support my defense, I received a letter today. After reviewing the case they are not proceeding with any further action, although they couldn't resist claiming the V5 hadn't been returned at the correct time. It had but whatever.
Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
Thanks to you all. Drinks on me.
FiF said:
Bet the letter included the mealy mouthed "on this occasion we will waive..."
Yup. Apparently the decision came about from the email I sent their chief exec, Oliver Morley, not from the written correspondence. I'll be writing back to say that the V5 was returned in time, drop a reference to the Interpretation Act and leave it at that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff