DVLA SORN flaws exposed in court.

DVLA SORN flaws exposed in court.

Author
Discussion

Mill Wheel

Original Poster:

6,149 posts

197 months

Monday 3rd May 2010
quotequote all
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/dvla_court...

The Register said:
..over the matter of a lost SORN. In Horsham County Court last month, Mr Peck explained that he had sent back his notice in compliance with the law.

The DVLA first claimed that he hadn’t: then that he had done so late. Besides, even if it had lost it, he should have phoned it when they failed to send him an acknowledgement. In this, it was relying on the small print on the relevant forms (V11 and V890) which stated that if do not receive an acknowledgment letter within four weeks, you need to ring.

Once more, according to Mr Peck, a judge begged to differ. In his view, the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them – or otherwise respond - should they not receive an acknowledgment letter.

This could turn out to be a serious blow for an organisation which has the until recently covered up its own inadequacies with a mixture of bluster and bluff, claiming legal powers it does not have, and being quick to send in the bailiffs should anyone dare to cross it.
Well worth reading the article in full - I SORNd a vehicle on April 1st, and have still not received an acknowledgment in the post, but have kept the emailed confirmation.

I didn't feel the need to waste my time trying to telephone DVLA - it is a waste of my time, so I await the outcome with interest in the light of this information!