Nice letter to the DVLA?
Discussion
Hi guys. I am yet another bullying victim. 
This time the Bully is the DVLA.
I have just been issued a pay £40 now or else letter for not declaring a car I scrapped two years ago as S.O.R.N
Do I pay the fine and take the DVLA to the small claims court or let the DVLA take me to court?
I'm writing a polite (by my standards) but direct letter to DVLA "Enforcement Manager". The basic gist of it is I refuse to pay any fine because either the DVLA or Royal Mail have screwed up. There is no legal requirement to send letters to the DVLA by recorded mail and there is also no legal requirement to pursue the DVLA if they fail to send a notification of change of ownership letter. I feel that the pay £40 now or else (or else of course being £80 after two weeks, baillifs and further court action with up to a £1000 fine) attitude is little more than aggravated theft. I did everything legally required of my and can not accept responcability for the DVLAs shambolic correspondence system or the Royal Mail losing one of the thousands of letters sent to the DVLA on a daily basis.
So back to my question, do I pay and pursue in the small claims court or sit it out and hope the letter closes the mater?
This time the Bully is the DVLA.
I have just been issued a pay £40 now or else letter for not declaring a car I scrapped two years ago as S.O.R.N
Do I pay the fine and take the DVLA to the small claims court or let the DVLA take me to court?
I'm writing a polite (by my standards) but direct letter to DVLA "Enforcement Manager". The basic gist of it is I refuse to pay any fine because either the DVLA or Royal Mail have screwed up. There is no legal requirement to send letters to the DVLA by recorded mail and there is also no legal requirement to pursue the DVLA if they fail to send a notification of change of ownership letter. I feel that the pay £40 now or else (or else of course being £80 after two weeks, baillifs and further court action with up to a £1000 fine) attitude is little more than aggravated theft. I did everything legally required of my and can not accept responcability for the DVLAs shambolic correspondence system or the Royal Mail losing one of the thousands of letters sent to the DVLA on a daily basis.
So back to my question, do I pay and pursue in the small claims court or sit it out and hope the letter closes the mater?
Yes I sent the V5 off in accordance to the DVLA guidelines and the Law. Apparently because I didn't equire as to why I hadn't recieved the acknowledgement letter it's my fault.
This is rubbish because the judge in the case of DVLA v's Ducan Peck said "the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them – or otherwise respond - should they not receive an acknowledgment letter".
Quoting a judge in a case that the DVLA lost when writing a letter to the DVLA? The would be subtile enough.
This is rubbish because the judge in the case of DVLA v's Ducan Peck said "the DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them – or otherwise respond - should they not receive an acknowledgment letter".
Quoting a judge in a case that the DVLA lost when writing a letter to the DVLA? The would be subtile enough.
chriscpritchard said:
Dare2Fail said:
The DVLA and Royal Mail are pretty shambolic, but I'm not sure where your stance of 'if the Royal Mail lost my letter it's not my problem' is coming from. If you were to flip it around, if you had purchased something online and they seller sent it to you by RM but it never arrived, you wouldn't accept the seller saying "I sent it and RM must have lost it, therefore it's not my problem". Why is this different? Surely it is not the DVLAs problem if they didn't receive something that you sent them?
Because the law states that the retailer is responsible until it reaches the consumer (SOGA/DSR), but the law states that the person only has to send the bits off, not be responsible until the DVLA receives them 
Edited by Liquid Knight on Saturday 21st August 16:50
Dare2Fail said:
If you were to flip it around, if you had purchased something online and they seller sent it to you by RM but it never arrived, you wouldn't accept the seller saying "I sent it and RM must have lost it, therefore it's not my problem". Why is this different?
In this instance I have sold an item on Ebay before and for whatever reason it didn't arrive. I gave the buyer a refund via Paypal and got the money back from the Royal Mail. This case is nothing to do with the sale of good act and the obligations of the seller to ensure a package arrives on time (this is why the post office will always ask how much a parcel is worth befor charging you).The DVLA are making people Guilty until Proven innocent. The DVLA sent me a form suggesting the car was not declared SORN I sent it back with a letter stating the car was not declared SORN because it was scrapped two years ago.I then got a letter saying basically pay up or else. It's your fault for not following up. When the law saya the DVLA has no right to make people pursue and failings on their part. The DVLA either didn't recieve my V5 in the post or lost it in their own offices. Neither of those is any fault of mine, I'm guilty of no offence so I refuse to pay any fine. Simple.
So here's the first draft. Looking for opinions not proof readers thanks.
Dear whoever;
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a S.O.R.N declaration to the D.V.L.A for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as S.O.R.N despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I personally refuse to accept blame and/or responsibility for the D.V.L.A failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt or the Royal Mail for failing to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A in the first place. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail and if or when it arrived at the D.V.L.A it became their property and therefore as I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the D.V.L.A I have committed no offence and will not pay any kind of fine at all. As for the accusation that it is up to me to pursue the D.V.L.A if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from them within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter”.
I have sent several letters and notifications to the D.V.L.A in the past and received no reply so I considered it to be the norm on this occasion.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method in the future. If the D.V.L.A were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
On the information you have before you I apparently am still liable to pay the £80 fine for failing to make the S.O.R.N declaration or £40 if I pay before a set date the 4th September 2010. This is basically saying “pay £40 now or else” in my opinion and amounts to little more than aggravated theft as I have already outlined the fact that it is either the Royal Mail or the D.V.L.A at fault and not myself. I am happy to appear as a witness on your behalf if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A and the D.V.L.A did not lose the document internally.
There have been several well documented cases of the D.V.L.A making mistakes and taking people to court for allegedly failing to declare vehicle S.O.R.N or the change of ownership.
First up was a case heard in Clerkenwell District Court in October 2009. The DVLA was seeking a judgment against a Mr James Collins, on the grounds that he had allegedly failed to notify it when took his vehicle off the road (SORN).
Mr Collins told the court that he had notified them – and it was not his fault if the DVLA had lost his details. To the surprise of several people present – not least the DVLA – the judge accepted this argument and, according to Mr Collins, agreed that he only had to send details back to the DVLA.
He did not have to send his documents by recorded delivery: he did not even have to obtain proof of posting.
This is less surprising than it first seems: if members of the public were legally required to send documents by secure means every time they communicated with an organisation, then the same requirement would almost certainly apply to those organisations, adding immensely to their postage bills and making simple debt collection infinitely more costly.
It did not help the DVLA’s case that Mr Collins had been doing a bit of research. From earlier correspondence, he was able to demonstrate that the DVLA was capable of losing post in its internal mail – although it had no idea of how much post it lost.
He then used a Freedom of Information request to establish that the DVLA did not actually log what communications were sent out to individuals. Instead, it relied on a cumbersome "aggregate matching procedure" which has been described by one communications expert as insufficient to "prove" who is sent what – and it destroys even these records after just three months anyway.
In another case a Mr Duncan Peck, who also fell out with the DVLA over the matter of a lost S.O.R.N declaration, in Horsham County Court, 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 acknowledgement 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.
The evidence from both Collins and Peck is that the DVLA does lose mail internally. Despite a claim that it "never loses mail" – allegedly made by an individual working in the office of the DVLA’s chief executive – the fact that it does, and that they do not have a clue how much it loses, was confirmed in yet another Freedom of Information request made by Mr Peck.
They make mistakes – as exemplified by the case of Lois Mallon, last September, before Teesside Magistrates’ Court. She was found not guilty of failing to notify a change of keeper in respect. However, the DVLA had insisted on prosecuting Ms Mallon despite her producing letters in court showing she had notified the DVLA when she sold her Peugeot 107 in January 2009.
It is quick to apply pressure. Mr Collins and Mr Peck both complain about intervention from debt collection agencies while their complaints were supposedly under investigation. In one case, the agency used by the DVLA was itself under investigation for unlawful conduct – but it took another FoI request before the DVLA would admit to this.
The DVLA has no internal review process, and while there is scope for complaints to be referred to an independent assessor, whether or not this happens is up to the Chief Executive. It is thus judge and jury in its own cause.
If the courts applied the letter of the law, the body that looks after our vehicle registrations could find itself millions of pounds out of pocket. One estimate suggests that the figure collected by way of SORN penalty notices is in excess of £10m per year.
Luckily, however, as has been demonstrated in a series of recent high-profile cases, the fact that something is unlawful is no reason for government to stop doing it – and that is pretty much the story in this case.
When questions have been asked previously about the DVLA’s conduct, they have been slow to provide a legal justification, relying mostly on the argument that they "would not" breach the law – so obviously they have not.
A spokesman for the DVLA told us: "The DVLA does not impose any requirements for customers to obtain proof of posting or use recorded delivery in their dealings with us. However, and this is a key point, the onus is on the customer to ensure their off-road notification is delivered to DVLA."
This appears to contradict the result of the judge's ruling in the case of Mr Collins.
They added: "With reference to non-receipt of acknowledgement letters by customers, there is no legal obligation on the customer to contact DVLA if they do not receive their acknowledgement letter. However, and another key point, we do advise customers to contact us if this happens so that we can confirm if their notification has been delivered to us or advise them otherwise how to comply".
Again, there appears to be some discrepancy here between the official line and the argument initially put forward in the case of Mr Peck. The DVLA declined to respond to questions about its ability to audit or track mail internally - or to confirm that it does lose mail internally.
This is at the heart of criticism levelled by Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs at the AA. He told us: "I personally don't think a coach and horses has been driven through late tax/SORN penalties but I agree there are weaknesses.
"Any system that relies on the post is dependent on it being sent and received. We have highlighted this weakness on many occasions in particular with civil parking and traffic offences. Missing one piece of important paper can result in bailiffs at the door step.
"We believe that when penalty notice offence amounts escalate through non-payment the letters should be recorded - this would add to the cost but this could be covered by the well-heeled parking/traffic authorities who make big bucks from PCNs.
"We have called for there to be an open, independent and transparent appeal system for DVLA enforcement. We say that staying compliant should be made really easy and there should be tolerance of small mistakes. If the authorities lose sight of this they will also lose the support of motorists."
Just to sum up, I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of my vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the D.V.L.A if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter. I realize the scale of the D.V.L.As operation. Mistakes have been and will be made in the future. Also the number of letters sent to the D.V.L.A makes it near impossible for the D.V.L.A to keep track of all incoming and outgoing correspondence. As there are probably thousands of letters sent to the D.V.L.A on a daily basis it is just as likely that some get lost or damaged in the postal system.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Dear whoever;
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a S.O.R.N declaration to the D.V.L.A for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as S.O.R.N despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I personally refuse to accept blame and/or responsibility for the D.V.L.A failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt or the Royal Mail for failing to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A in the first place. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail and if or when it arrived at the D.V.L.A it became their property and therefore as I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the D.V.L.A I have committed no offence and will not pay any kind of fine at all. As for the accusation that it is up to me to pursue the D.V.L.A if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from them within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter”.
I have sent several letters and notifications to the D.V.L.A in the past and received no reply so I considered it to be the norm on this occasion.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method in the future. If the D.V.L.A were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
On the information you have before you I apparently am still liable to pay the £80 fine for failing to make the S.O.R.N declaration or £40 if I pay before a set date the 4th September 2010. This is basically saying “pay £40 now or else” in my opinion and amounts to little more than aggravated theft as I have already outlined the fact that it is either the Royal Mail or the D.V.L.A at fault and not myself. I am happy to appear as a witness on your behalf if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A and the D.V.L.A did not lose the document internally.
There have been several well documented cases of the D.V.L.A making mistakes and taking people to court for allegedly failing to declare vehicle S.O.R.N or the change of ownership.
First up was a case heard in Clerkenwell District Court in October 2009. The DVLA was seeking a judgment against a Mr James Collins, on the grounds that he had allegedly failed to notify it when took his vehicle off the road (SORN).
Mr Collins told the court that he had notified them – and it was not his fault if the DVLA had lost his details. To the surprise of several people present – not least the DVLA – the judge accepted this argument and, according to Mr Collins, agreed that he only had to send details back to the DVLA.
He did not have to send his documents by recorded delivery: he did not even have to obtain proof of posting.
This is less surprising than it first seems: if members of the public were legally required to send documents by secure means every time they communicated with an organisation, then the same requirement would almost certainly apply to those organisations, adding immensely to their postage bills and making simple debt collection infinitely more costly.
It did not help the DVLA’s case that Mr Collins had been doing a bit of research. From earlier correspondence, he was able to demonstrate that the DVLA was capable of losing post in its internal mail – although it had no idea of how much post it lost.
He then used a Freedom of Information request to establish that the DVLA did not actually log what communications were sent out to individuals. Instead, it relied on a cumbersome "aggregate matching procedure" which has been described by one communications expert as insufficient to "prove" who is sent what – and it destroys even these records after just three months anyway.
In another case a Mr Duncan Peck, who also fell out with the DVLA over the matter of a lost S.O.R.N declaration, in Horsham County Court, 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 acknowledgement 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.
The evidence from both Collins and Peck is that the DVLA does lose mail internally. Despite a claim that it "never loses mail" – allegedly made by an individual working in the office of the DVLA’s chief executive – the fact that it does, and that they do not have a clue how much it loses, was confirmed in yet another Freedom of Information request made by Mr Peck.
They make mistakes – as exemplified by the case of Lois Mallon, last September, before Teesside Magistrates’ Court. She was found not guilty of failing to notify a change of keeper in respect. However, the DVLA had insisted on prosecuting Ms Mallon despite her producing letters in court showing she had notified the DVLA when she sold her Peugeot 107 in January 2009.
It is quick to apply pressure. Mr Collins and Mr Peck both complain about intervention from debt collection agencies while their complaints were supposedly under investigation. In one case, the agency used by the DVLA was itself under investigation for unlawful conduct – but it took another FoI request before the DVLA would admit to this.
The DVLA has no internal review process, and while there is scope for complaints to be referred to an independent assessor, whether or not this happens is up to the Chief Executive. It is thus judge and jury in its own cause.
If the courts applied the letter of the law, the body that looks after our vehicle registrations could find itself millions of pounds out of pocket. One estimate suggests that the figure collected by way of SORN penalty notices is in excess of £10m per year.
Luckily, however, as has been demonstrated in a series of recent high-profile cases, the fact that something is unlawful is no reason for government to stop doing it – and that is pretty much the story in this case.
When questions have been asked previously about the DVLA’s conduct, they have been slow to provide a legal justification, relying mostly on the argument that they "would not" breach the law – so obviously they have not.
A spokesman for the DVLA told us: "The DVLA does not impose any requirements for customers to obtain proof of posting or use recorded delivery in their dealings with us. However, and this is a key point, the onus is on the customer to ensure their off-road notification is delivered to DVLA."
This appears to contradict the result of the judge's ruling in the case of Mr Collins.
They added: "With reference to non-receipt of acknowledgement letters by customers, there is no legal obligation on the customer to contact DVLA if they do not receive their acknowledgement letter. However, and another key point, we do advise customers to contact us if this happens so that we can confirm if their notification has been delivered to us or advise them otherwise how to comply".
Again, there appears to be some discrepancy here between the official line and the argument initially put forward in the case of Mr Peck. The DVLA declined to respond to questions about its ability to audit or track mail internally - or to confirm that it does lose mail internally.
This is at the heart of criticism levelled by Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs at the AA. He told us: "I personally don't think a coach and horses has been driven through late tax/SORN penalties but I agree there are weaknesses.
"Any system that relies on the post is dependent on it being sent and received. We have highlighted this weakness on many occasions in particular with civil parking and traffic offences. Missing one piece of important paper can result in bailiffs at the door step.
"We believe that when penalty notice offence amounts escalate through non-payment the letters should be recorded - this would add to the cost but this could be covered by the well-heeled parking/traffic authorities who make big bucks from PCNs.
"We have called for there to be an open, independent and transparent appeal system for DVLA enforcement. We say that staying compliant should be made really easy and there should be tolerance of small mistakes. If the authorities lose sight of this they will also lose the support of motorists."
Just to sum up, I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of my vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the D.V.L.A if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter. I realize the scale of the D.V.L.As operation. Mistakes have been and will be made in the future. Also the number of letters sent to the D.V.L.A makes it near impossible for the D.V.L.A to keep track of all incoming and outgoing correspondence. As there are probably thousands of letters sent to the D.V.L.A on a daily basis it is just as likely that some get lost or damaged in the postal system.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Edited by Liquid Knight on Sunday 22 August 07:14
Dear whoever;
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a S.O.R.N declaration to the D.V.L.A for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as S.O.R.N despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I fail to see how it is my responsibility to ensure a letter reaches the D.V.L.A once it has entered the postal system or the D.V.L.A failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail and if or when it arrived at the D.V.L.A it became the D.V.L.A property and therefore responsability. As I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the V5 doccument itself. I have committed no offence and am not willing pay any kind of fine at all.
As for the accusation that it is up to me to pursue the D.V.L.A if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from the organisation within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter” D.V.L.A v's Peck October 2009.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method in the future. If the D.V.L.A were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of safeguarding the identities of the people the D.V.L.A corespond with or simple data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
On the information you have before you I apparently am still liable to pay the £80 fine for failing to make the S.O.R.N declaration on a vehicle I declared as scraped over a year ago or £40 if I pay before a set date the 4th September 2010. This is basically saying “pay £40 now or else” in my opinion and amounts to little more than aggravated theft as I have already outlined the fact that it is either the Royal Mail or the D.V.L.A at fault and not myself. I am happy to appear as a witness on your behalf if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A and the D.V.L.A did not lose the document internally or misfile it.
I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of my vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the D.V.L.A if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter. I realize the scale of the D.V.L.As operation. Mistakes have been made in the past and will be made in the future. Also the number of letters sent to the D.V.L.A makes it near impossible for the D.V.L.A to keep track of all incoming and outgoing correspondence. As there are probably thousands of letters sent to the D.V.L.A on a daily basis it is just as likely that some get lost or damaged in the postal system.
Thank you for doing the best posible job you can under these circumstances.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Draft 2?
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a S.O.R.N declaration to the D.V.L.A for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as S.O.R.N despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I fail to see how it is my responsibility to ensure a letter reaches the D.V.L.A once it has entered the postal system or the D.V.L.A failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail and if or when it arrived at the D.V.L.A it became the D.V.L.A property and therefore responsability. As I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the V5 doccument itself. I have committed no offence and am not willing pay any kind of fine at all.
As for the accusation that it is up to me to pursue the D.V.L.A if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from the organisation within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter” D.V.L.A v's Peck October 2009.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method in the future. If the D.V.L.A were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of safeguarding the identities of the people the D.V.L.A corespond with or simple data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
On the information you have before you I apparently am still liable to pay the £80 fine for failing to make the S.O.R.N declaration on a vehicle I declared as scraped over a year ago or £40 if I pay before a set date the 4th September 2010. This is basically saying “pay £40 now or else” in my opinion and amounts to little more than aggravated theft as I have already outlined the fact that it is either the Royal Mail or the D.V.L.A at fault and not myself. I am happy to appear as a witness on your behalf if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the D.V.L.A and the D.V.L.A did not lose the document internally or misfile it.
I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the D.V.L.A when I disposed of my vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the D.V.L.A if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter. I realize the scale of the D.V.L.As operation. Mistakes have been made in the past and will be made in the future. Also the number of letters sent to the D.V.L.A makes it near impossible for the D.V.L.A to keep track of all incoming and outgoing correspondence. As there are probably thousands of letters sent to the D.V.L.A on a daily basis it is just as likely that some get lost or damaged in the postal system.
Thank you for doing the best posible job you can under these circumstances.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Draft 2?
s.m.h. said:
Pay it and put it down to experience.
As I posted months ago, I was fined for one of their offices losing my change of owner slip (to a dealer) and failing to remind them they had not informed me.
Mine was £80, I spent hours writing letters till I could get no higher in the DVLA.
They eventually said as a goodwill gesture they would take £40 (if thats not admitting guilt what is) so rather than waste any more time I just paid it. Now I make sure the paperwork is right.
Horrid incompetent money grabbing pencil pushers.
They f@ck up and we still pay for it.
A total of £10,000,000 was paid to the DVLA in SORN fines last year the bit that's bugging me is they are judge jury and executioner and I have been found guilty until I can prove myself innocent. As I posted months ago, I was fined for one of their offices losing my change of owner slip (to a dealer) and failing to remind them they had not informed me.
Mine was £80, I spent hours writing letters till I could get no higher in the DVLA.
They eventually said as a goodwill gesture they would take £40 (if thats not admitting guilt what is) so rather than waste any more time I just paid it. Now I make sure the paperwork is right.
Horrid incompetent money grabbing pencil pushers.
They f@ck up and we still pay for it.
It's unethical, unconstitutional and (probably) illegal. When they have no power to to do this in the first place. I'll wipe my backside on the cheque before I ever consider sending one.
[quote=Liquid Knight]Dear whoever;
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a SORN declaration to the DVLA for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as SORN despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law over a year ago.
I fail to see how it is my responsibility to ensure a first class stamped letter reaches the DVLA once it has entered the postal system or the DVLA failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail. If or when it arrived at the DVLA it became the DVLA property and therefore responsability. As for the suggestion that it is up to me to pursue the DVLA if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from the organisation within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter” DVLA v's Peck October 2009.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the DVLA by recorded delivery. I am however happy to appear as a witness on the behalf of the DVLA if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver it on this occaision. That is of course if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the DVLA and the DVLA did not lose the document internally or misfile it.
I hope this is an end to the matter.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Draft 3
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a SORN declaration to the DVLA for my MGB GT registration Blah-blah in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “Number-Blah-blah”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as SORN despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law over a year ago.
I fail to see how it is my responsibility to ensure a first class stamped letter reaches the DVLA once it has entered the postal system or the DVLA failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt. As soon as I put the letter in the post box it became the property and sole responsibility of the Royal Mail. If or when it arrived at the DVLA it became the DVLA property and therefore responsability. As for the suggestion that it is up to me to pursue the DVLA if I have not received a “Change of ownership” letter from the organisation within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off. “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter” DVLA v's Peck October 2009.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the DVLA by recorded delivery. I am however happy to appear as a witness on the behalf of the DVLA if you wish to pursue the Royal Mail for failing to deliver it on this occaision. That is of course if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Royal Mail failed to deliver the document to the DVLA and the DVLA did not lose the document internally or misfile it.
I hope this is an end to the matter.
Yours sincerely;
Me
Draft 3
Hedders said:
You scrapped an MGB GT?
I had to because the neghbours had complained to the council about it and we were threatened with eviction if I didn't sell or scrap the car within seven days. Was a lovely car before I was banned for two months and couldn't afford to insure it when I got my licence back. My intention was to restore the car while I waited to get some no claims and stuff. The car was at the fully stripped ready to cut the cills off stage so wasn't really sellable. Gave the car to the MGB Hive and they said to send it off as scrap because she was a rubber bumper one and would only be used as parts.
How about sending them a cheque for £40.01 and send letter from a Bailiff the same day demanding a Penny plus £80 handling fee?
There's no facility to accept payment by instalments. So no mittigation if you can't afford to pay £40 or £80 in one go. I'll add that to the guilty until proven innocent slap in lady justices face.
The 4000 cheques for a Penny each is out then.
The administrational cost of sending recorded or special delivery to the DVLA makes it impracticable. So how about we all send the DVLA a nondemoninational seasonal greetings card (can you tell I used to work for the pollitical corectness department) to be delivered on Monday December 20th by Special delivery (would cost about 90p and a card) but insist that it signed for individually? Get the Royal Mail and the DVLA in one hit!
There's no facility to accept payment by instalments. So no mittigation if you can't afford to pay £40 or £80 in one go. I'll add that to the guilty until proven innocent slap in lady justices face.
The 4000 cheques for a Penny each is out then.
The administrational cost of sending recorded or special delivery to the DVLA makes it impracticable. So how about we all send the DVLA a nondemoninational seasonal greetings card (can you tell I used to work for the pollitical corectness department) to be delivered on Monday December 20th by Special delivery (would cost about 90p and a card) but insist that it signed for individually? Get the Royal Mail and the DVLA in one hit!
Edited by Liquid Knight on Monday 23 August 10:37
PaulHogan said:
Red Devil said:
dandarez said:
PaulHogan said:
I'd be tempted to get £40 worth of mixed coins from the bank, mix it together in a biscuit tin and send it by recorded delivery.
Recorded Delivery is no good for valuables or money, won't get compensated. Have to use Special Delivery.It would be worth it though!
Personally, I'd send 4,000 pennies.
Wonder what that would weigh?
Bet they'd refuse it... and then you'd get a nice spread of bad publicity for this rubbish government dept in one of the tabloids: DVLA refused to take my hard-earned cash!
And for the first time in many a long day they would be right! Who would have thought it.....
Wikipedia said:
In the United Kingdom, only coins valued 1 pound Sterling, 2 pounds, and 5 pounds Sterling are legal tender in unlimited amounts throughout the territory of the United Kingdom. In accordance with the Coinage Act 1971,[16] gold sovereigns are also legal tender for any amount. Although not specifically mentioned on them, the face values of gold coins are 50p, £1, £2 and £5, a mere fraction of their worth as bullion. The United Kingdom legislation that introduced the 1 pound coin left no United Kingdom-wide legal tender banknote.
Currently, 20 pence pieces and 50-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 10 pounds; 5-pence pieces and 10-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 5 pounds; and 1-penny pieces and 2-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 20 pence.
So,Currently, 20 pence pieces and 50-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 10 pounds; 5-pence pieces and 10-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 5 pounds; and 1-penny pieces and 2-pence pieces are legal tender in amounts up to 20 pence.
20 x 1p
10 x 2p
100 x 5p
50 x 10p
20 x 50p
50 x 20p
9 x £1
1 x Cheque for 60p
Ding dong!
Hmmmmmm.
Would be about ten Euro then.
Final draft as sent today.
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a SORN declaration to the DVLA for my MGB GT registration *** ***R in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “*** *******”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as SORN despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I personally refuse to accept blame and/or responsibility for the DVLA failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt or the Royal Mail for failing to deliver the document to the DVLA in the first place. I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the DVLA. I have committed no offence and therefore will not pay any kind of fine at all. As for the suggestion that it is up to me to pursue the DVLA if I have not received a “change of ownership” letter from them within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off.
The judge presiding over the case of the DVLA vs. Mr Duncan Peck said “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter”.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method. If the DVLA were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
Just to sum up, I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the DVLA if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter.
Yours sincerely;
Me.
Let's see how it goes.
Final draft as sent today.
I’m writing in reference to my alleged failure to make a SORN declaration to the DVLA for my MGB GT registration *** ***R in reply to a threatening letter I received from your office with the reference number “*** *******”.
I have been imposed a fine for failing to declare the vehicle as SORN despite the fact I sent the V5 registration document off to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle in full accordance to the law.
I personally refuse to accept blame and/or responsibility for the DVLA failing to file the paperwork correctly upon receipt or the Royal Mail for failing to deliver the document to the DVLA in the first place. I have personally done everything as required by the guidelines set out by the DVLA. I have committed no offence and therefore will not pay any kind of fine at all. As for the suggestion that it is up to me to pursue the DVLA if I have not received a “change of ownership” letter from them within four weeks of sending the V5 registration document off.
The judge presiding over the case of the DVLA vs. Mr Duncan Peck said “The DVLA have no statutory power requiring anyone to ring them or otherwise respond should they not receive an acknowledgment letter”.
There is no legal requirement to send letters and declarations to the D.V.L.A by recorded delivery, but from now on all correspondence I personally have between myself and the D.V.L.A will be done by this method. If the DVLA were to send letters and fine notifications by recorded delivery in the interest of data protection for example it would take a great deal more administration and cost substantially more in postal fees.
Just to sum up, I did everything that was legally required of me concerning the sending of the V5 registration document to the DVLA when I disposed of the vehicle. As there is no legal requirement of me to pursue the DVLA if they fail to send a notification letter I hope this will be the end of the matter.
Yours sincerely;
Me.
Let's see how it goes.
streaky said:
Liquid Knight said:
P.S In general Gassing I've started a thread called "DV-LA-la-la I'm not listening" revenge will be ours! 
Have you started that yourself, personally? - StreakyRecieved 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!
"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!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff