Trade in Registration problem.

[so called]

I think that I've cocked up with a recent trade in.
I don't recall that I returned the 'change of ownership' part back to the DVLA when we traded my Wifes car in back in August.
I don't recall keeping that part either.
Am I in line for a fine now ???

The only reason this has come up is because we received a letter this week advising of Prosecution action for doing 65 in a 40 zone.
My Wife called the number on the letter and was asked to confirm the trade in in writing but its left me wondering about the DVLA.

Cheers for any advice.

[hairyben]

Are you sure you didn't post the relevant part, coulda been lost in t' post

[Dr G]

If you get fined you did post it to them on the day you sold the car. It was stamped and put in the post.

Under the definitions act you've fulfilled your contractual obligations so the DVLA can take their fine and shove it

http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1855...

[anonymous-user]

Classic pub lawyering. Top darts!

[Red Devil]

Dr G said:

the definitions act

Very good.

Breadvan72 said:

Classic pub lawyering. Top darts!

Are you too commenting on the error above or saying what is posted in the link is wrong?

I know of 2 more cases where the DVLA has been roasted by judges contrasted with one where it has won.
In the latter case the judge relied on the SAME wording as in Collins (the linked case above).
His reasoning is flawed imo.

AFAIK these are all County/District Court judgements so only persuasive not binding.
It really is time that this went to a court where it could be decided once and for all.
See my post here - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=6&a...

The DVLA should be made
a) To stop making up pretend law which is not on the Statute Book in order to further its self-serving interests.
b) Subject to a proper independent appeals process.

[anonymous-user]

The (non existent) definitions act was a highlight, but note also the suggestion that the OP fibs to a court. The point on presumed delivery under the Interpretation Act 1978 is arguable both ways on the law, and in any event the presumption is at least in theory rebuttable. The pub lawyer, however, believes law to be something both immutable and sorcerous, not admitting of nuance.

[so called]

OK, thanks for your opinions chaps.

Don't know about pub lawyers but it turns out that I didn't cock up.

My Wife called to say she found the acknowledgment letter from the DVLA dated 8th September for the change of ownership.
With that, I'm a bit surprised that the Police came to our door ???
Which is also a pain as I am now expected to write a letter confirming, with dates, the non-ownership.

Thanks anyway.

[speedking31]

This is where a letter saying "We have made a mistake. Apologies. Here's £10 for the trouble and expense we have caused you." would go down well, rather than "On this occasion we have insufficient evidence to continue the prosecution, don't do it again."

[Roo]

Just fill in the bit that says you weren't the owner at the time, with whom you sold it to and when.

[so called]

Roo said:

Just fill in the bit that says you weren't the owner at the time, with whom you sold it to and when.

Funnily enough, they told my Wife that I mustn't fill anything in on the form but return it with an attached letter.
I'll sort it on Thursday when I get home. Maybe I can just right, "ask the DVLA".

[anonymous-user]

Good on yer, OP. The pub lawyer here is Dr G, not you.

[Red Devil]

Breadvan72 said:

The (non existent) definitions act was a highlight, but note also the suggestion that the OP fibs to a court. The point on presumed delivery under the Interpretation Act 1978 is arguable both ways on the law, and in any event the presumption is at least in theory rebuttable. The pub lawyer, however, believes law to be something both immutable and sorcerous, not admitting of nuance.

The fib suggestion wasn't mine.

Although I do have a sneaking sympathy with it, given that the DVLA is very happy to quote the Interpretation Act when it suits THEIR case but screams like a stuck pig when the boot in on the other foot. But then it's a government Agency with no independent oversight or appeal process. The Chief Executive is judge, jury, and executioner in his own cause with no accountability to the public who have to put up with this sorry state of affairs. High time that was changed.

[anonymous-user]

Except that the DVLA has to go to court to enforce things, and doesn't run the court; but never let dull procedure get in the way of a good rant.