Failure to notify change of keeper - court hearing
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
What worries me is where does all this lost post go - seriously
OK I know my local postman was a thieving git and for a while I wondered what the heck was happening to my mail - both posted and delivered as I'm pretty sure my local post box was emptied by him too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11100...
This caused me some considerable problems and a lot of frustration but that's a diffent issue.
Nothing sent to DVLA is likely to be "cash rich" so where the heck does all the mail go.....
This is pure speculation but I'd suggest that most of it gets there, but quite possibly to the wrong postcode (iirc the whole of SA99 is reserved for DVLA, with the rest indicating the department), then lost internally. Given the volume of mail they must deal with, you'd hope they have 100% robust systems - at the very minimum every single item logged on receipt and again on action but the fact they can't say how many do get lost internally strongly suggests that they don't.OK I know my local postman was a thieving git and for a while I wondered what the heck was happening to my mail - both posted and delivered as I'm pretty sure my local post box was emptied by him too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11100...
This caused me some considerable problems and a lot of frustration but that's a diffent issue.
Nothing sent to DVLA is likely to be "cash rich" so where the heck does all the mail go.....
So you then have a load of underpaid, disinterested, and possibly temporary - have they caught on to the "6 month contract then back on the dole" game that other Govt depts have used to massage unemployment figures? - employees dealing with items than can't be traced if they do go missing.
edited for sticky keyboard
Edited by Variomatic on Thursday 30th June 00:14
Variomatic said:
This is pure speculation but I'd suggest that most of it gets there, but quite possibly to the wrong postcode (iirc the whole of SA9 is reserved for DVLA, with the rest indicating the department), then lost internally. Given the volume of mail they must deal with, you'd hope they have 100% robust systems - at the very minimum every single item logged on receipt and again on action but the fact they can't say how many do get lost internally strongly suggests that they don't.
So you then have a load of underpaid, disinterested, and possibly temporary - have they caught on to the "6 month contract then back on the dole" game that other Govt depts have used to massage unemployment figures? - employees dealing with items than can't be traced if they do go missing.
Sounds about right to me. But shouldn't it be SA99, not SA9?So you then have a load of underpaid, disinterested, and possibly temporary - have they caught on to the "6 month contract then back on the dole" game that other Govt depts have used to massage unemployment figures? - employees dealing with items than can't be traced if they do go missing.
Variomatic said:
Breadvan73 said:
The addressee does not have to show that the document was never sent.
I hope that wasn't directed at my "water cooler" comment, although I guess it was seeing as I can't see anyone else raising that point. ...Edited by Breadvan73 on Wednesday 29th June 16:22
davidjpowell said:
Perhaps you should have mentioned Interpretaions Act.
...
Interpretations Act says that it's served once I posted it, unless you can prove that I did not in fact send it.
and at similar posts by assorted contributors on other threads dealing with this and similar topics. There's a certain amount of urban mythery about section 7. ...
Interpretations Act says that it's served once I posted it, unless you can prove that I did not in fact send it.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Thursday 30th June 11:03
Some of us are saying that section 7 does not invariably possess unicorn fairy magic sparkle dust. It would remain open to DVLA to contend that it did not receive a document posted to it. The Court would have to decide on the evidence before it whether or not it accepted that contention.
Breadvan73 said:
and at similar posts by assorted contributors on other threads dealing with this and similar topics. There's a certain amount of urban mythery about section 7.
Watercooler lawyer or not, a letter on the basis that I posted worked for me.Edited by Breadvan73 on Thursday 30th June 11:03
DVLA lost interest and moved on.
Breadvan73 said:
Some of us are saying that section 7 does not invariably possess unicorn fairy magic sparkle dust. It would remain open to DVLA to contend that it did not receive a document posted to it. The Court would have to decide on the evidence before it whether or not it accepted that contention.
Ahh got you. So if I can therefore demonstrate that the DVLA have no way of proving beyond any doubt that they definitely did not receive the V5C, then I'm home and dry?For example, If I was to provide details of the watchdog program where they admitted they couldn't know exactly how much mail got lost internally, then that ought to suffice?
ETA: If any of you Lawyer types want to represent me on a no win - no fee basis, feel free
quote=davidjpowell]
Watercooler lawyer or not, a letter on the basis that I posted worked for me.
DVLA lost interest and moved on.
[/quote]
I am glad to hear that, and assume that they often would, but in the present case they are being difficult at present. The section 7 point is probably worth raising, but the response might vary from case to case.
The problem with any regulatory system that requires people to notify the regulator of something is that, inevitably, thjngs will go missing in the post, or be mislaid by the regulator. You could have a public policy that notification is effective when sent, but that would lend itself to abuse, as people would invariably claim to have sent stuff, so the policy is to require notification to be received. Receipt may be deemed in some cases.
Watercooler lawyer or not, a letter on the basis that I posted worked for me.
DVLA lost interest and moved on.
[/quote]
I am glad to hear that, and assume that they often would, but in the present case they are being difficult at present. The section 7 point is probably worth raising, but the response might vary from case to case.
The problem with any regulatory system that requires people to notify the regulator of something is that, inevitably, thjngs will go missing in the post, or be mislaid by the regulator. You could have a public policy that notification is effective when sent, but that would lend itself to abuse, as people would invariably claim to have sent stuff, so the policy is to require notification to be received. Receipt may be deemed in some cases.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Thursday 30th June 13:40
The problems with DVLA's handling of these cases (as I see them) are their ability to impose penalties without any form of external appeal short of a court hearing combined with their officially stated preference (in Hansard 17/09/2008) to use private DCAs to enforce payment rather than the court system because courts weren't giving the results they want. That's an open invitation to harass people over simple administrative mistakes by either party.
Changes in technology since it was introduced (principally the introduction and subsequent spread of ANPR) makes the whole SORN scheme effectively redundant other than as a revenue generating exercise, yet it's now been extended with the recent "insurance SORN" requirements.
Revoking all SORN legislation would probably have little impact on rates of un-taxed / uninsured driving - the crims don't think "Oh, mustn't drive this cos I've told DVLA I won't" - but would certainly reduce the administrative overload that DVLA obviously suffer by a considerable amount and might even help them lose fewer changes of details / licence entitlements and other "core" business details!
Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable over recent years for Government to introduce badly though-out, ineffective / unenforceable and (often) redundant legislation as a political exercise in "being seen to be doing something". Usually on the premise of some "emergency" or other
Changes in technology since it was introduced (principally the introduction and subsequent spread of ANPR) makes the whole SORN scheme effectively redundant other than as a revenue generating exercise, yet it's now been extended with the recent "insurance SORN" requirements.
Revoking all SORN legislation would probably have little impact on rates of un-taxed / uninsured driving - the crims don't think "Oh, mustn't drive this cos I've told DVLA I won't" - but would certainly reduce the administrative overload that DVLA obviously suffer by a considerable amount and might even help them lose fewer changes of details / licence entitlements and other "core" business details!
Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable over recent years for Government to introduce badly though-out, ineffective / unenforceable and (often) redundant legislation as a political exercise in "being seen to be doing something". Usually on the premise of some "emergency" or other
Variomatic said:
The problems with DVLA's handling of these cases (as I see them) are their ability to impose penalties without any form of external appeal short of a court hearing combined with their officially stated preference (in Hansard 17/09/2008) to use private DCAs to enforce payment rather than the court system because courts weren't giving the results they want. That's an open invitation to harass people over simple administrative mistakes by either party.
Changes in technology since it was introduced (principally the introduction and subsequent spread of ANPR) makes the whole SORN scheme effectively redundant other than as a revenue generating exercise, yet it's now been extended with the recent "insurance SORN" requirements.
Revoking all SORN legislation would probably have little impact on rates of un-taxed / uninsured driving - the crims don't think "Oh, mustn't drive this cos I've told DVLA I won't" - but would certainly reduce the administrative overload that DVLA obviously suffer by a considerable amount and might even help them lose fewer changes of details / licence entitlements and other "core" business details!
Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable over recent years for Government to introduce badly though-out, ineffective / unenforceable and (often) redundant legislation as a political exercise in "being seen to be doing something". Usually on the premise of some "emergency" or other
One bit you missedChanges in technology since it was introduced (principally the introduction and subsequent spread of ANPR) makes the whole SORN scheme effectively redundant other than as a revenue generating exercise, yet it's now been extended with the recent "insurance SORN" requirements.
Revoking all SORN legislation would probably have little impact on rates of un-taxed / uninsured driving - the crims don't think "Oh, mustn't drive this cos I've told DVLA I won't" - but would certainly reduce the administrative overload that DVLA obviously suffer by a considerable amount and might even help them lose fewer changes of details / licence entitlements and other "core" business details!
Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable over recent years for Government to introduce badly though-out, ineffective / unenforceable and (often) redundant legislation as a political exercise in "being seen to be doing something". Usually on the premise of some "emergency" or other
Employment issues in SA99 and around the country
When I last contested a SORN declaration issue (I'd scrapped the vehicle and sent of the reg doc as scrapped and they sent me a SORN reminder - 3-4 weeks after I'd sent the reg doc in - I assumed cross over in postal/DVLA system (my mistake)
I lost count of how many different offices I ended up writing to as a result of the DVLA's repeated demands for payment (seriously every single letter I received came from a different office or a different person.)
Replying to the letters and arguing the toss isn't worth it in fact like a poster earlier in this thread or another similar one said about "LK" it's probably a certain amount of entertainment for the DVLA staff involved when they get long arguemental letters.
All letters to me stopped after a simple clear statement of facts
DVLA
"I posted the reg doc declaring the vehicle scrapped to DVLA - I've complied with my obligations to inform you the vehicle was scrapped - I'm not resposible for either the post being delivered or the DVLA's lack of documentation control - All our correspondance has arrived (judging from your replies to my letters) so if DVLA has lost the documentation I sent on X date I'm not responsible so either cease this pursuit of a penalty notice that I have no intention of ever paying or set a date and we can resolve the issue in court"
The END
Love & Huggs BC
IIRC the legislation states that the obligation is to 'deliver' the required notification to the Secretary of State. He/she nominates the DVLA as his/her representative for compliance.
A judge has held that, taken literally, it would mean every RK having to trog down to Swansea. An exercise which he labelled 'a nonsense'.
So we are left with the tender mercies of Royal Mail. Another organisation with a patchy record. Between them and the DVLA it is hardly surprising that so much goes AWOL.
I have mail redirection in place and well over 10% of it is still going to my old address. So off I go to the sorting office to complain. Things improved for about a week but now we're back to the same old. Their most recent gambit is to send me my ex's mail instead, presumably as some sort of consolation prize.
A judge has held that, taken literally, it would mean every RK having to trog down to Swansea. An exercise which he labelled 'a nonsense'.
So we are left with the tender mercies of Royal Mail. Another organisation with a patchy record. Between them and the DVLA it is hardly surprising that so much goes AWOL.
I have mail redirection in place and well over 10% of it is still going to my old address. So off I go to the sorting office to complain. Things improved for about a week but now we're back to the same old. Their most recent gambit is to send me my ex's mail instead, presumably as some sort of consolation prize.
B'stard Child said:
Replying to the letters and arguing the toss isn't worth it in fact like a poster earlier in this thread or another similar one said about "LK" it's probably a certain amount of entertainment for the DVLA staff involved when they get long arguemental letters.
All letters to me stopped after a simple clear statement of facts
DVLA
"I posted the reg doc declaring the vehicle scrapped to DVLA - I've complied with my obligations to inform you the vehicle was scrapped - I'm not resposible for either the post being delivered or the DVLA's lack of documentation control - All our correspondance has arrived (judging from your replies to my letters) so if DVLA has lost the documentation I sent on X date I'm not responsible so either cease this pursuit of a penalty notice that I have no intention of ever paying or set a date and we can resolve the issue in court"
I've done similar. All letters to me stopped after a simple clear statement of facts
DVLA
"I posted the reg doc declaring the vehicle scrapped to DVLA - I've complied with my obligations to inform you the vehicle was scrapped - I'm not resposible for either the post being delivered or the DVLA's lack of documentation control - All our correspondance has arrived (judging from your replies to my letters) so if DVLA has lost the documentation I sent on X date I'm not responsible so either cease this pursuit of a penalty notice that I have no intention of ever paying or set a date and we can resolve the issue in court"
I also included that I am self employed and charge £xx an hour, if you continue to write to me you are agreeing to my hourly rate.
They've tried to charge me for various stuff over the years and have never followed any of them up after a short factual reply - recently I just ignored them and you get various letters from Bailiffs which I ignored too and nothing happened.
Admittedly they've never sent me a summons - seems a bit OTT
A bit late for the OP BUT for future reference, send all correspondence to the DVLA (and any other Govt agency who might be renowned for mysteriously losing your stuff) by recorded delivery. And when sending in forms etc photocopy them as well and keep a record of that stapled to the proof of posting.
It makes it far more fun when the DVLA write to you saying you are going to court as the information you supplied is wrong, and you send them back a copy of what they were sent, and politely enquire whom at the agency will swear an affidavit that the information you provided is wrong so you can request the court refer them to the AG for prosecution......
It makes it far more fun when the DVLA write to you saying you are going to court as the information you supplied is wrong, and you send them back a copy of what they were sent, and politely enquire whom at the agency will swear an affidavit that the information you provided is wrong so you can request the court refer them to the AG for prosecution......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff