Nice letter to the DVLA?
Discussion
Liquid Knight said:
You do occaisionally get a bunch of these in the local press. "Found guilty in their absence" due to the DVLA not issuing summonses. 
At which point there's a well established procedure for getting the ruling struck out (as there is if they've served to a wrong address). DVLA don't make the law, and they can't flout the rules. Incidentally, most of the rulings in abstentia are because the defendants don't bother to turn up, not because they haven't received a summons. It's all well and good arguing with DVLA on the (correct) matter of posting a notice satisfying your obligation but, if they do decide to issue a summons, they're under no obligation to present your case to the court - only their own. So, if you receive a summons over this and don't turn up to put your own case, it doesn't matter how good your position is because the court will have only their side of the story and will have no option but to rule in their favour!
Strangely Brown said:
Have I missed something here? DVLA don't issue a summons; that is for the court to do.
Technically true, SB, and unless a summons has been issued to somewhere there ain't gonna be a case. But, in common parlance, the summons seems to be issued by whoever starts the case - being technically accurate just starts confusing people 
I think the point LK was making was that DVLA have been known to provide the Court with inaccurate information so the defendant isn't notified that a case has started until after being found guilty in abstentia, at which point the records somehow "correct" themselves and the finding is delivered to the proper place.
Variomatic said:
Strangely Brown said:
Have I missed something here? DVLA don't issue a summons; that is for the court to do.
Technically true, SB, and unless a summons has been issued to somewhere there ain't gonna be a case. But, in common parlance, the summons seems to be issued by whoever starts the case - being technically accurate just starts confusing people I think the point LK was making was that DVLA have been known to provide the Court with inaccurate information so the defendant isn't notified that a case has started until after being found guilty in abstentia, at which point the records somehow "correct" themselves and the finding is delivered to the proper place.
It's more likely to be complete incompetence rather than deliberate perversion of the system, LK. Either way, though, if a ruling appears on your doorstep when you haven't received the original summons, it's quite a simple matter to apply to the court concerned to have the ruling set aside - just requires you to make a notarised statement that you never received the summons and would have presented information to the court if you had.
Then make sure that you do turn up to the new hearing
Then make sure that you do turn up to the new hearing
Liquid Knight said:
You do occaisionally get a bunch of these in the local press. "Found guilty in their absence" due to the DVLA not issuing summonses.
That statement makes no sense. How can anyone (a) be called into court without a summons being issued, and (b) be found guilty because the DVLA did not issue a summons ... which they do not do anyway.Either terrible reporting originally or poor interpretation of the media report(s) by LK.
Streaky
If you have ever waited by a post box to ask for a letter back because you forgot to put something in the envelope before you sealed it for example you will get that argument from the Royal Mail collector. Even with that they can still be arsey about it because tampering with mail once it's in the system is considered a serious criminal offence.
bigee said:
quite a resurrection...
looks like they quoted LK from an early post too. 
Liquid Knight said:
Basically as soon as the letter is put in the post box it becomes the property and therefore the responsibility of the Royal Mail. If you have ever waited by a post box to ask for a letter back because you forgot to put something in the envelope before you sealed it for example you will get that argument from the Royal Mail collector. Unless of course you have the return address writen on it and proof of identification. Even with that they can still be (and rightly so) arsey about it because tampering with mail once it's in the system is considered a serious criminal offence. I recall some postal workers going to prison for it. Unless something is sent by recorded or tracker delivery it is unreasonable for the recipient to blame the sender for any loss either withing the mail system or the recipients own internal network.
Edited by Liquid Knight on Saturday 21st August 16:50
jesusbuiltmycar said:
What was the outcome - did the OP get his day in court?
No sadly I didn't. 
If anyone ever refers either verbally or in writing to a "penalty charge notice" as a "fine" they are breaking the law. As there are no legal ramifications to the non-payment of a penalty charge notice it is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the Crown. I basically accused the then Minister of Transport who is ultimately responsible for the DVLA of fraud and treason. Subsequently it was dropped.
This is also the case for any local council parking, littering, pigeon feeding tickets or whatever cash-cow they're trying to milk.
Since then the DVLA have moved the goal posts and funds are fed back to central government instead of independently funding the quango itself. Also the new computerised system and online processing means there have been far fewer errors, less postal correspondence to go missing and things in general have greatly improved.
There is no legal obligation whatsoever to insure a car which is off the road. The specific offence for which you have been fined was failing to make a SORN declaration which is required under CIE regs.
https://www.mib.org.uk/reducing-uninsured-driving/...
https://www.mib.org.uk/reducing-uninsured-driving/...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff