Failure to notify change of keeper - court hearing
Discussion
Folks,
Just this very evening I have returned home to a brown envelope on my door mat stating that the DVLA are taking me to court for failing to notify them about a change of keeper on a car I used to own.
I've spoken to the DVLA (call centre in Swansea) and the chap was actually surprisingly helpful. He essentially said that I'd need to put my case forward to the relevant prosecutor but that on the V5, it does say that it's my responsibility to chase up a notification from the DVLA to state that they've received and updated their records accordingly.
I didn't do this.
However, I did send the V5 off to them by first class post and I understand from doing a bit of googling that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act basically states that in posting it to them, I have in fact, served them with the required notice.
That being the case, surely the onus is on them to prove that I didn't send it? Which would be impossible for them to do.
Ideally though, I'd like to avoid having to go to court and just get them to rescind their summons.
Does anyone have any experience of doing this successfully or indeed, if it gets that far, any experience of having to present your defence in court? I've never been to court and I don't think it will be much fun.
Just this very evening I have returned home to a brown envelope on my door mat stating that the DVLA are taking me to court for failing to notify them about a change of keeper on a car I used to own.
I've spoken to the DVLA (call centre in Swansea) and the chap was actually surprisingly helpful. He essentially said that I'd need to put my case forward to the relevant prosecutor but that on the V5, it does say that it's my responsibility to chase up a notification from the DVLA to state that they've received and updated their records accordingly.
I didn't do this.
However, I did send the V5 off to them by first class post and I understand from doing a bit of googling that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act basically states that in posting it to them, I have in fact, served them with the required notice.
That being the case, surely the onus is on them to prove that I didn't send it? Which would be impossible for them to do.
Ideally though, I'd like to avoid having to go to court and just get them to rescind their summons.
Does anyone have any experience of doing this successfully or indeed, if it gets that far, any experience of having to present your defence in court? I've never been to court and I don't think it will be much fun.
Thanks so far guys.
This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
TooLateForAName said:
Didn't Liquid Knight have exactly this issue?
Liquid Knight v DVLA
http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...
I think his related to not SORNing the car? Though the bones of it look similar. He said he did, they said he didn't.Liquid Knight v DVLA
http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...
B'stard Child said:
escargot said:
Thanks so far guys.
This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
Shocking postal system we have in this country - or that letters sent by DVLA can go missing before being sent or letters delivered to DVLA can go missing once delivered.This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
I'd have my day in court - they are farked and know it
I'm sure further information will result in an offer of a FPN which you would of course see as the lesser of two circumstances and pay up.
Tell em to do one - you complied with your obligation
(I keep a photocopy of any docs I send to DVLA and have done for many years - reg docs have a clear date and signature on them)
I should of course have sent it recorded delivery but even this only proves they've received an envelope.
voyds9 said:
escargot said:
Thanks so far guys.
This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
Doesn't further information indicate that they have been informed (albeit incompletely/incorrectly), job done.This is the first piece of correspondence I've received from them, though the 'Requisition' does note that I was apparently sent a 'notice on 01/02/2011 requesting further information under S46 of the Vehicle Excise & Regulations Act 1994 and offering the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement.'
I never received it otherwise I'd have addressed this issue before it got to this stage.
Variomatic said:
They've also recently lost a very similar case (can't remember the ref but someone here will) with some pretty forthright comments by the judge about their "you have to chase us up" attitude.
I'd love to know what the case ref or name was if anyone can remember?I'll do a bit of googling myself in the meantime.
davidjpowell said:
Perhaps you should have mentioned Interpretaions Act.
To OP.
A letter to the effect
I sent it. Interpretations Act says that it's served once I posted it, unless you can prove that I did not in fact send it.
Therefore I have complied with the law.
I will bring this correspondence to the attention of any judge should you continue the court action and will be asking for my costs to be awarded to me.
YS
Worked for me. Don't follow Liquid Nights example - I suspect that they were playing with him to see how worked up he could get and what would be the longest letter!
Thanks David, that's what I'll be doing to start with and i'll see where it gets me.To OP.
A letter to the effect
I sent it. Interpretations Act says that it's served once I posted it, unless you can prove that I did not in fact send it.
Therefore I have complied with the law.
I will bring this correspondence to the attention of any judge should you continue the court action and will be asking for my costs to be awarded to me.
YS
Worked for me. Don't follow Liquid Nights example - I suspect that they were playing with him to see how worked up he could get and what would be the longest letter!
Breadvan73 said:
To supplement what Streaky has already said, water cooler lawyers persistently misconstrue section 7 of the Interpretation Act (as well as getting the Act's name wrong, but never mind). Section 7 creates a rebuttable presumption that a document posted is received. If the addressee shows that the document was not in fact received, the presumption does not apply. The addressee does not have to show that the document was never sent.
So you are saying that the Interpretation Act is therefore not able to be used as a defense? How would they prove that they never received it? Can they categorically guarantee that nothing ever gets lost or goes missing internally and how would they prove that?Edited by Breadvan73 on Wednesday 29th June 16:22
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff