DVLA lose court battle over SORN
Discussion
After I noticed a post in SP&L about people being fined for SORN charges, and the distinct lack of coverage with regards to this matter, I thought I would relay the info, that the DVLA have been acting illegally with there SORN charges.
I am only relaying this info on.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/25/dvla_dodgi...
Yet there seems to be no coverage on this story weird that, if I have understood this correctly then we as motorists have been illegally fined for the DVLA's usual incompetence
On another point whilst searching for this info the DVLA also seem to be selling our details on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/4957871/M...
It would be nice to know or get some clarification that we could claim back these SORN charges.
I am only relaying this info on.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/25/dvla_dodgi...
sickpup said:
I warn you this is hard going.
It's the next day and I must admit to being a bit low over it all. Although I won and DVLA will now be forced to follow the law a bit more I had evidence that they had been breaking the law for 5 years with these fines but wasn't able to use it as I beat them at the absolute first legal point.
The first point of my Defence was that DVLA cannot prove that I hadn't sent them a SORN declaration. As anyone who follows my legal lessons on here :wink: knows one of my favourite Acts is Section 7 Interpretations act 1978 (IA78) which reads as follows...
Over the last few months I've also been firing off Freedom of Information requests on little looked at but pertinent subjects. One of these concerned DVLA losing mail internally and can be seen in this link [url=http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internally_lost_mail_and_sorn_de#incoming-22566]DVLA and internally lost mail.[/url]
Now it's not the easiest webpage to read but basically it comes down to DVLA are losing mail internally although they don't know how much as they only record it if you make a written complaint to the Chief Executive. If you complain on the phone they ignore the complaint and don't record it, an imaginative way of keeping the lost numbers down. In fact if you send them a SORN decleration by recorded delivery and they lose it you can phone them up, give them the tracking No and they will check the POD (proof of delivery) online, agree they received it then not record it as lost.
The woman representing the DVLA wasn't actually legally trained so when the Judge asked her about the act she replied with 'I don't know it' to which the judge pointed out that as it was part of my defence AND DVLA had a copy in their claims bundle maybe she should be at least conversant with it! as the woman stammered away again saying she wasn't legally trained the Judge offered her a half hour break to phone her superiors and seek clarification which she jumped at so a half hour break was called in the proceedings.
After the break we went back into the Courtroom to resume and the DVLA woman had a page of notes and triumphantly declared that the words used in one of the Schedules of the SORN act was 'Delivered' as in 'Delivered to the Secretary of state' and as delivered wasn't a word within IA78 that it couldn't apply. I pointed out to the Judge that yes 'Delivered' didn't appear in the act but the phrase 'whether the expression "serve" or the expression" give " or " send " or any other expression is used' did and I believed in encompassed any other word used, the Judge agreed with me.
The Judge checked the Encarta Encyclopaedia for the definition of the word 'Delivered' and concluded that under the definition I would have had to personally Deliver the SORN notification to Swansea. The Judge decided that this was a nonsense and that to require everyone in the UK to hand deliver all SORN notifications to Swansea would be ridiculous so ruled in my favour in this instance.
The Judge gave the woman from the DVLA several more chances to refute service of the notice but in my view she was well out of her depth, she just couldn't grasp the idea that she had to prove DVLA hadn't received the notification and eventually caved in at which point the Judge poured scorn upon DVLA's prosecution statement and it's attempts to curry favour with the court and pointed out that as this case was covered by civil procedure rules he had no discretion and he had to follow the law to the letter and as such after a finding of fact that I had sent the SORN notification that the case would be found in my favour. He suggested to the DVLA that they could of course appeal the decision but in a voice that rather suggested it would be a very bad idea.
This has been going on for 2 years now and in that time I've had a lot of help and support from forum members giving advice and proof reading legal arguments to make sure they make sense. I woud like to thank the following members for putting up with me in that time and giving advice. Lozzypop1, Kickstart, BlueX5, Tarmacsurfer, Robby, Queen of String. There are many others who have supported me who don't get mentioned Including WildGoose who supplied me with Paperwork that sadly I didn't get to use in Court but may just force DVLA to repay people some of their money. This case was only won because of the help people on BCF gave me.
Although I won in court I didn't get to hurt DVLA but I have opened a huge legal hole in their collection of SORN penalties so I have mixed feelings over the day. I won on a very simple point but if the case had gone further I could have done some real damage to them. In fact I sort of hope they do appeal as then the full cse will be heard.
What that means/what I make of it, is that every SORN fine the DVLA have ever issued has been illegal, and not within the letter of the law, unless you have hand delivered your return to Swansea.It's the next day and I must admit to being a bit low over it all. Although I won and DVLA will now be forced to follow the law a bit more I had evidence that they had been breaking the law for 5 years with these fines but wasn't able to use it as I beat them at the absolute first legal point.
The first point of my Defence was that DVLA cannot prove that I hadn't sent them a SORN declaration. As anyone who follows my legal lessons on here :wink: knows one of my favourite Acts is Section 7 Interpretations act 1978 (IA78) which reads as follows...
. said:
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression" give " or " send " or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
So DVLA had to prove I had had no intention of sending the SORN declaration and that they hadn't received it, not an easy thing to do.Over the last few months I've also been firing off Freedom of Information requests on little looked at but pertinent subjects. One of these concerned DVLA losing mail internally and can be seen in this link [url=http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internally_lost_mail_and_sorn_de#incoming-22566]DVLA and internally lost mail.[/url]
Now it's not the easiest webpage to read but basically it comes down to DVLA are losing mail internally although they don't know how much as they only record it if you make a written complaint to the Chief Executive. If you complain on the phone they ignore the complaint and don't record it, an imaginative way of keeping the lost numbers down. In fact if you send them a SORN decleration by recorded delivery and they lose it you can phone them up, give them the tracking No and they will check the POD (proof of delivery) online, agree they received it then not record it as lost.
The woman representing the DVLA wasn't actually legally trained so when the Judge asked her about the act she replied with 'I don't know it' to which the judge pointed out that as it was part of my defence AND DVLA had a copy in their claims bundle maybe she should be at least conversant with it! as the woman stammered away again saying she wasn't legally trained the Judge offered her a half hour break to phone her superiors and seek clarification which she jumped at so a half hour break was called in the proceedings.
After the break we went back into the Courtroom to resume and the DVLA woman had a page of notes and triumphantly declared that the words used in one of the Schedules of the SORN act was 'Delivered' as in 'Delivered to the Secretary of state' and as delivered wasn't a word within IA78 that it couldn't apply. I pointed out to the Judge that yes 'Delivered' didn't appear in the act but the phrase 'whether the expression "serve" or the expression" give " or " send " or any other expression is used' did and I believed in encompassed any other word used, the Judge agreed with me.
The Judge checked the Encarta Encyclopaedia for the definition of the word 'Delivered' and concluded that under the definition I would have had to personally Deliver the SORN notification to Swansea. The Judge decided that this was a nonsense and that to require everyone in the UK to hand deliver all SORN notifications to Swansea would be ridiculous so ruled in my favour in this instance.
The Judge gave the woman from the DVLA several more chances to refute service of the notice but in my view she was well out of her depth, she just couldn't grasp the idea that she had to prove DVLA hadn't received the notification and eventually caved in at which point the Judge poured scorn upon DVLA's prosecution statement and it's attempts to curry favour with the court and pointed out that as this case was covered by civil procedure rules he had no discretion and he had to follow the law to the letter and as such after a finding of fact that I had sent the SORN notification that the case would be found in my favour. He suggested to the DVLA that they could of course appeal the decision but in a voice that rather suggested it would be a very bad idea.
This has been going on for 2 years now and in that time I've had a lot of help and support from forum members giving advice and proof reading legal arguments to make sure they make sense. I woud like to thank the following members for putting up with me in that time and giving advice. Lozzypop1, Kickstart, BlueX5, Tarmacsurfer, Robby, Queen of String. There are many others who have supported me who don't get mentioned Including WildGoose who supplied me with Paperwork that sadly I didn't get to use in Court but may just force DVLA to repay people some of their money. This case was only won because of the help people on BCF gave me.
Although I won in court I didn't get to hurt DVLA but I have opened a huge legal hole in their collection of SORN penalties so I have mixed feelings over the day. I won on a very simple point but if the case had gone further I could have done some real damage to them. In fact I sort of hope they do appeal as then the full cse will be heard.
Yet there seems to be no coverage on this story weird that, if I have understood this correctly then we as motorists have been illegally fined for the DVLA's usual incompetence
On another point whilst searching for this info the DVLA also seem to be selling our details on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/4957871/M...
It would be nice to know or get some clarification that we could claim back these SORN charges.
Edited by pits on Wednesday 18th November 10:58
Edited by pits on Wednesday 18th November 10:58
TEKNOPUG said:
It's a moot point though - there could be many thousands of motorists who never bothered to SORN their car and can claim back their fines on a technically. However, this sort of ongoing incompetance by the DVLA needs to be addressed (well, the DVLA needs to be scrapped really....)
Is it really a technicality though? Regardless if people have not bothered to do it, they DVLA still have not acted within the letter of the law, therefore shirley making all the fines null and void.According to the stats there are roughly
61,399,118 people in the uk
30,000,000 cars registered on the road, or thereabouts
Lets say that 10,000,000 have had these £80 SORN charges and paid them, so thats 10,000,000 X £80 = 800,000,000 or 800 million British pounds, which is a realistic figure I think.
DVLA incompetence does need to be addressed especially when Labour has already bankrupted the country, thats £800 million that will need to be found from somewhere, if this was made more public it could really mess the DVLA up big time, more than the DVLA themselves could mess things up, as lets face it the DVLA have cocked everyone up some way or another, due to there incompetence and it us that get the blame
Regardless if its OTT or not, maybe it is, the DVLA have still f
ked us, and blamed their errors on us, and that we should have to foot the bill.
I still cant believe their is hardly any interest in this, the man is a hero, proving publicly and legally that the DVLA make mistakes and that we shouldn't have to pay for this.
Finally some common sense is being played out in this country, the DVLA should now be legally obliged to pay back all fines, and to re-think there etiquette with regards to dealing with the general public.
DVLA needs stripping back to basics and starting again, managed correctly and except responsibility for the failings.
ked us, and blamed their errors on us, and that we should have to foot the bill.I still cant believe their is hardly any interest in this, the man is a hero, proving publicly and legally that the DVLA make mistakes and that we shouldn't have to pay for this.
Finally some common sense is being played out in this country, the DVLA should now be legally obliged to pay back all fines, and to re-think there etiquette with regards to dealing with the general public.
DVLA needs stripping back to basics and starting again, managed correctly and except responsibility for the failings.
Deva Link said:
pits said:
I still cant believe their is hardly any interest in this, the man is a hero, proving publicly and legally that the DVLA make mistakes and that we shouldn't have to pay for this.
The case was a year ago and Googling doesn't throw up many hits, apart from on a few forums - it is a bit odd that the Daily Mail etc didn't seem to pick up on it.I guess it also has implications for those who have to pay no-tax fines after they've disposed of cars when DVLA says they didn't receive the change notification.
Edited by Deva Link on Thursday 19th November 10:32
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff