DVLA > SORN sent/not received > FIGHT ON!

[janmal2000]

Basically we garaged our car May 2008 as MOT and Tax run out.

Sent in SORN as dutifully as we are and eventaully had mail from DVLA stating 'NOT RECEIVED'!

I immediately wrote stating WAS sent in etc. They replied stating again, they not received.

 

I found a letter in the forum here to send them, quoting Magna Cartna laws etc and this is what they replied:

 

 

 

NOW, i am stuck as what to reply to this as even the reduced fee date has passed - and darn not happy with paying regardless as we DID send this form in!!!

 

c'mon guys. what is the next thing to throw back at these?

Edited June 21, 2009 by janmal2000
pics

[crem]

You do not need the Magna Carta, you will find it much easier, (and more modern) to use the interpretation act 1978 which states an item correctly stamped and posted in the royal mail is deemed to be delivered 2 days later (for 1st class) and 5 days later (for 2nd class).

 

Maintain your position on this and do no more than confirm when the original mail was sent and that the second mail was only sent because they claimed to not receive the first.

[janmal2000]

thanks crem.

will send this letter off on Monday and update when reply received

[crem]

I think I would specifically refute the sentence in their letter where they state: "the SORN record was not updated on our records. The most likely explanation is that your correspondance was not received at the DVLA". I would counter with.

 

I would respectfully point out that you have no basis for making such a claim. There are a number of equally likely explanations for the SORN record was not updated on your records;

 

1 The DVLA correctly received my notification but failed to update the record correctly

 

2 My SORN notification was correctly delivered to the DVLA by Royal Mail, but subsequently lost within your internal systems prior to being processed

 

3 The Royal Mail failed to deliver my correctly stamped SORN notification to the DVLA

 

These explanations all carry equal weight as your "claim" that I did not send it, however, whichever of the above reasons occurred, they all fall outwith my control and therefore responsibility.

 

I therefore deny that your penalty is valid against me and request that you confirm that the DVLA records are now correct and that the LLP has been withdrawn.

 

Should this not be the case, please be aware that I maintain I am not liable for this penalty and should you wish to pursue it you should proceed to issue court papers. I am aware that you have a practice of referring these unpaid LLPs to Philips Collection services, but as you are already aware the penalty is in dispute, Philips have no legal power to pursue a disputed debt prior to court action.

 

Something like that.

[janmal2000]

just printed and being posted this morning

[crem]

Sent in SORN as dutifully as we are and eventaully had mail from DVLA stating 'NOT RECEIVED'!

 

btw, how did you receive mail saying "not received"? If they did not receive it, how did they know to send you a letter saying not received? Unless you contacted them to query why you hadn't had a reply, which is exactly what you are advised to do regarding changes of keeper, and un-acknowledged SORN notifications!

[janmal2000]

they sent us a bill for non-payment of tax so i wrote back saying we sent off Sorn. Then they sent us letters stating we need to pay for the late notification of Sorn! and it was our responsibility to check they had received the sorn as we should have received the cert from them a few weeks later.i wrote back stating i didnt even know i would have had a cert saying a car is Sorn as we have never used this before (i actually thought they just kept a record in DVLA and we just use the log book to tax car at later date) hence was not even expecting anything back from them.

 

they throw the onus on us for checking they recieved it and they blame us for not checking they hadnt got it!!! charging US for their incompetencies!!!

[Conniff]

In reply, you stated that a SORN declaration was made for xxxx on xx December 2008.

However our records indicate that a SORN declaration was not updated on the record for this vehicle.

 

 

 

I would have included that "failure of the DVLA to update their records, as you have said, does not mean I did not send the declaration. It is your responsibility to update records as soon as the notification is received and not leave received mail to get lost in your internal system".

 

It's about time the DVLA stopped trying to put the blame onto Royal Mail for their incompetence or their deliberate destruction of received mail in order to make money.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Conniff

[janmal2000]

I would have included that "failure of the DVLA to update their records, as you have said, does not mean I did not send the declaration. It is your responsibility to update records as soon as the notification is received and not leave received mail to get lost in your internal system".

 

will see what comes back after they get this letter and will use that if i need to send another

[crem]

will see what comes back after they get this letter and will use that if i need to send another

 

aww,aren't you going to use that second paragraph too? I think it is the best line.

 

It's about time the DVLA stopped trying to put the blame onto Royal Mail for their incompetence or their deliberate destruction of received mail in order to make money.

[janmal2000]

guys,guys, please play nice, lol!!!

 

i think DVLA will soon get fed up with me writing to them and i have all these quotes to launch at them if not

[Josie8]

sub

[janmal2000]

ok, here is the reply:

 

 

 

 

i have NO idea where they got the date 1st Dec from as i sent the SORN in May/June!!!

 

Next plan of attack is..............???

[janmal2000]

 

[patdavies]

She lies like cheap Japanese cuckoo clock.

 

This is what the Interpretation Act 1978 states:

7 References to service by post

 

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.

Note the part I have put in bold - which includes 'deliver'.

 

Furthermore, this is the regulations to which she refers. There are no schedules and the word 'deliver' does not appear anywhere in the document.

 

Bring this to a head.

 

Write back and state that you do not accept their offer of a fixed penalty (the LLP) and that you demand that the matter be decided by a Court. They must then take the matter, via a summons, to a Magistrates' Court or shut up.

[nehpets]

Janmal,

I cannot see that the DVLA can go into court with the attitude that they display in their letter to you.

Firstly they more or less admit that they judge people as guilty unless proved innocent – clearly that logic will not apply once it gets to court.

Secondly they have no evidence to ‘prove’ your guilt – you claim that you informed the DVLA and the DVLA say that you didn’t.

Their letter then goes on to admit that they have a slightly different take on what constitutes being ‘informed’ by the client than is normal. They specify various things about confirmation letters but unfortunately none of that is actually specified in the legislation – you are simply asked to make a declaration, something which you can reasonably claim to have done.

If you ask me the DVLA are deliberately creating an interpretation of their rules in order to circumvent other laws which would otherwise apply such as the Interpretation Act. I cannot see that they’ll be able to float that in court – They’ll be attempting to prove that their interpretation is reasonable and correct when laws actually exist which directly judge the matter.

Simply stating that it is the Registered Keepers responsibility to ensure that the DVLA processes declarations correctly is completely unreasonable in my opinion – their letter clearly demonstrates the contempt that they have for their clients. No other business would get away with that when it comes to fair and balanced obligations. What they DVLA are saying is that they know that their procedures (with regard to processing documents) are poor. As a result of this they purposely attempt to shift obligation entirely onto the client in order to be able to claim that their database is correct. Of course, when the law was written, they assumed that the database would be 100% correct and that the organisation could process very simple paperwork. In my opinion it is very easy to show (in court) that the DVLA’s unreasonable interpretations and extra rules (which aren’t actually part of the legislation) are purely a reaction to not being able to complete the simple task of correctly processing relevant paperwork from clients.

Welcome to the long list of people on here who are under threat for being taken to court by the DVLA. As far as I know nobody has actually been issued with a summons yet! My guess is that they know that they will struggle to win most of these cases. In the meantime they just content themselves with the people who just pay up with no fuss.

Nehpets.

[janmal2000]

MY REPLY:

 

Dear Mrs Harvey

Further to your letter dated 6th July 09.

First of all I would like to point out that “the crux of your complaint is that you sent a SORN declaration on 1st Dec 08” is in fact incorrect!! I do not know where this date amounted from BUT the date I notified you was MAY 2008!!!

Secondly, in relation to the ‘outstanding penalty’

The Interpretation Act of 1978 states:

“7 References to service by post

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.”

If you are going to quote any further statements regarding the law, I suggest you read and fully understand them before you use them.

Here is the link for your perusal: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20022382_en.pdf

I do not accept your offer of a fixed penalty (the LLP) and I require this matter to be finalised and decided by a court.

I await your reply within 7 days.

Yours sincerely

[nehpets]

Janmal, as I've mentioned on a number threads / posts, I feel that it does not make any sense to keep sending these letters to the DVLA. If this matter is going to court then you would be silly to enter into a dialogue where you make your defence known to the DVLA before the hearing. I certainly WOULD NOT send the letter that you've outlined above as you are revealing your key point of defence with regard to having 'informed' the DVLA over this SORN. Let the DVLA come to court and state what they state in their letter to you - then you can take great pleasure in slapping them down.

 

If you must write then simply write saying that you refute their allagations and specify that you will not be entering into any further dialogue with the DVLA on the matter.

 

 

Nehpets.

[janmal2000]

ah, right. wont send it then.

lucky i didnt get to the post today .

 

will post when i hear anymore - nehpets, thanks

[Lifesontheup]

Janmal, as I've mentioned on a number threads / posts, I feel that it does not make any sense to keep sending these letters to the DVLA. If this matter is going to court then you would be silly to enter into a dialogue where you make your defence known to the DVLA before the hearing. I certainly WOULD NOT send the letter that you've outlined above as you are revealing your key point of defence with regard to having 'informed' the DVLA over this SORN. Let the DVLA come to court and state what they state in their letter to you - then you can take great pleasure in slapping them down.

 

If you must write then simply write saying that you refute their allagations and specify that you will not be entering into any further dialogue with the DVLA on the matter.

 

 

Nehpets.

 

Sorry but as I found out, the DJ (as it is heard in a County Court) does not always take your side and CAN take the side of the DVLA.

 

I have posted so that you are aware that this can go against you, it IS NOT as easy as some lead people to believe and the DVLA have a slapping down!

 

The DJ in my case asked where my acknowledgement letter was and had I chased the DVLA up when I never got it? I did not have one and as a result the claim was awarded to the DVLA.

[Lifesontheup]

They must then take the matter, via a summons, to a Magistrates' Court or shut up.

 

No, this is a civil action, a debt and as such is dealt with by County Court. They issue a County Court claim against you.

[patdavies]

No, this is a civil action, a debt and as such is dealt with by County Court. They issue a County Court claim against you.

 

Oh no it's not!

 

This is the relevant part of VERA 1994 (my bold)

 

29 Penalty for using or keeping unlicensed vehicle

 

(1) If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a vehicle is unlicensed if no vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to an excise penalty of—

(a) level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b) five times the amount of the vehicle excise duty chargeable in respect of the vehicle,

whichever is the greater.

 

Summary conviction can only be a Magistrates' Court.

[crem]

Oh no it's not!

 

This is the relevant part of VERA 1994 (my bold)

 

 

 

Summary conviction can only be a Magistrates' Court.

 

So why is Lifesontheup claiming his was in the county court?

[bedlington83]

Sorry but as I found out, the DJ (as it is heard in a County Court) does not always take your side and CAN take the side of the DVLA.

It's a criminal offence and should be heard in the magistrates court. What were you taken to court for? It can't have been late licensing. Was it for the penalty fee that DVLA charge to avoid court?

[Lifesontheup]

Oh no it's not!

 

This is the relevant part of VERA 1994 (my bold)

 

 

 

Summary conviction can only be a Magistrates' Court.

 

Entirely wrong legislation. Late Licensing Penalties are sent using Section 7A of VERA. Penalty is £80 reduced to £40 for early payment.

 

You are mixing up your legislation.