Why didn't you just push it in?

DVLA actually refuse to accept the lower payment when they consider it outside the 28 days ie the date of their letter regardless of whether it is outside the 28 days since notified or not. Yes I have but I have yet to hear of an absolute offence that the recipient doesn't have the choice to take to court which is where the HRA comes into play. Yes it is easier to just comply (and hope DVLA sort themselves out) but the final Irony is you are being fined by the DVLA for failing to comply with the law when they themselves in the way they are procesing the LLP's fails to comply with the law. Forget the rights and wrongs of the various laws that have brought in the SORN LLP's and look at the FACT that DVLA are breaking (or at least were) the law in the ways they fine people and the question has to be asked at what point do the people of this country stand up and say 'behave' to the Government. To allow an Executive Agency of Government to continue to break the law is ridiculous.

I think you've miss-read the Reg article. The point is that there shouldn't be a date to pay by on the letter but the statement '28 days from the date you are notified/served'. HRA states that an 'Independant tribunal' is required. DVLA cannot be independant from themselves.

Your points are valid re HRA and Buzby and myself have discussed this with out coming to a conclusion. I believe the HRA applies, Buzby thinks not. I did actually use the HRA as part of a defence but the case was thrown out before we got to that point. If you really want to throw everything into the mix then as DVLA are working on behalf of the Crown any attempt to subvert the law and replace it with (DVLA) policy cannot be tolerated by a court as it would undermine our whole legal system but I doubt that one would wash either. As far as I know DVLA stil do not offer the right to appeal.

They are not non-compliant due to an oversight they are non-compliant because it makes DVLA's job easier due to not having to maintain paperwork and yes I can prove it. Even the new ones aren't complaint but I'm not going in to why they aren't. I don't know if you ever saw this not very well publicised news report... DVLA under scrutiny over penalty notice dating game ? The Register but thats me. DVLA have known about this for quite some time but tried to hide it. The Secretary of state for transport refused to investigate it, all he did was ask DVLA if they were behaving to which they said yes and he said oh good. Sadly no matter what I do, no matter what I win in court no one is interested in publicising the cases as it isn't as sexy as speeding fines. Even this site has consistantly ignored this matter. The fact is that even if it is just an oversight on DVLA's side they are prosecuting people for making and oversight. Unless DVLA follow the law to the letter they fall foul of the civil procedure rules and shouldn't be able to progress the case according to Judge Armon-Harper.

If you are referring to my cases then no they were in County Court so no precedent was set BUT DVLA changed their SORN LLP's so backing the judges decision.

Hi Buzby Yes a lot has but the notices sent up until about 3 months ago were all non-compliant regardless. The OP is beating his head against a wall for nothing if he thinks what he has will help him but the non-compliance will if he can get his head around it. After one of my cases DVLA were forced by a judges ruling to change the LLP's because of their non-compliance yet they are still putting through prosecutions knowing the paperwork is wrong, a clear case of abuse of process.

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2003 Amendment of the principal Regulations 2. In the principal Regulations after regulation 9 within Part II there shall be inserted - " Supplement payable on late renewal of vehicle licence 9A. - (1) Where paragraph (2) applies a supplement of the amount prescribed in paragraph (3) shall be payable. (2) This paragraph applies where - (a) a vehicle licence taken out for a vehicle expires, (b) no vehicle licence was issued for the vehicle before the end of a period of one month beginning with the date of that expiry, and © the registered keeper has failed to comply with requirements contained in Schedule 4. (3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40. (4) The supplement shall be payable by the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the 1994 Act at the date of the expiry of the licence by reason of whose late renewal the supplement becomes payable.".

Section 7a vehicle excise and registration act 1994 7A Supplement payable on [F2 vehicle ceasing to be appropriately covered] (1) Regulations may make provision for a supplement of a prescribed amount to be payable [F3 where— (a) a vehicle has ceased to be appropriately covered, (b) the vehicle is not, before the end of the relevant prescribed period, appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) below with effect from the time immediately after it so ceased or appropriately covered as mentioned in paragraph (d) of that subsection, and © the circumstances are not such as may be prescribed.] [F4 (1A) For the purposes of this section and section 7B a vehicle is appropriately covered if (and only if)— (a) a vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle, (b) the vehicle is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force and a nil licence is in force in respect of it, © the vehicle is an exempt vehicle that is not one in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force, or (d) the vehicle is neither kept nor used on a public road and the declarations and particulars required to be delivered by regulations under section 22(1D) have been delivered in relation to it in accordance with the regulations within the immediately preceding period of 12 months. (1B) Where a vehicle for or in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force is transferred by the holder of the vehicle licence to another person, the vehicle licence is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1A) as no longer in force unless it is delivered to the other person with the vehicle. (1C) Where— (a) an application is made for a vehicle licence for any period, and (b) a temporary licence is issued pursuant to the application, subsection (1B) does not apply to the licence applied for if, on a transfer of the vehicle during the currency of the temporary licence, the temporary licence is delivered with the vehicle to the transferee. (1D) In subsection (1)(b) “the relevant prescribed period” means such period beginning with the date on which the vehicle ceased to be appropriately covered as is prescribed.] (2) A supplement under this section— (a) shall be payable by such person, or jointly and severally by such persons, as may be prescribed; (b) shall become payable at such time as may be prescribed; © may be of an amount that varies according to the length of the period between— [F5 (i) the time of a notification (in accordance with regulations under section 7B(1)) to, or in relation to, a person by whom it is payable, and (ii) the time at which it is paid.] (3) A supplement under this section that has become payable— (a) is in addition to any vehicle excise duty charged in respect of the vehicle concerned; (b) does not cease to be payable by reason of [F6 the vehicle being again appropriately covered] after the supplement has become payable; © may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

You are probably not aware that in a court case at the Central London County Court 18/07/09 Secretary of state for transport~V~E.T.A. DVLA's old LLP notices were ruled to be Non-compliant with the law. If your original LLP has only 28 days between the letter date and the final date to pay the reduced amount it is non-compliant. DVLA have since changed their SORN LLP's in an attempt to make them compliant. AS DVLA's haven't followed the rules to the letter the penalty as it stands is in theory unenforcable. Following the case of Secretary of state for transport~V~James Collins held at the Clerkenwell County Court on the 26/10/09 District Judge Armon-Jones held that DVLA DO have to follow the law to the letter.

You are only required to notify DVLA about the transfer, waiting for a confimation letter is DVLA policy not law. The DVLA may say you have to 'deliver to the Secretary of state' but this is covered under s7 interpretations act 1978 as 'any other expression'. The interpretations act 1978 is your friend, use it.

That's why I spend so much time telling them how bad they are.

DVLA are telling a little lie their to cover their inability to maintain an accurate database. You only have to notify them not wait for them to update details.

Had a SORN notification this morning and on the back it says it is an offence (although doesn't say a criminal one) with a fine of £1000 or more.

I've also heard a rumour about a clause slipped through in an unrelated act about making it illegal to hide number plates from cameras and electronic recording devices but can't find it so ny suggestions would be helpful.

Because it was seen by the Magistrates as unfair and unwarranted so the £40/£80 was introduced. My point was you could and can still be taken to Magistrates court which suggests it is criminal and the law gives the option of it being recovered as a debt which to me also suggests it is criminal. Must admit I am enjoying this, just wish others would join in.

The £40/£80 penalty was introduced as the magistrates association considered the FINE of a minimum £1000 unfair. As I understand it the DVLA still have the power to put you before a magistrate.

The Magistrate's Blog

Then why do DVLA think the HRA applies? Section 7A of VERA 1994 also states... 3© may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown. Using the word 'may' means it may be recovered as a debt to the Crown not it IS a debt to the Crown. SORN was originally prosecuted in Magistrates Courts.

Not so sure about that. It is as I understand it a criminal offence that may be recovered as a debt to the Crown. In fact in this reply to an FOI request DVLA state that their policy in regards to how they enforce the SORN regulations IS in line with the Human rights act. Appeal of Continuous Registration Penalty Charges - WhatDoTheyKnow Which rather suggests it is applicable. Please explain why you think it isn't?

Are DVLA dodging the human rights act in relation to SORN? I'm going to put some arguments forward and I would like people to argue them politely. Article 6: Right to a fair trial (1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. (2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. (3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights - (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; © to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. If you receive an FPN from the Police you can either pay it or elect to go to court. If you receive a parking ticket you can either pay it or elect to appeal to PATA's. When you receive a SORN LLP (late licensing penalty) you have to wait for DVLA to take it to court, you cannot decide to take it there. Does this remove your entitlement to a full a fair hearing? If everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed Innocent until proven guilty how can DVLA refer the matter to a DCA before a court hearing? There will be more to come but please discuss.

Then the obvious question is how do they know you have passed?

Now that is VERY VERY interesting. Thank you.

I've been in a long argument with the DVLA over SORN penalties (LLP's), I believe DVLA have failed to be compliant with the law since about March 2004. There's a news report on it here Clicky What it comes down to is as follows, DVLA have failed to understand the law in regards to service. The laws governing service are the interpretations act 1974, section 7 which states the following... 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. So basically you can't know about something until you receive it. DVLA issues Late licensing penalties using section 9a road vehicle (registration and licensing) (amendment) (no.3) regulations 2002 which takes it's lead from the interpretations act in regard to service. Supplement payable on late renewal of vehicle licence 9A. - (1) Where paragraph (2) applies a supplement of the amount prescribed in paragraph (3) shall be payable. (2) This paragraph applies where - (a) a vehicle licence taken out for a vehicle expires, (b) no vehicle licence was issued for the vehicle before the end of a period of one month beginning with the date of that expiry, and © the registered keeper has failed to comply with requirements contained in Schedule 4. (3) The supplement shall be £80, except when it is paid to the Secretary of State before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date on which the registered keeper is notified that a supplement may or has become payable, when it shall be £40. (4) The supplement shall be payable by the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the 1994 Act at the date of the expiry of the licence by reason of whose late renewal the supplement becomes payable.". Problem is the law states you have 28 days to pay from the day you are notified yet DVLA date the 28 days from the date they print the letter. To add to this there is the following FOI request Clicky Basically in this FOI request DVLA admit they send SORN LLP's by different types of mail service for service with varying times for the LLP's to enter the post system, they don't record what service is used, what date the LLP's are posted nor even retain proof that they were posted for more than 3 months as the records are overwritten. To add even further to this I can prove DVLA are losing mail internally, a SORN declaration sent by Recorded delivery was lost after being signed for within DVLA. This instance led to this FOI request Clicky where DVLA admit they don't count reports of missing mail as missing unless it is submitted in written form to the Customer services team. Everyone who has complained on the phone doesn't have their complaint recorded. So with all this in mind I am being taken to court by DVLA for my refusal to pay their penalties, what tack do people think I should take?

you may wish to have a look at this FOI question. In it DVLA admit that although only 91 formal complaints were made about items going missing within DVLA the true number is much higher as they don't record an item as missing unless you make a formal complaint in writing that is specifically about the missing item. Internally lost mail and SORN declarations - WhatDoTheyKnow