As I've said on a number of occasions, talking through your defence with party who is taking you to court isn't always a wise course of action!

Very nice work Bill. All the best, N.

Sounds like another case of a Debt Collection Agent acting well beyond what's allowed. One trick to take the 'sting' out of an aggressive DCA is to ask for the name of the person who you are talking to. They'll most likely hang up especially if they have already show any kind of aggression since they will not want you naming them in any potential complaint. Also ask for the name and address of their regulator. The DCA cannot offer legal advice on what represents a 'valid defence'. All they need to know is that you are contesting the DVLA's penalty - this should mean that they pass the matter back to the DVLA, the DCA should not be pursuing a contested 'debt' when there is no court ruling. Of course this isn't what the DCA wants to do so they'll probably just keep chasing you regardless of what they are supposed to do. Don't worry about the DCA, they have absolutely zero powers in terms of what they can do to to you. If they contact you again then just toy with them and waste their time. The bad news is that the DVLA have no formal appeals process which carries any judicial power. With that in mind there is next to no use in entering into prolonged discussions with them. Most of the time they'll ignore the real points which you make in your letters because the law doesn't suit their position on the matter. If I was you I would send one letter explaining the facts. Offer to let them take the matter to court if required. You have clearly notified them and that is where your legal obligation ends. There is nothing in law which requires you to follow the matter up. There are plenty of people on this board who will help you. Hope this helps. N.

You haven't answered the question! Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? Which section of the V5 did you send to the DVLA?

Basically you need to be 100% certain of the dates involved. Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? If so then you would appear to be in the clear. It could be that the DVLA are claiming a period of non tax (or SORN) between the date that the tax expired and the date that you informed them that the vehicle had been scrapped. It seems odd that the DVLA have acknowledged the scrapping of the car but then sent a LLP.

That letter from the DCA appears to be illegal. They keep saying that you "must pay" but that isn't technically true since there is no judgement against you and, as a result, there are several other avenues available to you besides paying them. Of course they don't make mention of these other avenues because they know that this may result in them not getting paid! The threats made regarding clamping are completely untrue and I would suggest that they have no legal right to clamp the vehicle at this stage of proceedings - this appears to be a fairly clear breach of industry guidelines. You may find this document useful.... http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/debt-letters.pdf You'll see that the DCA appears to have broken quite a few of the rules and as such I suggest that an official complaint is in order to their regulator or to the OFT. One also has to ask why a Government body such as the DVLA is in bed with such an organisation. With regard to your case... If the DVLA listen (and put matters right) then all well and good. My advice is not to get into a long winded series of letters between you and them, you are only wasting your time (as well has highlighting your potential defence if the matter did come to court.) If your explanation to them doesn't do the trick then let them proceed to court where you will be able to make them look like complete fools. Simply write to the DVLA stating that you informed them of the change of Keeper at the correct time and therefore you consider that you are not liable for a LLP on a vehicle which was no longer yours. N.

If it was me then I'd be claiming for the entire fee (£169) as there is a clear breach on contract on the part of the driving school or instructor. You'd need to look carefully at who your contract was with as this is very important in terms of the law. To whom was the money actually paid and what was written on the receipt? When you buy goods or services you are allowed to have a reasonable expectation as to the quality that you are expecting. In this case it is clear that the level of service has not met even the most basic standard. The fact that he has taken you for a number of lessons makes no difference since you paid for service as a whole, the actual lessons only make up part of the complete service. If you are still interested in learning to drive then it may well be worth contacting the driving school with your gripe first. Tell them about your concerns. Say that you feel badly let down. I suggest that you ask them for a new 10 part course but with a different and more reliable instructor. Write down any exchanges which you have with the driving school since the courts always look more favourably on cases where the plaintiff has made a clear and reasonable effort to resolve matters before taking any court action - record times and dates etc. Also, ask the driving school if they are a member of any professional body and what their complaints procedure is. Once they realise that you are serious about pushing the matter further I would expect the driving school to satisfy your demands. N.

It sounds very much like the court have found against you in your absence. You should establish with the court exactly what has occured thus far and then work from there. If what you say is true, and you can show that you updated the DVLA records correctly, then you should be able to get things overturned.

Sorry, been away sunning myself for a couple of weeks! Number6, you need to fight fire with when you get a Judge like the one you got! Remember that he said that he would only be looking at the actual wording contained in the Act itself? Well, the act itself doesn't mention the DVLA. Instead it talks about the 'Secretary Of State'. So far as I am aware, the Secretary of State (For Transport) is an actual person and not an organisation. On that basis you could give any Judge a fairly serious problem if they persevered with their stance on what the term ‘deliver’ actually meant. If they were unmoved on what the term meant then you could insist that each and every term or sentence contained within the Act should be interpreted in exactly the same literal and inflexible manner. In the same way that the term ‘service by post’ is not mentioned directly within the Act, you could claim that the DVLA are not directly mentioned either. The Judge would have to apply his finding to the whole sentence (where the Act states that ‘you must deliver the document to the Secretary Of State’), he couldn’t simply apply it to the terms or words which suited him best whilst completely ignoring others. I imagine that this would create a fairly serious problem for any Judge since he would be angling toward an outcome (judgement) which would basically require people to physically place documentation into the hand of the Secretary Of State himself – taking it to a DVLA office would not be enough since the DVLA are not mentioned in the Act and therefore giving it to the DVLA does not fulfil the exact obligation which the Act itself lays out.

But in my case the DVLA informed a Debt Collection Agent that I owed them £80. The implication being that a judgement on the matter had already been reached when that was not the case since I had refused to accept the LLP. Under your interpretation 'the cart is before the horse' in so much as the debt occurs before the court hearing. Therefore the DVLA's position in court is one where they are seeking what amounts to, in legal terms, as ratification. This almost makes it seem like you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise and allows the DVLA to take the higher legal ground based purely on the fact that 'you are guilty because our perfectly maintained database says you are.' You say that VERA gives the DVLA right to create the debt and then claim it. I would disagree with that. You then state that "this is not a judgement" on the part of the DVLA. I would then question you on the following... What is the pivotal moment at which the debt occurs? How do they 'create the debt' if they have no judicial powers? A debt has legal significance and this significance is being overlooked / ignored by the DVLA which is to the detriment of the accused. The fact is that there is a point in time in any LLP situation where the DVLA decide / judge / consider / conclude that the £80 penalty / fine is due for what amounts to a failing on the part of the vehicle keeper. Before that moment occurs no debt exists. After that moment a debt is deemed to exist. The problem is that due process has not been followed. Every defendant has the right to a fair hearing before the fine / penalty / debt is bestowed. In my opinion, whilst the DVLA might be within their right to issue an LLP the defendant has every right to refute the LLP. Since neither party has a judicial power neither party can prevail over the other without a judicial hearing of some kind. Therefore, the legal status quo remains exactly as it was before the LLP was issued and as such no fine or penalty can be deemed to exist since, if a fine did now exist, one party would have an unfair advantage over the other.

Sorry, been away for a few days. This is certainly an interesting debate. I respect your views but, in my opinion, you seem reliant on the fact that the DVLA have the judicial power to find someone ‘guilty’ for the offence of ‘not procuring a vehicle licence’ (ie neither taxing or SORNing a vehicle at the correct time) or words to that effect. In my particular case they sent me an LLP a couple of months after the previous SORN had run out. I’d sent the new SORN declaration by post around three weeks before the old SORN was due to run out. They still issued me with a LLP even though technically (according to the DVLA) I had neither valid tax nor SORN on the vehicle at that particular period of time. It was the LLP dropping through the letterbox which alerted me to the fact that something was wrong. SORN on that particular vehicle was only re-established when I wrote to the DVLA specifying that I had already made a SORN declaration which they seemed not to have acted on. Needless to say, I refused to pay the £80 fine. The DVLA used that particular letter as ‘SORN notification’ and issued me with the new SORN certificate. However, they maintained that I still owed the fine since I didn’t check with them after four weeks. So my point is this; whatever way you dress it up, the DVLA, in effect, use whatever information they have at their disposal to spot when an alleged offence (breach of regulations) has taken place. Obviously, in doing this, they are assuming that their information is 100% correct and up to date at all times. Having spotted the alleged offence they instantaneously pronounce their ‘judgement’ on the matter and issue the LLP. In other words, the DVLA have, at that precise moment, turned an 'allegation’ into a ‘conviction’ (or words to that effect) and a fine / penalty is now due. I’m sure by now that you’re starting to understand my point. In order to turn an allegation into such a conviction you would need to have judicial powers. The DVLA are not afforded these powers, they are simply a government body like any other. Therefore, any fine or penalty issued by them cannot be deemed to be binding since they have not gone through due legal process in order to claim that a debt now exists.

But my point is being missed. It doesn't really matter whether it is Magistrates Court or County Court, your rights remain the same (ie those afforded under 'English Bill of Rights'.) What does it say on the Summons Document with regard to the allegation against you? It's generally 'failure to ensure Continuous Registration'? As opposed to 'Failure to pay a Late Licensing Penalty'. In other words, they're not taking you to court to 'recover a debt' as you are implying? Instead they're taking people to court to answer the allegation which lead to the LLP being dished out in the first place. That's the critical point. And this is why the LLP is nothing more than an offer of out-of-court settlement. I understand the point which you are making but you seem to be overlooking the rights which the accused has to a fair trial.

If you read through the various threads then you'll see that most of the cases reported go to a Magistrates Court (at least in the first instance). This shows that the case against the motorist is unproven at that specific moment in time. I don't think that a Magistrate can force you to pay the LLP, all he can do is find you guilty of not ensuring CR. The Magistrate will then issue you with a fine. Due legal process has now occurred and this fine is now technically a debt. Under the Code of English Law you have the right to appear in court without the financial burden (aka the penalty / fine ) attached to you. In other words, you cannot be deemed to owe the money until the case has been heard and the verdict delivered. Obviously it gets complicated but, if an LLP was indeed a financial penalty placed against you prior to a judicial hearing then your rights under the English Bill of Rights would have been fairly clearly violated. We know that in any such situation you are always afforded the right to a court hearing. Therefore, based on that fact we also know that any fine or penalty issued before that point cannot be binding and as such an LLP, at the moment of issue by the DVLA, cannot be considered a debt. For them to suggest that it is is a clear case of Ultra Vires.

Stan, Your best bet would be to start your own thread where you can outline the individual aspects of your case so that others can pick up on things and offer advice. I've had personal dealings with Inter Credit International (ICI) and I also found them to be very rude. All they seemed interested in was processing my payment. When I said that I wouldn't be paying them they turned quite hostile. However, once I raised issues regarding their processes (I asked how they had double checked that the alleged debt existed) their stance changed a little. I specified to them that I didn't believe any such debt existed and as such them sending me a letter stating that a debt did exist was an illegal act on their part. They promptly said that they'd be returning the matter to the DVLA. When I asked ICI for the contact details for their regulator they hung-up. Job done and ICI never contacted me again. The DVLA should be able to provide you with some specifics regarding your case. If it's a SORN issue then it should be very straight forward - that they have recorded a gap of some kind in the Continuous Registration of the stated vehicle. Most of the time this gap appears to be down to the DVLA's inability to process the paperwork correctly. If you sent the DVLA the correct paperwork then it is down to the DVLA to prove that you didn't. Of course, as we all know, the DVLA will try and see things the other way, that it is your job to prove that you sent the paperwork. However, the law is on our side and ultimately the DVLA will have a mountain to climb to prove any of these cases. The bottom line is that you don't need to be qualified to beat the DVLA, you simply need to establish exactly what your defence is against their allegations.

I don't disgaree that the LLP is a civil debt but only when you (the accused) accept the terms of the out-of-court settlement contained within the LLP notice. This is the aspect that the DVLA / DCA's try so hard to disguise. Until acceptance has occurred the LLP is purely an offer of out-of-court settlement. At that point no debt exists. It's no different to the situation contained within a Fixed Penalty Notice which the police might dish out for speeding, again a FPN is an 'offer' of out-of-court settlement for the alleged offence. You may accept, reject or ignore the 'offer' as you see fit. In this instance the person in question has stated that she ignored the initial LLP so we can be 100% sure that she hasn't accepted the offer of out-of-court settlement. The fact is this, if the DVLA wanted to issue legally enforceable fines / penalties (debts) against people then they would need judicial powers in order to do so. Clearly they do not have those powers otherwise there would be no need to take people to Court on the grounds of 'Failing to maintain continuous registration', instead they'd take people to Court for an enforcement order to recover an already existing debt.

Firstly, ignore that dude who claims to be from the Court system as he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. As Raykay has pointed out, what you have been issued with is an LLP (Late Licencing Penalty). as far as I have been able to establish (going back four to five years over various cases) a LLP is not (in the eyes of the law) a legally enforceable debt. If you read the LLP notice carefully you should be able to see this. However, the DVLA do all they can (even down to some of the wording on the LLP) to make you believe that you have already been identified and 'convicted' of the alleged offence. What the LLP actually is is an 'offer' by the DVLA to settle the alleged offence on an out-of-court basis (emphasis on the word 'offer'!) In order for the 'offer' to become a 'debt' you would have to 'accept' the 'offer'. You have stated that you ignored the initial letter from the DVLA and therefore, in law, you would be deemed (so far) as not to have 'accepted' the 'offer' from the DVLA of out-of-court-settlement. I hope that you are following so far. As you clearly have not accepted their offer no debt exists. The DVLA do not have the power to make the LLP into a debt as they are not a judicial body, only a court of law can do that. The DVLA consistently overstate their powers in this respect and because of this it is clear that may people simply pay up because they believe that they have been 'fined' in the same way that a court of law issues a fine. This appears to be the situation in your case - you appear to believe that you already owe the £80? At the moment, if all you have said is true and up to date, I would suggest that you actually owe nothing in terms of 'debt'. Even if you admit guilt there is nothing which binds you to accept the offer contained within the LLP. When the DVLA informed a Debt Collecting Agent (that you owed a 'debt') the DVLA appear to have actually broken the law since technically no debt actually exists - all that exists at this point are an 'allegation' (that you failed to tax your vehicle or SORN it) and an 'offer' from the DVLA to settle the allegation on an out-of-court-basis. Again, the DVLA take this approach and blatantly flout the law because it pays them to do so. It would appear to be all about results. Many people see the letter marked 'Bailiff' or 'Debt Collector' and panic and thus the DVLA swiftly receive their payment because the letter moves many people well beyond their comfort zone. My advice would be to save up (assuming that is only going to take a month or two) and then offer to pay the £80. In the meantime you are within your rights to telephone the Debt Collection Agent and tell him that no debt exists since you have not accepted the DVLA's offer of an out-of-court-settlement. You don't need to go into details with the DCA, simply tell them that they are acting illegally and specify that you will make a formal complaint to their regulator if they contact you again over the matter. The DCA will run for the hills since they know that they are on very thin ice since they haven't bothered to correctly check the records to see if the debt is recorded against you (which I understand they must do before chasing you). The DCA risks being investigated or struck off if you complain since they don't appear to be following the correct protocol - the DVLA cannot register the debt without taking the matter to court! Put simply, it's highly unlikely that the DVLA will take you to court in the time it takes you to save up the £80. Let us all know how you go.

It's a good letter and you've got all the main points across. But I doubt it will be enough for the DVLA. There's two reasons that I say this, firstly because the DVLA claim that "everyone could just say that they posted the document." And, secondly, having spoken to the DVLA on several occasions I can tell you that most of their staff do not understand either the process of law or the legal points which we are making. You'll probably get another letter back which rebuts some of the points which you raise. They'll still probably expect to be paid! If you don't pay they'll bully you further and provide you with incorrect legal advice (along the lines of, 'specifying that you posted the document is not a valid defence'). When that happened to me I wrote back to them and stated that I wouldn't be entering into further dialogue with them. At first they informed a Debt Collecting Agent that I owed them money. Of course this was an illegal action on the part of the DVLA as no debt existed since a LLP is, in law, merely 'an offer' of out-of-court settlement for the suggested offence of not SORNing. A quick phone call to the DCA saw them off when I pointed out that what they were doing was illegal since the DCA hadn't bothered to check whether a debt actually existed. The DCA promptly returned the matter to the DVLA. In the end the DVLA threatened me with court action but they bottled it when they realised that I was prepared to go that far. I'm guessing that they choose to focus their resources on the 90% of people who just pay regardless.

Section 23 specifically says "notify" rather than deliver. Section 23 also says "or otherwise in writing". Both points, especially the second part, blow the Judges comments out of the water. It's hardly likely (reasonable) that you can satisfy section 23 by posting the infomation whilst not being able to satisfy section 22 in the same manner. In order for the Judge's comments to hold true that would have to be the case. The Judge has simply sought to take a small specific line of text from Section 22 / 23 and use it completely out of context. In the UK the Royal Mail is considered to be a secure way of serving / delivering documents and the Interpretation Act makes that clear. With all due respect, for a County Court Judge to have little or no understanding of this appears to be nothing short of ridiculous. Secondly, it appears to me to be grossly unfair for the Judge to specify that only the legal arguments could be considered. This is perhaps where having specialist legal representation may have paid off. It simply isn't reasonable for 'The Act' to contain everything with regard to the delivery of documents. As time move forwards the possible methods of delivery may change (email for example) so it's not feasable for individual Acts to cover all methods of delivery. The methods (of delivery) which the DVLA themselves set out have to be considered when judging the case - that is pure common sense. Thirdly, the Judge doesn't appear to have considered either the wording of the Interpretation Act itself or the purpose of the Act itself. The Interpretation Act uses 'OR logic' where it states "Where an Act authorises OR requires any document to be served by post" - whilst it's possible for the Judge to argue that Section 22 or 23 doesn't specificly state that a 'document being served by post is a requirement', it is not possibe for the Judge to state that the Road Vehicles Act does not "authorise" service by post. If you read the Interpretation Act carefully you'll see that there are two aspects to the logic in the sentence and that those two aspects are seperated by the word 'OR'. The judgement handed out only appears to cover the second half of the logical requirement of the statement. The defendant is clearly relying on the first part of the sentence and that is perfectly reasonable given that the DVLA themselves specify that service by post is acceptable to them - service by post is clearly an 'authorised' method of delivering the documents even if it's not a 'requirement'. Fourthly, the Judge is blantantly ignoring the actual wording of the Interpretation Act in order to produce his out-of-context interpretation of the Road Vehicle Act - The Interpretation Act covers the caveat which the Judge is trying to invoke where the Act states, "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)". In this particular case the Road Vehicle Act uses the words "deliver" and "notify" which clearly, when placed in context, fall into the catagory 'any other experession'. Fifthly, if the Judge is to believed (and the Road Vehicle Act or any other Act is to be taken literally) then one could reasonably argue that there is no requirement to actually send any document where the term 'put in writing' is used. Simply writing it down would be enough.

Ignore them! Provided that you happy to go to court (it's unlikely to go that far) and say that you posted the notification. There is sweet FA that the DVLA can do about it as you have discharged your duty at that point. Pivotal in your case would be the DVLA's apparent argument that they can effectively 'roll back' your discharging of 'duty to notify' which quite frankly would be funny to hear. Their solicitor would be laughed out of court!

It's a fair point which you make Old Bill. But, after a few long winded conversations with senior staff at the DVLA I can tell you that the DVLA are living largely in their own little world which is extremely well insulated from the outside world (including the laws of the outside world). My friend, this is the real problem and it's largely systemic. In conversation with them I established that they choose to ignore The Interpretation Act simply because it would make their job impossible. Their view is that people could claim to have sent documents for each and every LLP which is sent out and, because the Interpretation Act favours the motorist far more than it favours the DVLA, they have no choice but to ignore that aspect of the law and press ahaed with trying to enforce their fines / penalties etc without giving their clients the full story. It's hard to know whether this can be considered to be 'acting beyond the law' in it's truest sense? If more motorists took legal advice they could find a lot of this stuff out for themselves. My guess is that most fall into the trap of believing the DVLA hype due to the DLVA overstating it's actual powers.

I agree 100%, in fact, debt collectors should have no involvement in any matter where liability is unproven. So, in terms of LLP's, the DVLA should send a letter to the Registered Keeper saying 'Your car isn't taxed or SORNed blah blah blah' and offer the £80 penalty for quick resolution. If the RK doesnt respond then the DVLA should assume that the RK hasn't accepted the offer of quick resolution and take the matter forward to court for a hearing. Instead the DVLA appear to hire debt collectors to effectively try and bully people into accepting the offer of quick resolution, this in my opinion is probably illegal as the DVLA are actually provoking the debt collector into breaking their regulations.

It is a debt to the Crown if proven, that's for sure, but I'm doubtful that the mere issuing of a LLP by the DVLA would constitute a debt if the person receiving the LLP refuses to accept the penalty? There may be an element of 'grey area' here but given the size of the fine (£80 odd in most cases) it would be hard for the authorities to show that the LLP was anything other than a 'financial penalty' of some kind - this, according to statute law (Code of Law), requires a judical body to judge the case in order for the penalty to be binding on the individual.

Like SM the DVLA promised me 'my day in court' but alas they completely bottled it. The truth is that they perfer to focus on the 90%+ of people who just give in and pay the fixed penalty or roll over once the 'bullyboy' letters start arriving. My advice differs a little from the advice set out by others; I suggest that you do very little to humor these DVLA people. There is little point in humoring them anyway as they will consistantly overstate their powers to a point where they effectively take on the roll of a judical body. In my opinion it is far better to simply inform the DVLA that you have satisfied your obligations so far as the law is concerned. If the DVLA write back then you can take great pleasure in informing them that you will not be entering a dialogue with them as you have done everything which the law demands of you. If / when the letter arrives from the debt collector then phone them (the debt collector) and specify that no debt exists. Specify to the debt collector that you will make a formal complaint against them if they contact you again. Explain that a Penalty Notice is merely 'an offer' of quick resolution and is not some kind of enforceable fine (debt). The debt collector is bound by a fairly strict code of conduct which means that he cannot persue you if dispute that the debt actually exists. They will have no choice but to pass the matter back to the DVLA. In theory the DVLA should not be passing your information to the debt collectors anyway since no debt legally exists. Also, the debt collector should, in theory, take steps to ensure that any instructions to act are valid and that a debt does legally exist - both bodies would appear to be ignoring regulations for their own combined purposes. Hope this helps, N.

Sweeney Todd - The bit where they say "you must pay the £80 penalty" is unqualified legal advice. What they really mean is "you dont have to pay the £80 if you dont want to and you are quite entitled to take the matter to court where our client (the DVLA) will have a rather difficult job proving that you are guilty of the offence" I would now ignore all letters from these DCA morons. N.

GWC1000 – I agree with you 100%. I alluded to something similar on another thread a month or two back. Someone also posted an excerpt from what looked like an internal DVLA document / memo where someone at the DVLA was stating how poor their results were from direct court action. On that basis I’d say that it was reasonably clear that the DCA method is purely a ‘tactic’ on their part. It’s nothing more than the [problem] / numbers game which works along the same lines as the “horse racing tipster [problem]” where the organiser knows that a certain percentage of people will respond to the first / second / third letter if they can convince the potential punter that something is true. If what the DVLA sets out in their letters / specifies on the advice lines was completely true then their court cases would have exceedingly high rates of success and, as you correctly point out, would pretty much do away with the need for a DCA and its threatening letters. Effectively the use of the DCA exposes the real weakness which the DVLA have in these types of cases. A good friend of mine (he’s a contracts specialist) also raised a valid question surrounding the DVLA and a Data Protection Act issue – he’s asking if the DVLA realise that they breaking the DPA when they reveal defendants names and addresses to DCA’s prior to cases being proven in court? This information should be protected by law. The law only appears to allow the DVLA (secretary Of State) to make an offer of out of court settlement to the defendant. N.