What right do I have to access the banks records of our account? We have been constantly on the move so have not kept banking records. I simply complained from time to time to keep the bank on its toes but it was always in control of what if anything it refunded which I had to accept. If I had the records I am sure I could show that a large amount has been charged that should not have been.

I am a satisfied customer of MBNA why would anybody sign without knowing what the complaint is?

What a dismal tale. Did anybody actually refer to law or was it simply the DVLA's interpretation of it? I am in court today and hope to be able to report a better result based on my case, which is not about missing SORNs but DVLA's interpretation of law, which they seem to believe they can manipulate to achieve their ends. Has anybody actually seen any law that supports the idea that the law allows no gaps in what is called continuous registration? How is it the DVLA permits itself a four week gap before acknowledging the receipt of a SORN? If they throw it in the bin it is an automatic revenue earner the Keeper cannot disprove. Does that sound right? Has anybody appealed a County Court Judgement against them on such a blatant injustice? This Hansard extract Lords Hansard text for 14 Nov 2003 (231114-01) Shows the idea was to catch criminals not fill up the coffers but that is what it has become. Perhaps it is a job for your new MPs? If the bully boys have control on the roads appealing to the DVLA will not work as this makes clear. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sorn_decelerations_failure_to_re As can be seen from this the purpose of the legislation is not law enforcement but revenue collection. Indeed concerns were expressed about that when the ACT was introduced. So far it seems Judges simply accept what the DVLA tells them. Please pray for me today that my arguments will not fall on deaf ears and be seen by blind eyes.

For what it is worth, my view is that claims of that sort need to be treated with caution. It is my practice, to ask those who make such assertions, to ask for the legal basis of the statement i.e. the law, not their interpretation of it. I find that results in avoidance or evasion by those making the claim. Naturally DVLA and those who have an interest in supporting the party line (because they benefit from it) will interpret whatever favours their preference.

Thank you for this but; The new Section 31A(1) provides that where a vehicle is unlicensed, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence That is the nub of it. The offence is not specified. It is whatever the DVLA chooses to call it, which in my case is 'Falure to relicense' There is no licence to keep a vehicle per se, only an obligation to register one. The vehicle is still registered even though not licensed. DVLA knows where to find the keepers, so what is the problem? A vehicle license is the authority to keep and use a vehicle on a public road. That is not required to keep a vehicle off the road. DVL A has interpreted the law to suit its purpose, which is revenue collection. If there were an offence I had a right to be told what it is but I was not, though I did ask. 2. I know that using an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is unlawful but I did not do that. The claimed debt is invalid. I did not fail to relicense a vehicle I had no obligation to.

Very interesting. Just what DVLA would write. Do you suggest this is a matter of split second timing? If so could you perhaps provide the legal basis of that opinion?

This is getting out of hand. Why was the car moved onto the road? Was it awaiting collection by a scrap merchant? What does a vehicle keeper who has no private land to park their vehicle on do with it while it is awaiting spares for instance? What use is a SORN, if it does not permit a person to park their vehicle on the road, while it is awaiting return to use? in my view this is a direct attack on the poorest members of society who are in the greatest need of help and support. Are those people who have been making false claims for expenses really serious in treating those they allegedly represent in this way? Clearly the only purpose of a SORN is to extort payments from the most vulnerable members of society by harassment and threats. What other use can it have? In my ignorance I believed a SORN was a commitment not to use the car, not to make it disappear from the road, which we all pay for even though not keeping a vehicle. Is it the latest new tax trap, to recoup the losses of the financial services industry?

These are murky waters so nothing is absolutely clear. I have read in the fight back forum that DCAs cannot make a claim in court for an alleged debt belonging to the DVLA. Also that it is for the claimant to prove their case not the defendant to prove their innocence. I have seen reports that the DVLA does not always make an appearance in court but on the other hand DVLA lost a case in the Clerkenwell Court in October 2009 to 'sickpup' which was a dispute about whether or not a SORN was submitted, which the DVLA denied receiving. I have not seen the case details but you might find out more at this link. Bike Chat Forums : DVLA and SORNs I have a case of my own, but it is different. I admit returning a SORN late but challenge the claim of failing to re-licence made against me. The case is due on 12 May. I am suspicious of those who make threats and am a great believer in asking questions. I asked the DVLA to declare their lawful grounds for the claim it made against me. I got no answers. I think it should be simple to explain the grounds if they have a case. What DVLA does is interpret law to suit its own purpose which is revenue collection. There is general agreement that DVLA has got it badly wrong but very many pay up to avoid the bother, so there is a steady income stream for DCAs, DVLA and the Government to benefit from, by their tactics, which I believe amount to unlawful harassment. If the claim is valid and lawful, why does the DVLA resort to threats through their third party DCAs, I refer to as 'bully boys' and, why does it refuse to divulge what it claims to be the lawful basis of the claims? Everybody assumes if a Government Agency makes a claim it has to be right. I think not. There is a saying; 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' I believe DVLA has more power than it should have, and, many people are suffering from that. How many people have paid 'fines' they should not have? How many have had their cars wrongfully seized and crushed? The easiest targets are those who are already in debt but who need their vehicle most to get to work. How can they fight back? How can they resist the DCAs? If you have returned a SORN and prepared to swear to that in court, if necessary, the court will accept what you say is the truth, which means that DVLA's denial of receiving it will count for nothing, and, they will lose their case. I think that is what happened in sickpup's case. I think also the case was cut short before he could claim his costs. What a pity.

I do not believe the vehicle keepers need to prove they are not guilty. It is for DVLA to prove they are, which means a claim in a county court which is costly and time consuming. The pattern appears to be; even if DVLA makes a claim they do not attend the hearing. I believe it is enough the keeper states the SORN has been posted. A sworn statement made by a person is accepted as the truth. It is up to the DVLA to show it is not. How can they do that? I my case I argue the claim is out of time on this basis. s 50 Time-limit for recovery of underpayments and overpayments 1 No proceedings shall be brought— a. by the Secretary of State for the recovery of any underpayment of duty on a vehicle licence, or b. by any person for the recovery of any overpayment of duty on a vehicle licence taken out by him, after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the period in respect of which the licence was taken out’ You have passed the 12 month point so I think DVLA has rune out of time. I am going in to bat on 12 May and I will report on what happens. I freely admitted I made the mistake of not immediately completing a SORN but I am accused of not re licensing, not failing to declare SORN, which appears not to be a specified offence per se. I am however looking for other pitfalls that I may have discovered yet. I have trouble understanding how or why failing to re license a vehicle can be an offence when no licence is required to keep a vehicle out of use in a private garage.

It is a very fine (and weak) thread methinks !!! I still believe that DVLA is milking it for all it is worth not for law enforcement but enhanced revenue income.

I hope what is below is of assistance. If not my apology. I believe DVLA relies on bully boy tactics at every level and those who are prepared to resist may help others. May I say that only courts have the power to award fiines after an offence has been proved in a court of law. In my view what DVLA is doing is making doubtful demands for payment of penalties under duress; based on its prejudged interpretaion; of the Vehicle Excise Regulations Act 1994 (VERA) with other regulations,because their opinions are coloured by the fact DVLA is not an impartial body, but the major beneficiary of the revenue to be received from the enforcement of 'fines' using debt collection agencies (DCAs) while relying on harrasment; as a tool; to frighten; what the House of Lords members who drew up the legistaion referred to as 'Law abiding citizens'. In my view the entire process is flawed and open to question. Those who have vehicles off the road have commited no offence per se. Try asking the DVLA where it is laid down not making a SORN is an offence. Keeping and / or using a vehicle on a public road is an offence. Instead or arguing that one has been submitted which the DVLA deny receiving and then seek to place the burden of proof on law abiding vehicle keepers. Try asking instead, what offence in law is alleged I suggest that rather than attempting to prove innocence when proof of guilt falls to the accuser, those who have DVLA 'fines' should be asking simple questions. The first of which should be; 'What is the appeal process'? I have read in another forum, DVLA cannot delegate its claimed right to charge a penalty (fine) to DCAs (which despite the use of their logo are i believe not a civil service department). They can be politely told to run away, if they attempt to enforce the alleged debt, which the DCA does not own. If in pressing their claim DCAs resort to the sort of threats that have been used against vehicle keepers such as clamping etc. That I believe is very serious unlawful harrasment. Some argue that must involve the police because it is a criminal offence, but that is not the whole truth. There is a civil remedy provided for in the Protection From Harrasment Act as well. It is a matter for conjecture whether a Governmant Agency should need to resort to making threats, if it is engaged in the lawful activity, of collecting penalties provided for by law. The fact that it does places, at least in my mind, a doubt about the lawfullness of the process DVLA employs. Why for instance does it wait, as in my case, for six weeks before it follows up on what it describes as 'Failure to Relicense' a vehicle that has no tax liability. So what is the offence for which the penalty 'fine' has been claimed? A delay of 30 days ensures an enhanced penalty can be claimed for what? Is that the conduct of a law abiding Goverment Agency or profiteering? I suggest it is the latter. .

Have there been any further dvelopments on this subject and / or any cases that have been dealt with in a court of law? I have seen a reference to a case 'won' by a defendent vehicle keeper at the Clerkenwell County Court on 26 October 2009. Is there a record of that case that is accessable to the public? That case was about whether a SORN was received. I am more interested in where it ia laid down that a SORN must be completed by any partivular date. Any help on that would be gratefully received.

If I have incomplete records, what can I ask my bank to provide? How long are the records kept, and, in these days of E-mail, and, on line banking, providing full access to our bank records, should not be a problem should it? My complaints stretch over many years, and, revolve around automatic charges, for letters, notifying me of overdrawn accounts, lasting less than a day, in some cases, that came about, as a result of entering debits, on the account, before a credit on the same day. It is clear to me that the bank hopes that I will die or go away before they have to address the matter. Them BO has accepted the complaint for action. Presumably if I am not satisfied with the outcome I still have the option of resorting to law?

Fine, I have that, but; who claims that a SORN is a licence? If it is not, then who can accuse a keeper of 'late licensing' if they are late in returning one? The offence is late payment of VED is it not? What if no payment is due? I am sure we will get there in the end but when? Have you any view on this? s 50 of VERA 1994 which provides; Time-limit for recovery of underpayments and overpayments 1 No proceedings shall be brought— a. by the Secretary of State for the recovery of any underpayment of duty on a vehicle licence, or b. by any person for the recovery of any overpayment of duty on a vehicle licence taken out by him, after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the period in respect of which the licence was taken out’ Would you say DVLA has one year to claim a late licensing penalty for VED due not paid or six years to claim payment for what precisely?

My question remains, what does DVLA claim gives it the power to demand a penalty for not submitting immediately on or before the expiry of a VEL for a vehicle that is not in use or on a public road?

That's not an interpretation but the sort of generalisati9on it suits the DVLA to claim gives them rights and powers to harass law abiding citizens. Which part of VERA do you suggest provides DVLA with the power(s) they claim to have?

This is an interpretation of the law is it not? Whose is it?

Is is claimed that a SORN is a licence? If so what is it a licence for?

Fine but that relates to vehicles kept or used on public roads, not those kept or even used on private property. Where is the letter of the law that extends to private property?

Thank you but am I right in believing that the licence is to keep and/ or use a vehicle on a public road? If so a person who does not wish to keep or use a vehicle on a public road has not obligation to have a licence. Is that so?

Has anybody come up with the details of the alleged criminal offence of being the keeper of a vehicle for which there is no SORN?

This is a question of special interest to me. I believe there has been some manipulation of law going on and there is a tendency to accept apparently authoritative rumours and stataments as law. I even see references to 'absolute law' which I do not believe exists, except in the minds of those who have invented the phrase, and, like to make use of it. If there was such a thing as absolute law, what purpose would there be in having courts of law, and, judges, and, juries? As I understand it, fines are handed down by courts, of law, not the likes of the DVLA, which have been given powers, to collect penalties, for failure to comply with regulations, which are drawn up by parliament, to deal with administration of such things as Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). If anybody can show me a law that makes failure to declare SORN an offence, meriting a fine I would be very interested to see it. There is an offence of keeping and / or using a vehicle on a public road that attracts a fine BY A COURT OF LAW but I need convicing that DVLA has any right to issue a fine for anything. You have done precisely what any other motorist would do if they had a car they could not use. I believe the DVLA is taking advantage of its position of absolute power - as opposed to absolute law. to mislead car owners or keepers about the powers they actually have. If you have been told they have the power to fine; I suggest you ask to see proof of that. If they can actually show it, that would be interesting. They will not answer the question. I have been asking the DVLA for a very long time for proof of its claimed right to issue a penalty for allegedly not renewing a vehicle licence (failing to submit a SORN). It has not managed to do that. It has not even tried to. That I believe is because it cannot do that. When you state the car has 'been in a garage' do you mean yours or somewhere else? There is emphatically no requirement to tax a car that is not on the road or in use but I can well see an ambitious DVLA operative chasing a bonus perhaps, taking advantage of the innocence, (some might call it ignorance) of a vehicle owner or keeper who was unaware of the DVLA campaign to take advantage of the poorest vehicle owners, who have no place to keep their cars, save on the roads or in their gardens while they struggle to get them back on the road to go to work or take children to school. The clampers and snatchers have been having a field day, ripping off the poor, and defenceless, when the idea was DVLA would be fighting crime, long term vehicle excise duty evaders, abandoned cars. I have no legal qualifications but can read, and, as law is wriiten in English, accept what I can read and understand. I have read nothing that says not completing a SORN carries a fine. I have read that it is an offence not to declare SORN for a vehicle in use on the road but that is an offence under s 29 of VERA which does attract a fine but DVLA does not have that power only the courtst do. Perhaps some kind DVLA reader will explain where I am mistaken?

We agree! What matters is trying. I find my failures result in later changes that benefit others.

I have some experience in what you describe but as a soldier - no longer active; I was not taught how to give up; just as those who are now on duty in Afghanistan were not. I will fight on.

Thank you for that it seems I may have found what I have been looking for. It was indeed what I have been looking for. I am most grateful