Hi there you all, just to let you know, I was summonsed to County Court as I said on here, appeared and the DVLA did not, so case dismissed, a bit ****ed off at being messed about and feel they behaved as a bully, particularly as they didn't have the bottle to show. Didn't claim expenses as there were none really. There's a bit of me that wants to pursue them.

This is the written defence I am making in regard of the forthcoming Court Action. Please feel free to add any suggestions or correct spelling or grammar I have fulfilled my obligation to DVLA by informing them in March 2010 that I was no longer the Registered Keeper of Vehicle XXXXXXX. On the 02 March 2010 I traded this vehicle in exchange for another vehicle at XXXXXXX Motor Trader. On that day I posted the relevant yellow tabbed section of Vehicle XXXXXX V5 document off by first class post to DVLA Swansea therefore fulfilling my obligations to DVLA in regard of that vehicle. The DVLA’s Late Licencing Penalty notice in respect of vehicle XXXXXX is invalid. I have had continuing correspondence with them in regard to this matter where I have fully explained my position several times. I was not in a position to relicence or SORN this vehicle in May 2010 as I was no longer the keeper of this vehicle and had informed them of such two months previously. I am aware of the importance of maintaining a robust system of vehicle registration and have bought and sold several vehicles during my lifetime. I have fulfilled my obligations on every occasion including this one, indeed I would be stupid not to, as I may become liable for traffic offences or suspected any potential criminal activity associated with that vehicle. I believe the DVLA are acting “ultra vires” in this instance. They have not proved I did not notify them of change of keeper in respect of vehicle XXXXXX, they cannot because I did post the form. The terms of the Interpretation Act 1978 support my case, and there is not a legal obligation upon me to chase up the DVLA should they not acknowledge receipt of my communication with them.

They are also very sly, they are not attempting to prosecute me, they are "recovering a debt", my sin, not declaring SORN 2 months after I sold the car and notified them. They are nasty bullies, top and bottom of it, thanks for your words of support. I will have to travel a long way to court, I work away from home, I have never been in court in my life. I will hopefully get costs

I am going to work on the defence this weekend, and the reply from Draggon Dennis is quite helpful as it encapsulates the whole thing. I also heed the advice about not being cocky, so thank you

I am going to defend this and I will prepare my defence accordingly, thanks for the advice

Raykay, Thankyou, I am going to take some advice on this, it appears once the judgement goes against you it's a CCJ and it costs to get it removed

So this case being held in a County court is actually to my disadvantage. My defence that this is not a valid debt because i fulfilled my obligations to DVLA by posting off the relevant bit of the V5 may not work? I don't have any proof, I have a receipt from the garage I traded my car in at with the vehicle registration number of my old vehicle clearly stated as part of the deal. I also have an unblemished record of owning several cars and always following the rules in the past as I did this time. The issue that worries me here is if I lose then a judgement will be levelled against me which may make it very difficult to get credit in the future, well that's what it says on the summons, however it grips my do dos that the DVLA are attempting to extort money in this way.

I've received my summons to County Court, they're doing it as a debt recovery, my position is that no debt exists, could someone offer me advice on this please

Very pleased it worked out. I have not been threatened with court, my case has apparently been referred to my local office for their "swift action", however it's been 3 weeks now and I've heard nothing

I think your letter is fine by the way

Crewb666 Hang in there, they havn't taken you to court yet, it's all smoke and mirrors, if they were confident they'd be having you before now. I don't know what others think

Crewb666, They have not taken you to court yet, lets see what happens closer to the date

Crewb666 I think your letter makes some very good points, however I wouldn't demonstrate anger with them at this stage. There tactics are disgraceful, and they are actually making fiscal demands without legal legitimacy under the pretence that they do. I am going away for a few days and will respond to Mrs Wooley on my return, my position will reamin the same, i.e. that I dispute the penalty, and should they wish to pursue the matter they wil have to take me to court. Also I'm sure they monitor these pages, so they probably know what our next moves are, however as long as our responses are legitimate, non offensive and cogent we should win through. Best of luck with yours Spotswood

I have received a reply from Mrs Wooley enforcement officer DVLA to my last letter to her. They are still demanding their money, however interestingly they have extended their time for a reduced fee from the 11 Aug 2010 to 15 Sep 2010, and have included no legal references in their letter. Their letter to me is as follows Dear Mr XXXX I am in receipt of your reply concerning the Late Licensing Penalty issued to you. I understand that you are no longer the owner of the vehicle and that you are in possession of an acknowledgement letter. However you were the registered keeper of this vehicle on 01 05 2010 and it was not relicensed or a Statutory Off Road Notification made when required or requested. Consequently you are still liable for the £80.00 penalty. Only payments made after 15 Sep 2010will be accepted at the reduced rate of £40.00. Could I have some advice here, they seemed to have shifted the goalposts, indicating it's my problem whatever the circumstances. My defence as I see it remains the same, I sent off the relevant portion of the my old vehicle's V5 on sale of that vehicle as required, therefore fulfilling my obligations to DVLA. Interesting enough, on my acknowledgement from DVLA which I am sure is a standard letter it states in the "Further Information" that should I receive renewal reminders including SORN info I should ignore it as they are printed up to 6 weeks in advance. I believe this is a final attempt to intimidate, nay bully me into paying up, the facilitation of extra time to pay a reduced fee and the lack of legal references gives me some indication their position is weak. I do not want to pay as I see this as grossly unfair, advice please Spotswood

This is the letter i have sent today, I have kept the business like tone Dear Mrs Wooley I am now in receipt of Reference C, however I must inform you that this correspondence does not alter my position as stated in Reference B, i.e. I am formally disputing the penalty notice as I believe I fulfilled my obligations to DVLA by notifying them by post I was no longer the keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX, and should you wish to pursue this matter you will have to take me to court. For your information the DVLA have now acknowledged I am no longer the keeper of vehicle XXXXXX at Reference D. I take note of your statement (line 2-3 of para 2 Reference C) which indicates I am liable for this charge because I did not pursue an acknowledgement letter that should of been generated yourselves within 4 weeks of my notification of change of keeper. It is my position that this “DVLA requirement” has no legal legitimacy and I require you to provide me with a direct reference to legal statute as you have done with other legislation with footnotes 1 and 2 of Reference C. I do apologise for my delay in replying to Reference C, my work takes me away from my home address for significant periods of time (2-3 weeks on occasion), please be assured I will respond to further correspondence directly on my return. Intepretation Act 1978 S7 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

Crem, Thank you. and I will reply as you advise. I have a feeling the "enforcement team" are self funding, i.e. their budget will be directly sourced from the revenue stream they produce that's why they pursue their victims in this way. Thank you again and I will keep the forum updated

Hi, new to this, I traded a car in to a dealer, sent off my bit of the V5 of my old car the same day I picked up my new 1 (020310). I did receive notice to re tax my old vehicle in May but ignored it. I then received a letter from "the Enforcement Officer" telling me I had commited 1 of several offences and owed them at least £80.00 which could be reduced to £40.00 if I paid em quick!! My response with appropriate reference to previous correspondence and the VRN was as follows I am no longer the keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX, I traded it in to motor trader XXXXXXX, please see attached receipt. I notified the DVLA of the change of ownership on the sale of the above vehicle and therefore fulfilled my obligations to DVLA. I am therefore formally disputing your notice at Reference A, and should you wish to pursue this case you will have to take me to court. On reflection this was pretty formal, however I ma in the military and that's how we write! I have now received further correspondence from the enforcement officer dated 060810 which thanks me for my response , telling me I'm still liable because I did not pursue the matter when I hadn't heard from the DVLA 4 weeks after I had sent off my bit of the V5, this is rubbish isnt it? The 4 week thing has no legal validity according to this forum. Now my question is do I respond and if I do how?