DVLA - failure to relicense

[jampot]

In June 2007, I part exchanged my previous car for a new one, at a Land Rover main dealer. The car I was part exchanging carried my personalised registration plate at the time of part-exchange, and whilst I wasn't too bothered if I lost entitlement, the dealership were happy to assist with the retention... the result being, when I actually handed over the car, it was holding my personalised plate, and I got the retention document through in July, and the car was re-registered (as per usual) back to its original mark.

 

As far as I can recall, the 'i's were dotted, the 't's were crossed, and all relevant paperwork was completed - at least I received no further hassle from the dealership, and as far as I am aware, they traded on the car to a 3rd party, and it simply went back into circulation.

 

In September, I moved house, and I have updated the V5 document and my driving license for my new vehicle, but was surprised to receive, just before Xmas, some forwarded mail from my old address - namely a 'Failure to relicense' letter. Apparently the tax on my previous car ran out on 1/10/07.

 

Now, I must admit I haven't kept copies of any of the old V5 documentation, and only have 6 months later, a vague recollection of exactly what happened - but the situation is clear, inasmuch as the vehicle was effectively SOLD at the end of June, and I will have both paperwork and correspondence with the dealer to confirm that this is, indeed, the case.

 

In summary, what I believe happened is:

 

1) car p-exed end of June 2007

2) application to retain plate issued immediately

3) retention document produced 05/07/2007

4) (presumably) new V5 issued at the same time

5) my portion of new V5 completed and returned to DVLA

6) remainder of new V5 given to LR main dealer as soon as practical

 

So it appears that:

 

1) my portion of the new V5, sent to DVLA to tell them of the change in keeper, must have gone missing in the post

 

2) the LR main dealer has either had the same happen to them or, more likely, they've just traded the car on and with it being HPI clear and from a main dealer, have relied on the receiving dealer (or private purchaser, which is unlikely in this case) re-registering the car in their own name.

 

Either way, the DVLA hasn't received a change of owner from either party, and whilst this is somewhat strange (for a £20k part-exchange!) it is the only sequence of events which makes sense.

 

The DVLA paperwork says that I must provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter otherwise I will remain liable for the penalty.

 

The problem is, I don't have a copy of the acknowledgement, as it seems likely that the original paperwork didn't make it to them. I would have had no way of knowing if this is the case or not, and to be honest I didn't think I had to receive acknowledgement (or even care) since the papertrail external to the DVLA is very obvious.

 

I've completed their form with a statement basically outlining the sequence above. Obviously as a 'company' and not a private individual, who can just vanish, I should hope to be able to provide clarification from Land Rover as well, and indeed the Finance Company who would be able to confirm that the finance was settled at the same time... but where exactly will I stand with DVLA?

[patdavies]

 

In September, I moved house, and I have updated the V5 document and my driving license for my new vehicle, but was surprised to receive, just before Xmas, some forwarded mail from my old address - namely a 'Failure to relicense' letter. Apparently the tax on my previous car ran out on 1/10/07.

 

Which VRM is quoted? Your cherished one or the original?

 

 

The DVLA paperwork says that I must provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter otherwise I will remain liable for the penalty.

 

That which they speak is absolute bollox. Read some of the other threads here. Particularly Danny's contribution as regards the law regrading post. There is no basis in law (Vehicle Excise and Registration Act) for the requirement for an acknowledgement letter. DVLA are simply wrong to state that you remain liable for the vehicle until such a letter is recieved - otherwise you would remain liable for parking tickets, etc. until the DVLA got off their collective a**ses and issued said letter.

 

[jampot]

Thanks PD.

 

The VRM quoted is the 'original', so they obviously properly processed the change of registration - but didn't act upon the subsequent (and immediate) change of keeper.

 

As I can easily prove that I part-exchanged the car well before 01/10/07, I would hope that common sense would suggest that I cannot be liable for a fine and backdated tax.

 

Furthermore, I cannot believe that the new owner hasn't applied for a V5 in their own name. The car was a late 2004 Audi S4, and although it was 3 years old during that October, it was still worth about £20k, not some £200 old banger which the new owner would probably prefer to keep hidden. It is over 6 months since the transaction took place... and I find that utterly remarkable.

[gwc1000]

Some cars, even as expensive as yours can sometimes float round the trade for much longer. Someone has it on their forecourt for a couple of months can't sell it sends it to auction a trader buys it and then punts it around the trade, he might put it on another trader's pitch sale or return,they can't sell it he has it back then tries another forecourt or sends it back to auction and so it goes on. I sent a p/ex to auction about five years ago, sold it, and for the next nine months or so that car appeared at just about every auction I visited around the country always selling to the trade.

DVLA won't be interested that you can prove when you sold it. The change of keeper slip is all that they will accept.

[Conniff]

Hey LOOK! a joke everyone:

I would hope that common sense would suggest that I cannot be liable for a fine and backdated tax.

 

Your talking DVLA jampot, there is no common sense in their office.

 

They are a typical government department with strict orders to make as much money as they can any which way then can.

The amount of claims that 'they didn't receive it' makes me wonder why the Royal Mail don't sue them for libal.

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about as the car was not yours and you have proof of that. They will probably hound you for a while though, someone has to pay for the Christmas party they just had, and they would like you to contribute.

 

I think you should send them the proof and tell them that if you receive another demand then you will take legal action for harassment.

[gwc1000]

As I posted before DVLA will not be interested that you can prove when you sold the car.

Taken from their website:

 

Continuous registration

 

Tell DVLA if you sell, transfer, scrap or export your vehicle, otherwise you’ll continue to be responsible for taxing it even though you no longer have it. Complete the appropriate section of your Registration Certificate and send to DVLA, Swansea SA99 1BA. You should receive an acknowledgement letter within four weeks, which you should keep as proof that DVLA records have been updated. Contact DVLA customer enquires if you don’t receive it.

 

 

 

I think the best approach is to try dannykiernan's letter.

[Conniff]

As I posted before DVLA will not be interested that you can prove when you sold the car.

 

Sorry but I can't see how they can ignore 'proof'. That's the same as a jury saying "yes we saw the video of him killing someone, but we aren't interested, so not guilty".

I don't think that will wash in any court.

 

If everyone started sending their documents by recorded delivery, somehow I think the DVLA would suddenly go broke as they must be ignoring or destroying received correspondence. Even the worse mail company in the world couldn't loose that many letters, and it's funny how the majority of lost mail seems to be to the DVLA.

[gwc1000]

Don't worry, I am on your side! I am only going by experience. I have a customer this happened to, and although I informed DVLA that she part-exed the vehicle to me on whatever date, they still continued to threaten Court action, saying that under the continuous registration rules she was liable. She caved in and paid up.

Whenever sending in a change of ownership notification, or sorn, it is in your interest to inform Swansea if you haven't had a confirmation in four weeks, otherwise you can bet they will claim they haven't received it.

 

Looking at this, it seems they are reluctant to give up:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/foi/foi5105.pdf

[Conniff]

Sorry if it looked that way gwc, there was no intention to suggest that.

Experience is the best form of knowledge.

[gwc1000]

Sorry if it looked that way gwc, there was no intention to suggest that.

Experience is the best form of knowledge.

No problem, I was being light hearted. My experience of DVLA is that they always come back with: "If you didn't receive a confirmation within four weeks why didn't you contact us, as is explained on the V5?"

[patdavies]

My experience of DVLA is that they always come back with: "If you didn't receive a confirmation within four weeks why didn't you contact us, as is explained on the V5?"

 

Very true and totally unreasonable (as usual) by the DVLA.

 

"Because I no longer had the V5 to be able to read that..."

[gwc1000]

The problem is most people do send the change of keeper details to Swansea and they feel they have done (quite rightly) what is required of them. But, four weeks later they will not be thinking about a car that frankly, they are glad is out of their life, and they are not checking their post daily for a confirmation from DVLA. The issue has been forgotten. I feel the stance taken by DVLA as you say, pat is totally unreasonable, because the system relies upon the efficiency of the postal service, non delivery results in a fine.

[JonCris]

Why Oh! why do these agencies assume that they are the most important thing in our lives when clearly most of us have lives to lead which don't involve sitting by the letter box waiting for their letter to drop onto the mat - I mean some of us have families to rear & even jobs to go to where we try to earn enough to keep the wolf form the door - My point is that in this world we have many important things which distract us so it's hardly surprising that waiting for their letter isn't a high priority & can easily be forgotten.

 

Also bearing in mind we are talking about the DVLA it's a bit of a joke to demand info from us - most of which they will probably lose or give to organised crooks

[andbarbred]

Until a similar thing happened to me I assumed that people who blamed the royal mail or goverment agency for a 'lost in post' error were simply trying to get out of a pickle that they had got themselves into.

NOT NOW!!

I sent a V5 to DVLA, having disposed of a scrapper to a reputable salvage company. I have a transfer note from the salvage company which details the date(and even the time!) that the car was collected.

With me not being a frequent seller of cars I remember the truck driver stamping the V5 form with his company stamp and signing it. I remember posting the form that same day to DVLA.

I admit that i didn't hear from DVLA, but hey, the car had gone, the wife was happy that the car had gone and my life had moved on.

6 months later I got a fine for not renewing the SORN.

I dug out the receipt from the salvage company and filled in the new dvla form and sent a copy of the receipt expecting that to be enough to resolve the matter.

not so, my fine/penalty increased to £80.00 as a result of me taking time to put forward my defence.

I still owe the money, but to be honest I don't think i am going to pay it, but what will their next step be?

[jampot]

As I posted before DVLA will not be interested that you can prove when you sold the car.

Taken from their website:

 

Continuous registration

 

Tell DVLA if you sell, transfer, scrap or export your vehicle, otherwise you’ll continue to be responsible for taxing it even though you no longer have it. Complete the appropriate section of your Registration Certificate and send to DVLA, Swansea SA99 1BA. You should receive an acknowledgement letter within four weeks, which you should keep as proof that DVLA records have been updated. Contact DVLA customer enquires if you don’t receive it.

 

 

 

I think the best approach is to try dannykiernan's letter.

 

Does someone have a link to this letter? Happy to write my own out (and will enjoy doing so) but useful to have something well written to refer to

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Jampot,

 

Heres the link

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/115778-template-letter-sorn-fines.html

 

Good luck too

 

Danny

[patdavies]

Post #13 on this thread. Also follow the link in that thread - obviously you will need to change it from SORN to change of keeper.

[jampot]

Ho hum.

 

I've done some more digging, and have written a letter which borrows a LITTLE from Danny's original, but glosses over the detail - just alludes to it very heavily.

 

There were 3 other elements which I wanted to include, which I would be very interested in comments on.

 

Firstly, the postal 'service' part:

 

I trust the DVLA is aware of Royal Mail’s requirement to operate a Universal Postal Service and that, unlike many other countries, in the UK a letter becomes the property of the recipient upon posting, rather than upon receipt. There is a clear assumption that, when using Royal Mail’s services, documents (even official ones) can be considered ‘served’ purely by posting. Indeed, a quick check on other Government websites concludes that:

 

“A document may be served by leaving it at the appropriate address for service under this rule or by sending it to that address by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post.”

 

In addition, I understand that the V5C contains no reference to posting via an alternative (and possibly more ‘secure’) service such as Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery, so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper. That you either didn’t receive this notification, or failed to update your records accordingly, is unfortunate – but I contend that it is unreasonable to expect me to chase up your failure to acknowledge the service of this document, especially given that you expect me to ‘wait’ for a period of at least 4 weeks before doing so.

 

I would have thought that the DVLA was well aware that the postal service cannot be wholly relied upon, given that your department was recently forced to admit that it had ‘lost’ the details of 7000 motorists, which I understand went missing from a sorting office in Coventry whilst on the way to your Swansea offices. Furthermore, the DVLA also managed to send 100 questionnaires (out of 1,215) to the wrong addresses – clearly showing that there is the potential for lapses of process within the agency. Taking these 2 events into consideration, is it any wonder that the document I sent to you has been ‘lost’?

 

Moving on from that, my responsibilities NOT according to the V5C, but according to the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 which the DVLA helpfully referred to in their letter:

 

Irrespective of the wording of the V5C, I consulted the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As the vehicle was sold to a Motor Trader, section 23 applies:

 

*******

Change of keeper: obligations of registered keeper where vehicle registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper a vehicle trader

23. - (1) Subject to regulation 24, this regulation applies where -

(a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle;

 

(b) the person disposing of the vehicle is the registered keeper;

 

© a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and

 

(d) the new keeper is a vehicle trader.

(2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following -

(a) the name and address of the vehicle trader;

 

(b) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;

 

© a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and

 

(d) a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).

(3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

*******

There is nothing contained within section 23 which requires me to follow up after 4 weeks if I have not received acknowledgement of the notification. Having read the remainder of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, I am unable to find any general provision which could bestow that requirement – and in the absence of the V5C document (as obviously someone in my position would be) I would reasonably expect to see the requirement to pursue this letter properly documented within the legislation.

 

And finally, the 'rules' for them chasing duty owed according to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended):

 

Interestingly, your letter dated 10/01/08 also refers to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended). I had a brief look at this legislation too. Section 30 deals with the ‘Additional liability for keeper of unlicensed vehicle’, but when determining the ‘Relevant period for purposes of section 30’, Section 31 part 5 states:

 

*******

(5) Where the person convicted proves—

(a) that throughout any month or part of a month in the relevant period the vehicle was not kept by him, or

(b) that he has paid the duty due (or an amount equal to the duty due) in respect of the vehicle for any such month or part of a month,

any amount which the person is ordered to pay under section 30 is to be calculated as if that month or part of a month were not in the relevant period.

 

*******

So, for the purposes of pursuing the duty owed for the period, the DVLA must not count the month(s) for which the person convicted can prove that the vehicle was not kept by him. In short, there is clear provision for the Secretary of State to accept that a vehicle is not kept by a person, without receiving and/or acknowledging notification of a change of registered keeper. As I disposed of the vehicle in June/July, clearly it was not being kept by me in October, November or December (or, indeed, January). With proof of this being readily available, the DVLA cannot pursue the alleged owed duty for the entire period – and having correctly notified you of the change of keeper (by serving the document via first class post, in the prescribed manner) you are seeking to punish unfairly for something which lies utterly outside of my control.

 

What does everyone think of these?

[patdavies]

It looks very good - take a house point or two;)

 

The only minor change that I would suggest is in part 3. I think that it might be better to be more definitive than June/July; nothing important, but it removes an unnecessary vagueness.

[jampot]

Cheers - I will amend that. I part exchanged it on 28th June, but because of the retention of the registration mark, and the need to wait for the new V5C to be sent by the DVLA, it probably wasn't 'official' until July... but I take your point.

 

Whilst I understood most of Danny's template, obviously parts of that argument are rather archaic, and the ECHR part (right to a fair trial) quite onerous and difficult to follow, so I wanted some more mud to throw at them, and was quite pleased to find no reference to having to follow up the notification if they don't acknowledge in ANY of the legislation, and also the wording of Section 31, where they will obviously take OTHER proof of a change of keeper (registered?) over and above purely the successful acceptance and acknowledgement of a notification using the V5C document.

 

I know there's a lot of confusion surrouding 'keeper', 'registered keeper', 'owner', 'driver'... etc but am I right to assume that Section 30 (as above) is meant to apply to the 'registered keeper', since by definition, that is the only person which can be chased for liability. The Act is vague, and just refers to the 'keeper'. Obviously a conviction for driving an unlicensed vehicle lies with the driver, but the additional liability as defined in Section 30 seems (to me, anyway) to only be able to be applied to a registered keeper, since ultimately (so claim the DVLA) it is their responsibility to ensure continuous registration. I cannot see that this legislation can apply to a temporary keeper, or one who appears to be a keeper, since there is (as far as I can see) no responsibility for a keeper (other than the one named on the V5C) to license the vehicle - problems would only arise if they DROVE or KEPT the vehicle on a public highway. Correct?

 

If so, that's very damning.

[danny_kiernan]

Hi Jampot

 

I would steer clear of any allegations that the postal service cannot be relied upon as per your 3rd paragraph as this opens you up to a claim for libel by the Post office - who are not very nice to deal with legally. Otherwise it looks fine.

 

I am suprised that other people on the forum didn't point out that you cannot libel the royal mail.

 

Dani

[gwc1000]

I think you have a point there, about a temporary keeper. As a car dealer I don't register vehicles to myself. If a car I buy is taxed and the tax expires whilst still in my ownership I am not required to SORN it, in fact I cannot as only the person whose name appears on the V5 can, even though they are technically no longer the registered keeper. They would have sent off the notification of sale to the motor trade with my name and adress on when they sold it to me, but DVLA will not accept a SORN from me for that vehicle they say only the registered keeper may declare SORN, even though they no longer own it. I would have to register the vehicle to myself to declare SORN.

[jampot]

For anyone who is interested, I've copied to here the full text of my reply to the DVLA. I've cobbled together some other information from this forum regarding the UPU (although I admit I haven't verified it, despite a good search on google) - but the piece about document SERVICE (rather than ownership) is certainly true. Thanks to Danny K for the template letter, too - as you see, I've alluded to it, but have admittedly glossed over it... but hopefully it should be enough.

 

I've also just remembered - I never got the V5C for the car I bought when I part-exchanged - I had to pay the [problematic] £25 to issue a replacement, so yet again a good example of things getting 'lost' in the post from the DVLA. They'll have that on record, too...

 

Here's the letter:

 

 

Continuous Registration Centre 16th January 2008

2nd Floor, Bourne Gate

25 Bourne Valley Road

Poole

BH12 1DY

 

 

Your Ref # blah blah blah

Dear Sir / Madam,

Yesterday, I received your correspondence (reference as above) regarding the alleged ‘Failure to Relicense’ the vehicle XXyyXXX.

As I stated on the form I returned prior to your response, not only did I post the relevant paperwork to you, I had already posted paperwork to you in relation to the same vehicle in order to retain my personalised registration mark which had previously been assigned to that vehicle, so there is clear evidence of my intent.

 

To summarise, I purchased (brand new in 2004) the blue Audi S4, with the initial registration XXyyXXX. Shortly afterwards, I applied to assign my retained registration mark, XyyXXX, to the vehicle. The vehicle was registered thus until July 2007. At this time, as I was part exchanging the vehicle, I applied to retain the XyyXXX registration mark, and the vehicle was duly issued with a new V5C, and I was correctly issued a retention certificate for XyyXXX. Following this, I returned the correct section from this ‘new’ V5C, providing details of the new Registered Keeper which were, for the record:

 

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

 

The transaction to part-exchange the vehicle took place on 28th June 2007, and this is the effective date when I ceased to be the owner / keeper, although clearly I was still listed as the registered keeper at the start of July, whilst transfer of the registration mark, and subsequent re-issue of the ‘new’ V5C were completed.

 

I am not in a position to comment on whether the department did (or didn’t) receive notification – but I am certain that the documentation was posted to the department according to the instructions on the V5C. Your response suggests that I should then wait up to 4 weeks to receive an acknowledgement letter. What your department has either failed to appreciate, or perhaps unfairly relies upon, is that a keeper who has sent the V5C off to the DVLA, and/or handed the remainder to the buyer, no longer has that document to refer to.

 

I was extremely disappointed to receive your response as, even considering these circumstances, you still believe that I am liable for the ‘penalty’. As clearly we have both been let down by Royal Mail, and as there is clear evidence that I correctly returned the previous V5C in order to retain my registration mark, I would have expected you to take no further action on this. In particular, given the fact that the vehicle was immediately disposed of (and I can provide as much proof of this as is necessary) there was no possibility of any financial gain for me, and absolutely no motive for me to fail to notify you of a change of keeper.

Clearly, as your department feels unable to simply let this matter drop, I have investigated the situation further with respect to the legal ability for the DVLA to issue a ‘late licensing penalty’, and I have been rather shocked with what my investigations have turned up. There appears to be clear contradiction between the DVLA acting as ‘judge and jury’, without a proper appeals process, and both Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 – the former of which allows me a ‘right to a fair trial’, by way of an independent and impartial tribunal, and the latter expressly disallows the process of issuing a ‘fine’ (as your ‘penalty’ purports to be).

 

The DVLA method of ‘trial’ is by way of a computer database and the postal system. Because of this, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right. I am more than willing to expand on these points if necessary, but I trust that this won’t be necessary. As I understand it, there has already been at least one case at County Court (May 2007 in Mansfield) in which the DVLA (Secretary of State) were similarly unsuccessful. Whilst perhaps not a binding precedent, I would imagine that a reasonable Judge would, when considering all relevant factors in this case, rule once again against your department.

 

If that weren’t enough, I trust the DVLA is aware of Royal Mail’s requirement to operate a Universal Postal Service and that, unlike many other countries, in the UK a letter becomes the property of the recipient upon posting, rather than upon receipt. There is a clear assumption that, when using Royal Mail’s services, documents (even official ones) can be considered ‘served’ purely by posting. Indeed, a quick check on other Government websites concludes that:

 

“A document may be served by leaving it at the appropriate address for service under this rule or by sending it to that address by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post.”

 

In addition, I understand that the V5C contains no reference to posting via an alternative (and possibly more ‘secure’) service such as Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery, so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper. That you either didn’t receive this notification, or failed to update your records accordingly, is unfortunate – but I contend that it is unreasonable to expect me to chase up your failure to acknowledge the service of this document, especially given that you expect me to ‘wait’ for a period of at least 4 weeks before doing so.

I would have thought that the DVLA was well aware that the postal service cannot be wholly relied upon, given that your department was recently forced to admit that it had ‘lost’ the details of 7000 motorists, which I understand went missing from a sorting office in Coventry whilst on the way to your Swansea offices. Furthermore, the DVLA also managed to send 100 questionnaires (out of 1,215) to the wrong addresses – clearly showing that there is the potential for lapses of process within the agency. Taking these 2 events into consideration, is it any wonder that the document I sent to you has been ‘lost’?

 

Irrespective of the wording of the V5C, I consulted the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As the vehicle was sold to a Motor Trader, section 23 applies:

 

*******

 

Change of keeper: obligations of registered keeper where vehicle registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997 and the new keeper a vehicle trader

23. - (1) Subject to regulation 24, this regulation applies where -

(a) there is a change in the keeper of a vehicle;

(b) the person disposing of the vehicle is the registered keeper;

© a vehicle registration document has been issued in respect of the vehicle in Great Britain on or after 24th March 1997; and

(d) the new keeper is a vehicle trader.

(2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following -

(a) the name and address of the vehicle trader;

(b) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;

© a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and

(d) a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).

(3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

 

*******

 

There is nothing contained within section 23 which requires me to follow up after 4 weeks if I have not received acknowledgement of the notification. Having read the remainder of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, I am unable to find any general provision which could bestow that requirement – and in the absence of the V5C document (as obviously someone in my position would be) I would reasonably expect to see the requirement to pursue this letter properly documented within the legislation.

 

Interestingly, your letter dated 10/01/08 also refers to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended). I had a brief look at this legislation too. Section 30 deals with the ‘Additional liability for keeper of unlicensed vehicle’, but when determining the ‘Relevant period for purposes of section 30’, Section 31 part 5 states:

 

*******

 

(5) Where the person convicted proves—

(a) that throughout any month or part of a month in the relevant period the vehicle was not kept by him, or

(b) that he has paid the duty due (or an amount equal to the duty due) in respect of the vehicle for any such month or part of a month,

any amount which the person is ordered to pay under section 30 is to be calculated as if that month or part of a month were not in the relevant period.

 

*******

 

So, for the purposes of pursuing the duty owed for the period, the DVLA must not count the month(s) for which the person convicted can prove that the vehicle was not kept by him. In short, there is clear provision for the Secretary of State to accept that a vehicle is not kept by a person, without receiving and/or acknowledging notification of a change of registered keeper. As I disposed of the vehicle in June, clearly it was not being kept by me in October, November or December (or, indeed, January). With proof of this being readily available, the DVLA cannot pursue the alleged owed duty for the entire period – and having correctly notified you of the change of keeper (by serving the document via first class post, in the prescribed manner) you are seeking to punish unfairly for something which lies utterly outside of my control.

 

As the DVLA has authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt, should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234.

 

Please also note, the best address to correspond with me is:

 

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

 

I moved from the Blah Road address you are writing to, during August, into temporary accommodation, then (during September) into the address above. I obviously arranged for my Driving License and V5Cs for subsequent vehicle(s) to be changed / issued to my new address, but had no need to notify you of a change of address for a vehicle which I hadn’t owned or kept for several months.

 

I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has now been dropped.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Blah Blah

[Conniff]

I am not in a position to comment on whether the department did (or didn’t) receive notification – but I am certain that the documentation was posted

 

Not sure I like that word, it imparts some doubt.

 

I like the rest though, and I think this is your strongest point:

so I consider that, by correctly addressing the envelope, affixing a stamp to cover the necessary charge, and by placing the item in a Royal Mail postbox, I have fulfilled my responsibility to notify you of the change of keeper.

[jampot]

Its funny, as I intended (and read) the opposite. Certain = no doubt.

 

I take your point though, but I don't think the letter-opening monkey at the DVLA will care...

 

Just checking the wordfile original, and actually the line says:

 

"I am not in a position to comment on... but I am certain that the documentation was posted..."

 

So what I've sent to them has bold text, just not on the word you highlighted, and I think I've done it in such a way as to underline my certainty rather than undermine it.