DVLA Late Licensing Penalty

[nehpets]

The offer to pay is not an out of court settlement. They payment you have been asked to make is for a debt/penalty and if heard in Court will be a County Court not Magistrates.

 

Did you ask for your case to be heard at Court? If not maybe you should - but thats only if you want to take that risk as the DJ may come down on your side or may not.

 

 

In my case the letter from the DVLA appeared to state that my payment of £80.00 (£40.00 if paid quickly) would “stop the DVLA preparing a case against me regarding me being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle.” Secondly, the letter which I have from the debt collection agency (which is in front of me now), clearly states that they are seeking to collect the sum of £80.00 which is “an out of court settlement.”

Essentially both letters appear to convey the same information and both conclude with the same offer; that of an ‘out of court settlement’.

I understand the points which you are raising but would challenge certain aspects of your comments. Firstly your use the words “debt/penalty” – it is questionable as whether the penalty is a debt since due legal process has not yet occurred. Whilst the DVLA has the right to issue a penalty notice the defendant has a legal right to refute the allegations which the DVLA may have made. Obviously if the DVLA and the defendant cannot agree on liability then the defendant is not liable (and therefore no debt exists) until the DVLA can prove that liability by seeking a conviction through a court of law. Under UK law the defendant is innocent until proven guilty – with that in mind a penalty (or whatever they might want to call it!) is not a debt until it is proven. Of course these types of government departments won’t openly advertise these facts because less people might pay up. Instead they’ll use fancy wording in their letters in order to hoodwink people into paying up with little or no fuss.

Of course the real truth of all these situations will reveal itself when the DVLA has to take genuinely innocent people to court. People like ST and me who have actually returned the correct forms at the correct time. If, as you imply, a debt already exists in law then all the DVLA will be applying for is a judgement order against us for £80 plus court costs – the ins and outs of the case won’t be discussed in court. If however the DVLA are required to argue and prove each case then we can be pretty sure that the DVLA penalties (issued by letter) don’t actually constitute debts in a legal context. I would be very surprised indeed if the DVLA penalty (prior to the case being proven) was ever considered by the law to be a debt.

Over the last week or so I’ve read five or six of the other threads on other consumer based forums regarding the same or very similar matters. On occasions where court cases occurred it appears that the DVLA were asked to prove that the defendant was guilty of the offence for which the DVLA wanted to issue the penalty for. In many cases the DVLA were unable to prove guilt and therefore they were unable to serve the penalty on the defendant. In these cases the defendant left court owing nothing and the DVLA were forced to pay costs. Someone else used the freedom of information act to recover internal documents from the DVLA. One of these documents, written by the DVLA, admitted that attempting to serve the penalties through the court systems gave “very poor results”. I’m presently trying to locate some court documents regarding a case from a couple of years ago where the DVLA were unable to prove a case and therefore serve a penalty.

Nehpets.

[patdavies]

The offer to pay is not an out of court settlement. They payment you have been asked to make is for a debt/penalty and if heard in Court will be a County Court not Magistrates.

 

Did you ask for your case to be heard at Court? If not maybe you should - but thats only if you want to take that risk as the DJ may come down on your side or may not.

 

 

This is now three threads that you have posted this nonsense across.

 

The offence of having an untaxed vehicle on the public highway is a summary offence.

 

An LLP is merely a form of FPN, if you fight it, the correct route for a hearing is to a Magistrates' Court.

 

DJs sit in both County and Magistrates' Courts

[nehpets]

Unless it has changed since the DVLA requested an interview with me a few weeks ago Mrs Alison Woolley is the head of Customer and Compliance while Mr Steve Alexander is in charge of enforcement and your letter should be addressed to him personally.

 

It is unlikely that there are two Mrs Woolleys a P and an A, high enough up to sign letters. Your case will be handled by an assistant and only the signature comes from the named person.

 

 

Could you specify why they wanted an interview with you?

 

Cheers,

N.

[patdavies]

 

Of course the real truth of all these situations will reveal itself when the DVLA has to take genuinely innocent people to court. People like ST and me who have actually returned the correct forms at the correct time. If, as you imply, a debt already exists in law then all the DVLA will be applying for is a judgement order against us for £80 plus court costs – the ins and outs of the case won’t be discussed in court. If however the DVLA are required to argue and prove each case then we can be pretty sure that the DVLA penalties (issued by letter) don’t actually constitute debts in a legal context. I would be very surprised indeed if the DVLA penalty (prior to the case being proven) was ever considered by the law to be a debt.

 

Over the last week or so I’ve read five or six of the other threads on other consumer based forums regarding the same or very similar matters. On occasions where court cases occurred it appears that the DVLA were asked to prove that the defendant was guilty of the offence for which the DVLA wanted to issue the penalty for. In many cases the DVLA were unable to prove guilt and therefore they were unable to serve the penalty on the defendant. In these cases the defendant left court owing nothing and the DVLA were forced to pay costs. Someone else used the freedom of information act to recover internal documents from the DVLA. One of these documents, written by the DVLA, admitted that attempting to serve the penalties through the court systems gave “very poor results”. I’m presently trying to locate some court documents regarding a case from a couple of years ago where the DVLA were unable to prove a case and therefore serve a penalty.

 

Nehpets.

 

If the DVLA goes to Court and the defendant loses, this does not allow the DVLA to issue (or chase) any penalty. Sentence will be passed by the Court and any fines will go straight to the Treasury

[nehpets]

If the DVLA goes to Court and the defendant loses, this does not allow the DVLA to issue (or chase) any penalty. Sentence will be passed by the Court and any fines will go straight to the Treasury

 

That's interesting. I wonder how the summons actually reads?

[Lifesontheup]

This is now three threads that you have posted this nonsense across.

 

The offence of having an untaxed vehicle on the public highway is a summary offence.

 

An LLP is merely a form of FPN, if you fight it, the correct route for a hearing is to a Magistrates' Court.

 

DJs sit in both County and Magistrates' Courts

 

Yes they do sit in Magistrates Courts however the fine of of £40/£80 is a DEBT and a civil offence - it is not for having an untaxed vehicle on the public highway.

 

When you fail to pay you get a County Court claim not a summons issued by a Magistrates Court. Originally the DVLA were issuing County Court claims via Northampton County Court bulk centre and if needed issuing manual claims via local County Courts.

 

You should check your facts before rubbishing my comments - I am 100% correct in this as I have been there and done it and know plenty of others who have too.

[bedlington83]

Yes they do sit in Magistrates Courts however the fine of of £40/£80 is a DEBT and a civil offence - it is not for having an untaxed vehicle on the public highway.

What's it for then?

[nehpets]

Before everyone gets too edgy with each other we should consider that the DVLA (and its various agents) may have tried more than one or two ways of dealing with these matters. As a result people may have been taken to court via a number of differing methods.

Essentially, based on evidence which I’ve gathered from a number of other forums, people have been taken to court (or are under the threat of court) with regard to being ‘the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle’. This is the allegation made in the letters which I have received from both the DVLA and the Debt Collecting Agents. Both letters state that ‘the DVLA is preparing a claim against you’. Therefore one assumes that all the DVLA can do is issue a summons requesting that I attend court to answer the allegation made against me? There is no way that the DVLA can circumvent this process without breaching a number of other statute / European laws. Given that the DVLA have admitted that direct court action gives ‘poor results’ it is possible that they have tried other methods or tried getting people into court on other charges. Given that the laws are so new there is very little case evidence available.

Lifesontheup – It would help if you could specify exactly what the allegation was that the DVLA made against you? From what you have written you have implied that you didn’t have your case heard fairly? Whilst I understand that the judge made comments regarding the conformation slips etc I cannot see how he could judge you liable for ensuring that the DVLA process paperwork correctly when the legislation specifies that all you need to do if to notify the DVLA – for you to be found guilty the DVLA would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn’t send the form – the defendant not being in procession of a conformation slip does not prove that the defendant didn’t send the form in the first place.

N.

[gwc1000]

I cannot agree with lifesontheup. If as he/she suggests the debt/penalty exists in law at the point the DVLA say it does, without an appeal procedure, and the CC route is merely to obtain judgment for an already established debt, surely this would be an instance where the Bill of Rights has been violated? I also would question lifeontheup's phrase "civil offence" it can be one or the other, but not both. If DVLA persue through the CC does that mean that the defendant has not committed an offence?

Edited July 13, 2009 by gwc1000

[Lifesontheup]

Look I am not here to argue with anyone, my case was beginning of last year after numerous letters between myself and them.

 

What I am saying is that when you will go to Court it will be the County Court not a Magistrates and it could go against you or maybe not.

 

Search under Continuous Registration and County Court and you will find a whole ream of information which explains that as this is a debt then it is pursued at County Court. Sorry but I am 100% correct on this having been there and know of others who have too in defending this fine.

 

The Role of Continuous Registration Enforcement Centres

 

The above link explains that the DVLA are taking Court action and its through the County Court.

 

Also there are previous links on here where other people have been taken to County Court:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/117426-dvla-continuous-registration.html

 

My father is now sadly deceased and I have been on the forum for advice on a debt issue. I thought I would help a little to put some of the details right in relation to Courts and that it isn't always simple to win against them. However the decision to go down that route rests with the individual.

[gwc1000]

The Role of Continuous Registration Enforcement Centres

 

The above link explains that the DVLA are taking Court action and its through the County Court.

 

Actually the above link does say magistrates court:

 

Maidstone Local Office took the first batch of 15 continuous registration cases to the magistrates� court in July 2004.

[nehpets]

Lifesontheup - Sorry to hear about your Father.

 

The link which you posted to "The Role of Continuous Registration Enforcement Centres" appears to be DVLA propaganda written by Pat Woolley who just happeneds to be high up at the DVLA!

 

 

I’m becoming more interested in your case and the cases of others who have been summoned to County Court. I’m wondering how safe these convictions / judgements are. I’m asking this since the DVLA appear to be taking some of these cases to County Court under the guise of an existing / established debt. You yourself have said that you feel that you’ve been lead to believe that the debt existed – indeed you’ve even stated on here that you presently believe that it is a debt. I have already expressed doubts over this. These doubts have grown further after a conversation which I had with someone this evening.

 

Essentially I am convinced that the DVLA cannot class these ‘penalties’ as debts for court purposes due to the provisions made in The English Bill Of Rights of 1689.....

 

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

 

I would therefore suggest that the DVLA could be pursuing an unlawful course of action in bringing these cases to County Courts since their action does appear to be reliant on a debt already being in existence. The Bill Of Rights appears to specify otherwise.

 

 

N.

[Lifesontheup]

Actually the above link does say magistrates court:

 

Maidstone Local Office took the first batch of 15 continuous registration cases to the magistrates� court in July 2004.

 

Yes that bit has question mark if you look and further down it states County Court. Like I said, do some more reasearch as it is indeed County Court.

[Lifesontheup]

Lifesontheup - Sorry to hear about your Father.

 

The link which you posted to "The Role of Continuous Registration Enforcement Centres" appears to be DVLA propaganda written by Pat Woolley who just happeneds to be high up at the DVLA!

 

 

I’m becoming more interested in your case and the cases of others who have been summoned to County Court. I’m wondering how safe these convictions / judgements are. I’m asking this since the DVLA appear to be taking some of these cases to County Court under the guise of an existing / established debt. You yourself have said that you feel that you’ve been lead to believe that the debt existed – indeed you’ve even stated on here that you presently believe that it is a debt. I have already expressed doubts over this. These doubts have grown further after a conversation which I had with someone this evening.

 

Essentially I am convinced that the DVLA cannot class these ‘penalties’ as debts for court purposes due to the provisions made in The English Bill Of Rights of 1689.....

 

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

 

I would therefore suggest that the DVLA could be pursuing an unlawful course of action in bringing these cases to County Courts since their action does appear to be reliant on a debt already being in existence. The Bill Of Rights appears to specify otherwise.

 

 

N.

 

Thank you nehpets, I will post more when I have chance. At the moment I have other matters to solve.

[bedlington83]

Look I am not here to argue with anyone, my case was beginning of last year after numerous letters between myself and them.

But you are going to get people arguing with you because what you're saying is wrong. The penalty is an alternative to going to magistrates court where you could be convicted of the criminal offence. County courts do not have the jurisdiction and you should have challenged them on this point when you had the opportunity. Besides this, there can be no debt if the crime has not been proved. What's the penalty for if it isn't for the crime of late licensing?

[patdavies]

Both viewpoints are right.

 

Section 7A allows for a penalty - that is treated as a debt to the Crown (ie County Court) - where a vehicle is taxed after the expiry of the previous disc. However, it is easily avoided by simply doing a change of keeper (to spouse, etc.) prior to applying for the new VED.

 

Section 7 refers to having a vehicle on the road with no VED and remains a criminal offence.

[bedlington83]

Both viewpoints are right.

 

Section 7A allows for a penalty - that is treated as a debt to the Crown (ie County Court) - where a vehicle is taxed after the expiry of the previous disc. However, it is easily avoided by simply doing a change of keeper (to spouse, etc.) prior to applying for the new VED.

 

Section 7 refers to having a vehicle on the road with no VED and remains a criminal offence.

Thanks for this Pat (and for the reference to the Finance Act 2002 in the other thread). I'm still not convinced that debts to the crown can be paid directly to DVLA for DVLA's use as it sees fit, as would be the case in county court. Unless of course the crown took Lifesontheup to county court instead of DVLA.

[nehpets]

But surely the DVLA cannot issue a penalty and treat it like a debt? Given that the DVLA have no official appeals process this would be unlawful and contrary to statute and European law?

I think most of the (valid) cases being discussed on these forums fall under one of two possible scenarios;

1 ) SORN declaration was sent but wasn’t actioned by the DVLA (this is so in my case)

Or

2 ) The vehicle was sold and the DVLA was informed via a section of the old V5 that the registered keeper had in some way either sold or disposed of the vehicle but the DVLA failed to update the records correctly which lead to the old registered keeper still being liable for the VED or SORN declaration.

It seems to me that the DVLA are trying to emulate the Inland Revenue with their various different wordings. What’s the difference between ‘a penalty’, ‘a supplement’ and ‘a fine’? When I spoke directly with the DVLA the lady on the phone specified that the £80 was NOT a fine of any sort. It now strikes me that the DVLA might be trying to get around the English Bill of Rights issue by claiming that ‘a penalty’ or ‘a supplement’ doesn’t constitute what the Bill calls “a fine” or “a forfeiture” – my guess is that they are on very thin ice since the small amount of case evidence which is available reveals that people have successfully defended themselves in a County Court using this point. The bottom line is that the DVLA are blatantly using their legislation to levy fines against people who they feel have failed to correctly SORN a vehicle – they are simply dressing it up somewhat in order not to allow people the platform from which they can offer a valid legal defence.

I’m going to carry on digging!

N.

[Sweeney Todd]

Well, the letter from the DCA finally arrived, which is laid out as follows (sorry, don't have access to a scanner):

Philips Collection Services Ltd

Specialist Bailiff & Debt Recovery Agents

PO Box 997

Doncaster

South Yorks DN1 9GD

YOUR PHILIPS REFERENCE NUMBER: XXXXXX

OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS: £80.00

Security Code: 801

 

NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION

 

Regarding: Late Licensing Penalty on behalf of DVLA

 

Additional Information (if available)

DVLA Ref: xxxxxxxx

Date of Offence: xxx 1, 2009

Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxxx

Vehicle Make: xxxxxxxxx

Vehicle Model: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: 1 September 2009

 

Following your failure to pay the Late Licensing Penalty imposed by the DVLA, we have been instructed to commence recovery procedures against you.

 

The amount which remains outstanding must be paid in full to Philips immediately. Failure to make full payment will result in your case being passed to our Enforcement Department for further recovery procedures.

 

You MUST pay £80.00 in full by contacting us on Tel: 0844 800 4588 (24hr) or by visiting Philips - Debt Revenue Recovery & Enforcement Services. If you ignore this demand for payment your vehicle may be wheelclamped in which case a release fee will be charged and a valid tax disc must be produced. You could also be fined more than £1000.00. Further payment options can be found overleaf.

 

To prevent yourself incurring additional costs and a possible County Court Judgment against you, you must pay this penalty and either tax the vehicle if you are using or keeping it on the public road or make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) if it is being kept off road. You can do this on-line at DVLA Vehicle Licensing Online | Home or by completing one of the forms enclosed. If you no longer have the vehicle you must pay the penalty and write to DVLA Swansea SA99 1AR telling them you have either sold, transferred, exported or scrapped it.

PHILIPS CALL CENTRE OPENING HOURS: 07:30 - 20:00 (Mon - Fri) 09:00 - 13:00 (Sat)

 

Does anyone have any idea how should I respond to this? I am not prepared to pay a fine when I have done everything correctly and the error is on the part of DVLA who did not update my records correctly.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Sweeney Todd

[gwc1000]

I'm not convinced that there is any need to respond. However, if you do feel it necessary to reply, you could state that up until such time DVLA are successful in winning a case against you in Court for this matter, no debt exists, and you consider the matter to be in dispute. If it were me, I would also state that I look forward to the opportunity of defending this matter in Court.

[Sweeney Todd]

I agree that a response isn't necessary, and I would welcome my day in court because, as I see it, the bottom line is that I advised DVLA that I had disposed of the vehicle and they are trying to fine me because they failed to update their records; however, whilst I clearly do not own the vehicle that they are pursuing a fine against, do they have any right of way of clamping or seizing the car that I do own?

[gwc1000]

Why not write to DVLA and Phillips and ask the specific question if DVLA are intending to clamp a different vehicle than the actual vehicle that the LLP is for. And ask for the specific legislation that covers such action. Might be an interesting response.

[cxd01]

Dear Sweeney Todd

 

If its of any comfort I'm in a very similar situation to you. I sold a motorbike in August 2008 and received confirmation of the transfer of ownership from the DVLA. I didnt keep the letter and in June 2009 received a penalty notice for not renewing the road fund licence in April 2009.

The enforcement centre catagorically deny having received my completed V5C or sending an acknowledgement of reciept.

 

So severall wasted letters later (as you may as well be corresponding with a brick wall) I completed a V888 application asking the DVLA to confirm the date I sold the vehicle, and what do you know I receive a letter back confirming I sold it on the 31st August 2008!

However, because the enforcement centre are saying that their nrecords did not indicate this when they sent me a penalty notice in June 2009 the fine will remain in force! What a bunch of beurocratic loons.

My final letter today (recorded delivery) simply states "see you in Court"

I'm happy to attend court and expose the DVLA's incompetency and lack of any rationale to perhaps admit that they may have actually made a mistake.

[Sweeney Todd]

Thanks for your feedback, guys. cxd01, it is frustrating, isn't it?

 

How does the following letter, to Philips, sound? I've followed your suggestion gwc, and asked them to confirm whether they would look to clamp my current vehicle and, if so, under what legislation.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your ref: xxxx

Vehicle Reg: xxxx

 

Thank you for your letter of 1 September 2009, the contents of which are noted.

 

As holders of a Consumer Credit Licence you are obliged to comply with the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt Collection. I would therefore be obliged if you would provide me with an explanation as to why you are attempting to collect on an alleged debt which was disputed with DVLA.

 

DVLA have been advised that they were correctly informed of the disposal of the vehicle in question, and that the failure to amend records was theirs and not mine and, as such, no penalty should have been imposed.

Take notice that I will not discuss this matter on the telephone, and all communication must be in writing. Any telephone calls will be perceived as harassment, and dealt with accordingly.

 

In addition, both DVLA and, now, yourselves have been advised that this vehicle was disposed of and DVLA informed in the correct manner and at the correct time.

 

In view of this, I trust that this matter will now be brought to an end or, alternatively, referred to county court so that this matter may be resolved and the errors of DVLA and their lack of complaints or appeal procedure brought to the attention of the court.

 

Finally, I note your threat to wheelclamp my vehicle. My current vehicle is not the subject of this error by DVLA and is suitably taxed. I trust that Philips will not be looking to wheelclamp this vehicle however if this is not the case, I would be grateful if you would kindly advise under what legislation this will be applied.

 

I look forward to your reply in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sweeney Todd

[Big Bill]

You could also point out the following paragraph from the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which shows that the actions of the DCA in question are in fact illegal and that the illegality applies to the DVLA as well

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person ( i.e. the DVLA) may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.