BREAKING NEWS – DVLA Loses In Court

[avante]

Well I got the letter this morning from the DVLA, they've dropped the case against me.

BUT, I'm not really in the mood to accept this, they've said that due to my individual circumstances (which are no different to anyone esles circumstances regards SORN or Failure to notify disposal) they accept my mitigation I have provided, Ha! I didnt provide any mitigation, I didnt ask for any mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration.

So, I'm not going to accept this.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

I agree write a rebuff to their letter. This is something they will use to prove how understanding they are....

 

When I finish with all my other stuff, PPI's and the like which Mr Hobbit should not have had, I am will tackle the DVLA to get back my money it took to correct their incompetence. Thank goodness for recored mail.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Hobbit

[lonerider]

Avante, you have to laugh!

 

Ok UPDATE everyone

 

Things are still happening. However I need you to post your complaints here please on the official Watchdog Programme. It's evidence for later on.

 

I have been going through paper by paper to get them to write about the DVLA. It looks good. Reasom why its taking a long time, the papers are waiting for a response from the DVLA before they can publish anything.

 

This is what we are requesting the DVLA implement to make the SORN fairer:

 

 

Official Complaint Process – must be independent

 

Official Appeals Process - must be independent

 

All refused Appeal letters to be referred and allowed to be heard by the ICA and only the ICA to decide what course of action should be needed, not the Chief Executive. – must be independent

Any documentation that is sent by the DVLA which requires the recipient to respond via letter should be sent recorded post by the DVLA and a prepaid recorded envelope paid by the DVLA should be used to send back any documentation. This will stop people getting fined because the DVLA has either lost it or has got lost in the mail

 

To hold the DVLA more accountable. When the DVLA makes mistakes over and over again, a fine should be implemented to stop this happening. And the power to sack CEO.

Please post your DVLA complaints here

Edited June 15, 2010 by lonerider
update

[avante]

Best bet would be to get rid of SORN altogether. It is so flawed and is unecessary. With the PNC in place, and reg number recognition, and the DVLA maintaining a database of VED, insurance and MOT, it is far easier now to identify vehicles which are being driven without proper documentation.

SORN creates no end of problems due to the fact that it is not possible to even park a vehicle on the public road without VED. Look up and down any street these days and you can see that there is not enough private ground for the number of vehicles owned. It would be nice to think that all cars could fit on peoples driveways, but they can't. You can park a car on a public road without MOT, and without insurance, but not without VED. I have a vehicle parked on the public road, which I can't drive as the MOT ran out, but I bought VED prior to it running out, so its legally parked on the road for the next 12 months!

So what does SORN actually achieve? Apart from revenue generation from late penalties, and reomving cars from the road that havent moved for years?

[avante]

Lonerider, I think its just a game, which I hope more people will get involved in.

Don't pay this penalty, just make sure you hassle them until they give up and look for an easier mark!

A couple of things I included in my letters to the Compliance Officer. In the letters from both him and also the Enforcement Officers, they give statements which appear to be providing legal advice such as "If you do not do this, YOU will have NO DEFENCE!" I think those types of statements constitute legal advice, and I asked "Can you provide me with the legal qualifications of Mrs XXXXXXXXXX and Mr XXXXXXXXXX in your response"

 

Of course I never got a response!

 

I am going to write back to the DVLA and query their letter that states that they are dropping action against me due to my exceptional mitigating circumstances, asking them to tell me what those exceptional mitigating circumstances are, as there arent any - unless of course you include the law as being an exceptional mitigating circumstance!!

[lonerider]

FOI (Freedom of information request) are a great tool. I have sent over to many to mention. This is costing them money. More then £80 for my illegal SORN fine. Remember every time to write to them include links that shows they have messed up. Dont just send it to one department send it to many. Send it BCC to individual email addresses to staff, staff will just want to click on the links to have a look. Human Nature. Yes its a game we are starting to win. Your post did make me laugh! Remember they are not the government, they are a private company working as an agency.

 

..................................................................................................

 

Please post your DVLA complaints here

[slick132]

Hi Avante,

 

You can park a car on a public road without MOT, and without insurance, but not without VED. I have a vehicle parked on the public road, which I can't drive as the MOT ran out, but I bought VED prior to it running out, so its legally parked on the road for the next 12 months!

 

I'm sure you're wrong about this. Insurance is required if the vehicle is parked on a public road, regardless of whether it is being used/driven.

 

The police will have your vehicle towed away if they become aware of it.

 

[ukdickie31]

Lonerider said

 

"All refused Appeal letters to be referred and allowed to be heard by the ICA and only the ICA to decide what course of action should be needed, not the Chief Executive. – must be independent"

 

I would add to this to state that any ICE recommendation be binding on both DVLA and complainant.

 

In my case, I successfully challenged the CE's refusal to refer my case to ICE.

 

ICE recommended that DVLA 'give me the benefit of the doubt' and that I was 'clearly an honest motorist' but also added that DVLA could choose to ignore her recommendation. She also stated that DVLA had done so in previous similar cases.

 

What's the point of having an independent process that can be ignored ?

 

I was going to use this in my Court defence before they Scr£wed up and ran out of time to pay the court fees and the case was struck out !!!!

[lonerider]

UPDATE: 21/06/10

 

I have finished compleating my PHSO form. This will be sent of this week.

 

The form below is ONLY to be used if all else has failed with regards to the DVLA. It needs to be signed by your MP.

 

Please also remember to post your Official DVLA Complaints Here. I have been told, Watchdog may follow this up. So, really important that we post our complaints. Please ask your friends, people that you work with, to post their complaints.

PHSO DVLA Complaint Form.pdf

Edited June 21, 2010 by lonerider

[tifo]

I will be making a BREAKING NEWS announcement on Wednesday evening 26th May 2010 with regards the the DVLA.

 

Hope it wasn't the Watchdog program? They've been on there many times before. It's NOT breaking news ....

[tifo]

I'm sure you're wrong about this. Insurance is required if the vehicle is parked on a public road, regardless of whether it is being used/driven.

 

Yes, that's right. I had the name of a few cases which confirm this but can't find them now. You also need MOT unless the car is in a TOTALLY immovable state. The case details stated that it COULD have been repaired and driven, even with, for example, no tyres or other mechanical defect.

 

I know this from experience because I had a car clamped and later towed in 2008 after a month of no road tax but i had it parked on private land (but not on that day). The DVLA said they COULD have had me done for no insurance (the car had a valid MOT).

 

I let them crush the car rather than buy the road tax (i had no need for it though it was worth £300 ish as is). They then fined me £75 for not displaying road tax after the car had got crushed for not having one). I got told (on here) that this is correct as it's two seperate offences (1 for not having tax and 1 for not displaying it, though how you can display if you don't have it is beyond me).

 

When they let me crush the car (I had to sign ownership over to them) they said i'd hear no more of it, then i got the fine some weeks later. I feel i was lied to.

[fwog]

We now have over 240 complaints and counting. This is great news.

 

Please , can I ask that you keep the preasure up and post your complaint.

 

Please post your complaint here

 

Please spread the word.

 

Nice one LR.

Knew the DVLA couldn't proliferate for long. Could it have something to do with not having Labour backing any more? Just a thought

 

Well done again, rep added!

 

Fwog

[JonCris]

Nice one LR.

Knew the DVLA couldn't proliferate for long. Could it have something to do with not having Labour backing any more? Just a thought

 

Well done again, rep added!

 

Fwog

 

I wish When I complained to my Tory MP about the DVLA calling them jobsworths he rushed to their defence saying "no they aren't" to which I replied "they are & its only a matter of time before you realize it"

 

Since all of the adverse publicity I've been tempted to send him an email saying "I told you so"

[lonerider]

Hi

 

UPDATE:

Its been an interesting morning, on my mission to expose the DVLA for fining people unlawfully.

 

I am now getting feedback from news papers.

 

My story will be published next week. I will in due course provide you the link and details nearer the time. It does not stop at just one paper, we are talking many.

 

All that I ask, that you post your official DVLA complaints on the Watchdog Site. Its easy to control and easy to read. There is a route we are taking and we are clear what we want to achieve.

 

Cheers

[avante]

If the car is taxed it can be kept on the public road. Insurance is only relevent if driven as is MOT. The DVLA cannot do anyone for no insurance, insurance is not a DVLA matter.

[mightymouse_69]

If the car is taxed it can be kept on the public road. Insurance is only relevent if driven as is MOT. The DVLA cannot do anyone for no insurance, insurance is not a DVLA matter.

 

Indeed - It's a police matter.

 

If the car is on a public road it must have an insurance policy covering it.

[avante]

Show me the law that says that a car needs to be insured to be parked on a public road, I've never found one. Its obviously a criminal offence to drive without insurance, but where does the law say that a car has to be insured to be parked on a public road?

[mightymouse_69]

Show me the law that says that a car needs to be insured to be parked on a public road, I've never found one. Its obviously a criminal offence to drive without insurance, but where does the law say that a car has to be insured to be parked on a public road?

 

Section 143(1)a of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that:

 

a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

 

To use means to have the motor vehicle on the road. This is seen in Williams v O'Keefe [1947]

 

Therefore - merely having the car on the road is 'using'

[Conniff]

So if just having a car on the road is using it, then you can be done for drink driving even if you just had a few cans in front of the tv and went to bed surely, or you could be done for no MoT as you are using the car without the required certificate?

[JonCris]

So if just having a car on the road is using it, then you can be done for drink driving even if you just had a few cans in front of the tv and went to bed surely, or you could be done for no MoT as you are using the car without the required certificate?

 

 

yes if you have the keys on your person you can be done for drink driving

 

A vehicle on a public highway must be fully licened & insured

[mightymouse_69]

So if just having a car on the road is using it, then you can be done for drink driving even if you just had a few cans in front of the tv and went to bed surely, or you could be done for no MoT as you are using the car without the required certificate?

 

The offence is Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs.

 

The word "use" is not a requirement for this offence. It is required that one drives or is in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit.

 

So you are safe to have a few cans and retire to bed! However having a few cans and then realising you need to go to the car to get something out of the glove box could land you in trouble should you go to the car with your keys!

 

Jon Cris's point about having the keys is correct and relates to the "being in charge" aspect.

[JonCris]

The offence is Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs.

 

The word "use" is not a requirement for this offence. It is required that one drives or is in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit.

 

So you are safe to have a few cans and retire to bed! However having a few cans and then realising you need to go to the car to get something out of the glove box could land you in trouble should you go to the car with your keys!

 

Jon Cris's point about having the keys is correct and relates to the "being in charge" aspect.

 

 

The police now use this law (which predates the breatherlizer) to overcome an often used defence when a drunk driver being pursued by the police has got home in time to drink before being breathalized

[Conniff]

To use means to have the motor vehicle on the road. This is seen in Williams v O'Keefe [1947]

 

Therefore - merely having the car on the road is 'using'

 

I cannot find anything on the net that refers to Williams v O'Keefe or anything that defines 'use' of a vehicle.

 

Can you link for me please, especially the defination of 'use'?

[Conniff]

The offence is Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs.

 

The word "use" is not a requirement for this offence. It is required that one drives or is in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit.

 

So you are safe to have a few cans and retire to bed! However having a few cans and then realising you need to go to the car to get something out of the glove box could land you in trouble should you go to the car with your keys!

 

Jon Cris's point about having the keys is correct and relates to the "being in charge" aspect.

 

 

So same scenario, few tinnies watching England lose the world cup at home, but the keys are besides you on the coffee table. You are obviously in charge of the car as no one else in the house is licensed to drive. Are you saying that they can be done in those circumstances?

[mightymouse_69]

My mistake.

 

The case name is williamson v o'keeffe [1947] 1 All ER 307

 

The info i have is on a subscription site so i cannot link to it, the actual case is just an abstract as well. The information actuall came from Halsbury's Laws of England.

 

As for the second question, guidence regarding "in charge of" offences was given in DPP v Watkins [1989] QB 821

 

• (1) although there is no hard and fast all-embracing test of what constitutes being 'in charge' for the purposes of the Road Traffic 1988 s 4 (as amended) or s 5, there has to be a close connection between the defendant and control of the vehicle;
  

 

• (2) two broad propositions are clear: the 'in charge' offence comes below driving and attempting to drive in the scale of drink-driving offences and a defendant can therefore be in charge although neither driving nor attempting to drive; but as the mischief aimed at is to prevent driving when unfit through drink or drugs the offence of being in charge must be intended to convict those who have not yet done more than a preparatory act towards driving, but who have already formed or may yet form the intention to drive the vehicle and may try to drive it whilst still unfit;
  

 

• (3) if the defendant is not the owner, lawful possessor or recent driver of the vehicle but is sitting in the vehicle or is otherwise involved with it, the question is whether he has assumed being in charge of it; and he will be in charge if, whilst unfit, he is voluntarily in de facto control of the vehicle or if, in the circumstances, including his position, his intentions and his actions, he may be expected imminently to assume control;
  

 

• (4) an intention to take control may be evident even though the defendant has not gained entry to the motor, eg by stealing the keys in circumstances showing that he means presently to drive it;
  

 

• (5) the circumstances to be taken into account will vary infinitely, but the following will be relevant: (a) whether and where the defendant is in the vehicle or how far he is from it; (b) what he is doing at the relevant time; © whether he is in possession of a key that fits the ignition; (d) whether there is any evidence of an intention to take or assert control of the car by driving it or otherwise; and (e) whether any other person is in, at or near the vehicle and, if so, the like particulars in respect of that person.
  

I have a reasonable list of cases which no doubt go into detail! Its too late now but if you wish i can furnish you with the details of them (should they proove useful)

 

The key thing is that it is a matter of fact and degree. In the world cup case you gave - i would say no. They have not gone beyond a "a preparatory act towards driving" and they have not "formed or may yet form the intention to drive the vehicle."

Edited June 26, 2010 by mightymouse_69