Unlicensed keeping of motor

[Arup]

I had already applied for the tax disc by post V11 well before expiry and sent a cheque No. xxxx. ( I have proof true copy)

I had latter communicated on the 3rd of December with the DVLA Office that I did not receive my disc.

They informed me to wait for some more time. So I again called on the 11th Dec 09 and they asked me to send copy of V11 and the original cheque. I had sent that along with the attached letter. They told me to wait for two weeks so they can investigate. But nothing happened since. (I have true copy)

On 30th I got my car clamped while the car was parked outside my house. I explained the above situation to that agency, but they said that they are private agency not DVLA.

I said to them it is just outside my house not even on the road, but they told me the whole area where I live is public highway.

So I had to pay them money and again get a disc from local post office, although I had already paid for that via cheque.

What is my offence. I insisted that DVLA department that take the responsibility for this mess and refund me the charges that their privately hired agency has taken from me.

I have followed their procedure and have done no fault.

If due to their procedural failures I do not receive the tax disc in time why will it be my fault. I think they call it a criminal charge on me for for failure on their part to send me disc.

But DVLA threatens me with the consequence of £1000 unless I paid them 49 pounds out of court settlement. I refused.

DVLA has decided to goto Court.

As a defendent I wish to countercharge them for the charges and the cost involved.

I read the warning section in V11 and see lot of conflicting advises, like if you had applied online or over phone then for first five days you will not be doing offence for the disc to arrive by post.

Then it says we accept it is not always possible to tax your vehicle in time ..... will not be commiting offence if you sorn with 14 days of the date your current disc run out.

Whats best way to use the Section 7 Interpretations act 1978 (IA78) in my favour.

I see a link here DVLA lose court battle over SORN

Please advise thanks.

[Conniff]

Have your received a summons?

 

Make sure you get all the paperwork in order and check your bank to see if the cheque has been cashed.

[Arup]

Yes I have summons.

 

I have all the paper works in place. I see that the evidence which I initially sent to DVLA have not been copied to the Magistrate judge.

 

No the cheque was not encashed .. DVLA Swansea has misplaced both my V11 form and my cheque as it appears, as I did not receive any communication from them since.

 

So by the time DVLA said will investigate and get back to me , these people clamped my vehicle.

 

So I had no other options but to buy another disc at Post office.

 

I told them I have followed the procedures. I have proof for those which I sent to them numerous times.

 

So why should I take the blame of criminal offence when its none of my fault. Its their procedural fault.

 

Appears they want to bully me into paying money as they have got that right under section 29 ..

 

But the sections in V11 , warning notes are also quite unclear about 5 days / 14 days.. Does not mention anything if there is fault with their (DVLA's) own system due to which a person do not receive the disc in time.

[Raykay]

Did you send your first application to Swansea?, I don't think they deal with postal applications, it should have been sent to the address on the V11, which may account for the problem.

[Arup]

Yes,

I have received the summons.

No the cheque has not been encashed. Last time they asked me to send copy of my V11 and cheque on 3rd Dec. I did that and said they will get back in two weeks.

May be that DVLA Swansea has apparently misplaced my V11 as well as the cheque. I did not receive any communication from them.

And in the meain time these people clamped my vehicle.

So I had no other option but to again pay at post office and get another disc.

The point is I have followed the procedures. It is DVLA who have failed to provide me a disc in time.

I have done everything as I have been instructed.

So why should I be heaped with a criminal record as per section 29, for their failure.

This is what I want to put across to the magistrate.

There are also sections in V11 as warning which talks about 5 days no offence as they understand postal delays, then they say 14 days delay is acceptable if applying for SORN.

This is completely confusing.

I have not done any delay at all in my end. Its all about them misplacing my application.

Any idea on specific sections of Articles in my favour.

[Arup]

Yes i did send the first application as given in the V11 form.

[Arup]

I have in the past won against a parking ticket. I had been quite plain and simple in my complain letter to the judge and gave photo evidence

 

I found I was being bullied by the parking office in that instance and they did not consider my statements.

 

But the judge listened to my statements and overruled the ticket.

 

Hope something happens like that as it is not my fault at all.

 

If I get some advise on the sections then it will bequite useful.

 

I have to countercharge them.

[buzby]

The V11 states where to get your tax disc from. The first option is always via their online service, followed by the Post Office counter, and then to the MVL duty areas office. I do not believe DVLA themselves handle direct applications, but what works against you is that as the cheque has not been encashed, you've not paid for the VED and therefore are unlicenced.

 

If it comes to court, then this would be your answer, but only in mitigation - it would not address the real issue of there not being a valid VED. Can you remember what address was on the V112 form?

[Arup]

If they have misplaced the cheque and form , then why should I be accountable. They advised me to send copies which I retained and I did send those.

 

I have true copy proof of sending them, I've also sent them copies after I have spoken with them as they had asked.

 

So why you should the court work that against me ?

[buzby]

You are not buying a bag of coal. This is a TAX and as such had to be recieved and processed with you exchanging your payment for the tax liability waiver. A cheque is only a promise to pay, not payment in itself.

 

If you feel this is unfair, I suggest you try the same thing with the Inland Revenue, evidence of posting a cheque is not accepted as payment of the liability - far from it, as the penalties will run until they DO acknowledge payment.

 

Currently, you have not paid for VED, so any action remains competent. We can all claim the 'cheque is in the post' and hope to use it as an excuse - whether it is or not is irrelevant - it is the actual payment that counts, not the intention.

[Raykay]

In your post no. 3 you state that DVLA Swansea has misplaced your V11 and cheque, but have you asked the office where you sent them what has happened to them?

[Arup]

buzby , I don't understand your logic.

 

I said I've followed the procedure as mentioned by them. I'm not responsible for their departmental failures.

 

I've tried to co-operate and send them copies as they have requested required for their investigation.

 

As I mentioned earlier , VED was paid on 30th Dec 09 through post office as I could not await the response from the DVLA, because the car was clamped. And waiting for their response seemed useless.

 

Original V11 form + cheque was sent on 20th of Nov 09 as my disc was running out on 30th Nov 09.

 

I contacted again on 3rd Dec on non-recipt of my disc when they asked me to resend the copies and told it will take two weeks at that time (vacation period for them and staff were less)

 

 

RayKay I sent it addressed to whatever address was there on the form. I have communicate later as well.

[Raykay]

The bottom line is that you used or kept an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, you may have mitigating circumstances and not be responsible for their departmental failures, but you are responsible for obtaining, which as Buzby has said, means actually paying for and receiving, a valid licence - not just applying for it. In theory you should have kept your car off the public road until it was actually licensed.

[Arup]

I had already paid for it. Unless they give me the licencse I cannot get it. I have sent the application for license and I cannot apply for SORN at the same time. That does not make sense.

 

The application can be either made for SORN or VED not both together.

 

Moreover my car was parked just outside my house. I did not know until then they classify outside my house as public highyway.

 

But the fact is I have informed the DVLA about the situtation and I was awaiting for their investigation.

 

It has been proved that DVLA do loose letters internally.

 

I do not understand the meaning of bottomline is I have to get it. I cannot get it out of the sky , I can only follow the procedure and it is the onus of the department to provide it to me.

 

This is another link

DVLA Loses in Court | Speedy Registrations Blog

[buzby]

Ah but you ARE responsible for their failures if it means you;ve not paid the tax. The logic remains flawless, it is your expectations of blame that are not! It was certainly bad luck to get hit with a clamp so quickly by the roving cowboys, but you knew you were not displaying a valid VED so would be a prime target.

 

The good news? As your renewal had no 'break' you won't get hit with a charge of not taxing your vehicle. If they find your initial correspondence then they may well agree to rebate the clamp fee, but as this is by no means certain, this may be a lesson to do it all online, rather than rely on their paper shuffling techniques.

 

You DID not 'pay for it'. You supplied a piece of paper than COULD be used to obtain payment, assuming it was recieved and processed correctly. Just because it didn't does NOT absolve you from making the payment, as your bank handn;t given them the benefit of any funds, your position is untenable. In much the same way as you thought the car parking outside your house was not the public road. It was, and you got clamped. Yes, the DVLA are incompetent at times, but taxpayers still need to pay.

 

You may not get it 'out of the sky' but the Internet is a pretty useful alternative.

Edited August 3, 2010 by buzby

[Arup]

buzby,

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

"You DID not 'pay for it'. You supplied a piece of paper than COULD be used to obtain payment, assuming it was recieved and processed correctly. Just because it didn't does NOT absolve you from making the payment, as your bank handn;t given them the benefit of any funds, your position is untenable."

 

I have never stopped them from taking the funds , by giving them a cheque.

 

Are you meaning to say I should have done something more than the procedures available to me. Meaning I should ensure that money is getting into their account (meaning ask them to send the cheque to my bank or urge them to encash it) or I should goto their office and try to find out for them how they may have misplaced the papers and possibly help them in finding that.

 

I don't think what you say is logical, and clearly my view is also the view of the judge in the posting I provided earlier.

DVLA Loses in Court | Speedy Registrations Blog

 

let me know your comments and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Raykay]

That link is a totally different situation to yours, it is to do with DVLA allegedly losing a SORN notification. Yours is keeping or using a vehicle without a licence.

 

You had not 'already paid for it', you had only applied for it using a cheque which they could not use to take the funds from you because your application had apparently been lost.

[buzby]

I don't know a different way to say what has been said already. As Raykay notes, your link refers to a totally different situation where no mony changes hands (yet!).

 

There's an old joke about when a friend dies and you owe him money, a cheque for the full amount is placed in his coffin! The debt hasn't been settled, and never will - until the cheque has been encashed. As your cheque has not, then you did not pay. You could use this is as mitigation but not a defence.

 

You are making heavy weather of a sequence of events that has no relevance to the court. Whether you turned up at Swansea with a wheelbarrow of 10p's (ignoring the possibility of it not being legal tender) or provided your debit card number via their online service, your defence, and your ONLY defence is to have evidence of the money leaving your account, and seeking their confirmation that the funds were paid.

[Arup]

Raykay, buzby,

 

Raykay I don't quite understand what you find different between SORN and VED notification.

 

Both mean the same and the same form V11 is used for that , its just matter of ticking one of the either boxes and paying a different amount.

 

Buzby, DVLA is not my friend. They were providing similar argument like yourself , who refusing to take faults on their part.

 

Although I mentioned them that "I have followed your procedure and informed you of the situation and did whatever they asked me to resolve the issue." But before they could complete their procedure their department clamped my vehicle.

 

 

I don't quite agree "ONLY defence is to have evidence of the money leaving your account".

 

Taking money and handing over the disc intime is part of their procedure in which I have no deemed or any influence.

 

That is the whole point implied in that posting.

[buzby]

SORN involves no payment on the part of the RK. The difference is you are required to pay, and as you only sent a piece of paper that was not encashed, you hadn't. Even if you had given them a Direct Debit (some suppliers like this) there is no defence of non payment if they do not take the money. The responsibility to pay remains with the customer (or in your case, RK).

 

It is not a case of ticking a box and paying a 'different' amount. YOu either pay or you do not. They never recieved the funds, so the obligation remains. The reason the argument is 'similar' is because it is correct in LAW.

 

Until you realise you did not hand over money, only a promise to pay - you'll not get the point we're trying to get over. What I've states in not implied, it is a fact. If I'm wrong, then I'll be delighted for you - but I doubt you'll get the 'justice' you seek.

[Raykay]

The difference is that the case in your link is that of the keeper sending the V11 declaring SORN which apparently has been lost, it is the loss of that document itself that the case hinges on, the original poster saying that they sent it and DVLA not accepting they did.

 

Your case is that you used or kept an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, not that you had not applied for it, someone lost your application or you are waiting for something, simply that you had not got a licence, all your claims about their incompetence etc. may be given in mitigation, but your offence is simply that you didn't have a licence and your car should not have been on the road without one, which is why it was clamped.

[Arup]

buzby which section of law construe what you mention

"The reason the argument is 'similar' is because it is correct in LAW".

I think it is ridiculous. You charge me with a criminal record because you did not encash the cheque that I gave you and you come to me and tell that I have done a criminal act because you have misplaced the cheque that I gave you.

What do you say ?

In such situation the matter is contrary to what you explained to me and is detailed in Section 7 Interpretations act 1978 (IA7 )

Raykay

 

they did not say they are not accepting ... they said to me to resend the copies which I did and they were investigating when it was clamped.

[Raykay]

they did not say they are not accepting ... they said to me to resend the copies which I did and they were investigating when it was clamped.

 

But while you were resending copies etc. your vehicle was unlicensed and should not have been on the public road until the problem was resolved and you had a licence.

 

The reason you had no licence - because of the loss of the original application and were in communication with DVLA - is irrelevant as far as the offence of not having a licence is concerned, you either had a licence or you didn't - but it may be mitigating circumstances as to why you had no licence.

[Arup]

Raykay,

 

you mention "But while you were resending copies etc. your vehicle was unlicensed and should not have been on the public road until the problem was resolved and you had a licence. "

 

It was parked just outside my house and not on the road, on the pavement "which they claim is also highway".

 

But even if that is the case there is no clear instruction given to me as to what I should do, because V11 has already been applied for VED.

 

All I had with me was the copy of the V11 which I could not reuse for separate SORN application.

 

Neither was I instructed any other alternative by the DVLA.

[Raykay]

The pavement usually is part of the highway.

 

You don't necessarily need form V11 to notify SORN, you can do it by phone, on line or using form V890, which is what you should have done from 1st December as your car was not licensed - taken it off the public road and declared SORN - while you sorted out the problem and received a licence.

 

The offence you have been summonsed for is using or keeping a an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, your dispute with DVLA over losing your application has no relevance to that.

 

If the summons had been for s.31A VERA 1994, (being the keeper of an unlicensed vehicle) you may have a viable defence, but not for s.29.