Notice about tax disc - but think I was on private property

[Herewe]

Right,

 

I've submitted all the facts of the matter regarding the alleged offence, and also detailed all the inevitable trials and tribulations you always suffer whenever the DVLA are involved, and submitted it to the Enforcement Dept., and by recorded mail to the local enforcement office with their letter, and also submitted it as a complaint to the DVLA, and sent it to my MP for the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport. From experience, this is the only way to make sure they don't ignore you.

 

When will this crooked rogue trader finally get it's come uppance?

[Herewe]

DVLA SAY THEY'RE 'SORRY' - BUT REVEAL INNER WORKINGS OF CORRUPTION

 

The letter I received today, on behalf of the office of Simon Tse whom I forwarded the details of all this to, confirms that the case has been withdrawn and the matter is now closed.

 

Though they have apologised and confirmed that I did nothing wrong incompliance by keeping the SORN vehicle on a private road, here's the problem I have with all this.

 

They blame this having happened due to a police officer who saw the vehicle parked on what they thought was the public road. It seems DVLA tactics go bad somewhere between receiving the report of an alleged offence and automatically demanding payment from the person the report is about. It states that when the report was received at the Enforcement Centre, 'they were required to send an OCS letter'. The letter states that an offence has taken place, though they had made no efforts to verify this allegation and knew nothing about any truth to it, nor had they even looked at the facts of the matter. The letter is carefully designed to mislead and threaten people, that they are already guiltyof whatever it is, and that their only option is to make payment or be taken to court.

 

I'm not someone who gives in easily to things, though I must admit the threat of court action was so great, that DVLA seemed determined to bring against meand it proving so difficult to protest my innocence, I was very tempted simply to pay up the £100 for the matter simply to be done with and remove all worry and because the amount of time I've wasted resolving DVLA's bad practices have far exceeded £100 worth of my own time. I know I'm not the only person to have thought like this, and of course DVLA counts on this so many people do pay despite their innocence so DVLA perpetuate demanding and processing fraudulent allegations for out of court settlements.

 

It's a separate issue how Surrey Police waste police time and in turn harass innocent members of the public by driving round private property and running number plates on cars that are legally privately parked and reporting them for anything they can. At this rate it certainly seems police cuts are necessary as having them deliberately waste police time like this to avoid doing any real work is also a complete waste of taxpayer's money. I'm inclined to get a copy of the police report submitted to DVLA and raise this as a complaint with Surrey Police, this is not the first time I've witnessed them blatantly wastingpolice time and their refusal to do any real work.

 

The far greater threat though is DVLA persecution of innocent people that forces them to pay false allegations. The process they have described of sending out fines and Out of Court Settlements seems to be one of trying their chances with any and every allegation they can muster up. The letter begins by stating that an offence has taken place, implying you have already been found guilty, it's irrelevant at this stage whether they are right or wrong, whether they even know or check themselves if there is any truth to the allegation or not, or if they even have any evidence of what they are accusing you of. They are simply throwing darts at a board to get as many to comply as possible. The Out of Court Settlement letter provides two options - 'return the form or be taken to court'. There is no mention on the letter for you to query the matter further, protest your innocence, or obtain or provide any useful information other than how to make payment for this allegation that may or may not be true (that's irrelevant at this stage, their only interest is in payment). The only other details on the letter are how you can make payment, implying this is your only option. The only phone number on the letter is a payment line, the people you speak to are under instructions to mislead you further. They tell you that there is no other way to contact the DVLA by telephone, that the phone lines atthe DVLA only exist for making payment and that they are unable to discuss anything other than your credit or debit card details. The reverse of the letter that you 'MUST' complete only gives you the options to confirm that you were the registered keeper and provide your payment details, or provide the details of the person who is the registered keeper - this one is ironic because although you won't have to pay this time it'll pave the way for them to accuse you of a new offence that they don't know whether is true or not, and, yes you guessed it start demanding that you pay even more money. It's all a well-engineered ruse to force even the innocent to submit to paying allegations that the Agency doesn't care whether they are true or not.

 

In view of these facts, it's clear the DVLA acts immorally and dishonestly with a sole focus on money. In what almost seems a vendetta against drivers DVLA have totally lost the faith and confidence of the public, and are ever increasingly the focus of media attention for their unfair harassment of innocent people for false allegations and fines. For example, DVLA have been the subject of almost every season of BBC's Watchdog program Rogue Traders for the last 10 consecutive seasons, and news articles of people wrongly accused by the DVLA who face a difficult and manipulative battle to clear their name are almost daily. It's been less than three years since my last round of complaints with the DVLA that involved a similar case of wrongful accusation, and in closing my complaint on that occasion I stated that I hoped DVLA would clean up their act, and behave in a more responsible, reasonable and honest manner that one would tend to expect appropriate of a government agency. Indeed it would seem the underhand tactics of the Agency has worsened since then and is in an ever increasing state of moral decline, lost in a culture of fines and lies.

 

DVLA routinely make false allegations to demand and take payment from innocent people through victimisation and bullying, and this must stop. The only way it can do this is through implementation of the following:

 

1. Before automatically sending Out of Court Settlements at every opportunity that an offence may have occurred, a careful review needs to be undertaken of the facts and evidence of the matter to determine whether the alleged offence is in fact true and they are justified in making these accusations. They can no longer be frivolous or opportunistic attempts as they have been.

 

2. Letters and communications on matters regarding alleged offences, fines and Out of Court Settlements must not mislead, threaten or bully people. Forexample, it is not acceptable to open by simply stating that 'an offence has taken place', then provide no useful or valid information of the alleged offence, as it implies the person has been found guilty, when in fact in many cases no offence has taken place due to how freely DVLA issues these accusations. They should only be able to state that they believe an alleged offence to have taken place. Further, it is not acceptable to threaten that the person must return the form or be taken to court, when that form only has the option to admit guilt by one way or another and make payment.

 

3. Letters and communications on matters regarding alleged offences, fines and Out of Court Settlements must be clear and invite the person the opportunity to present information and improve communications on the matter.For example, it is not acceptable to simply state that the person 'must pay or be taken to court', this says that these are their only two options andanything else is irrelevant. All the rest of the letter front and rear simply contains information on making payment, which is the only option given to them. They are not afforded the option anywhere to present their side or make further inquiries about the offence that has been so vaguely accused of. The only phone number provided is a payment line where they support misleading people in this way; by saying that there is no other way to contact DVLA by phone and that the phone lines only exist for taking payment. No other contact details are given except for the address to return the form that confirms guilt no matter which section of the form they fill out. All of these things mislead the person to believe that their only two lines of communication by return are to make payment or be taken to court. Contact details must be provided that allow the person to open communications or make the relevant inquiries, for example relevant phone numbers, email addresses, complaints departments. Any form that people 'must' return under threat of being taken to court is not acceptable.

 

4. Communications on any alleged offence must be clear about what has happened, why they believe this to be an offence, what evidence they have that has led them to reach this conclusion, and be clear and specific in doing so. Simply to state that an offence has taken place is not sufficient, and is deliberately vague as the rest of the letter only contains payment details and the threat of what will happen if they don't pay. The ability to inquire further to gain clarity is essential, people have a right to understand what they are accused of so they can know if they are guilty or not. It's not up to DVLA to decide based purely on greed. The main focus of the letter is payment information, though this is seemingly the only thing DVLA has any competence at, there is no balance to the person they are trying to victimise.

 

These are all reasonable steps any honest organisation would and should carry out before making outlandish demands for payment, threats of taking someone to court and beginning what is for many a campaign to bully them into paying regardless of any legitimacy to the case. Innocent people who often find themselves faced with all of this will often submit through fear. It's shocking that the DVLA doesn't already follow these basic practices that any honest decent organisation would before issuing allegations and threats, the way that it doesn't attempt to follow and the manipulative process it instead employs reveals the Agency's true intentions. It is necessary that the people accused are not innocents forced to pay such demands by deliberate threats and misleading behaviour. The conduct of the Agency has caused this to be a growing problem, and they now appear to thrive on it as a business model of extortion, now a madness of fines and lies. Failure to implement each of these points would only mean that the DVLA continue this practice and willingly take payment for fraudulent allegations.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Herewe

[Herewe]

All opinions welcome to this, that I am finalising to send to all the relevant avenues.

 

To anybody savvy enough, can anyone help identify what specific laws and regulations DVLA are breaking with these tactics for their fines? I'm sure they are breaking quite a few, but it would be good if I can reference some specific ones.

 

Thanks

[Guest GraceCourt]

It might be a simple case that the officer didnt know it was a private road. There is a road half a mile from where i live that is a private road, and people who live down there regularly do 70 down it. Silly? Sure. But its not illegal. Didn't stop the police trying to arrest the drivers down there and sending them to court. However, one of the people arrested was a well known and wealthy solicitor, and won the case by gaining info from the county council and the land registry to prove that it was indeed private land.

 

The sad thing is, it took the better part of half a million of taxpayers cash, simply because the officer wouldnt admit he messed up.

 

This is a very strange story indeed, as driving at 70mph on such a road is almost certainly illegal. The proof follows.

 

The definition of a road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not whether the land is private or not. Clearly, such a private road is a place where a motor car subject of a Statutory Off-Road Notification ("SORN") can lawfully be parked without a Vehicle Excise Licence, because it is not "a road which is repairable at the public expense", [section 62(1) Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994].

 

The definition of a road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA1988) can be found in Section 192(1) , which "... in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes."

 

So, dear readers, what is the problem here? It is simply this... where a prosecution is to be brought for excess speed, it is founded on the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and Section 142(1) of that Act defines "road" in exactly the same way as RTA1988. Therefore, anyone driving at 70mph on such a private road is exceeding the national speed limit for a singe-carriageway road by 10mph, and can be convicted quite lawfully if it is a road to which the public has access.

 

Lower speed restrictions for specific roads are implemented by Local Traffic Orders made by local authorities under Section 84 RTRA1984, so one can understand why the speed limit is probably not lower on the road described... but the point is, if anyone was to be prosecuted as alleged, the first thing the Crown Prosecution Service would want is a copy of the LTO. And if there is no LTO specifying such a speed limit on the road concerned, it would never have seen the inside of a Magistrates' Court, far less have cost "... the better part of half a million of taxpayers cash".

 

There is also a problem in respect of the allegation that numerous people were arrested for so doing, given that "one of the people arrested was a well known and wealthy solicitor" - this could only have occurred if one or more of the "necessity criteria" (the amendments to Section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 made by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005) were met, and the likelihood is pretty low of this occurring at all in the case of a driver exceeding 60mph in a private road, but more than once in that same road? Bearing in mind that most private roads don't lead anywhere except to industrial estates or private housing estates, and that most wealthy solicitors using such a road are probably just going home?

 

Bearing all this in mind, I'm afraid that in the absence of some hard facts - e.g. the name of the street or a newspaper report outlining this alleged fiasco - it must be assumed simply to be a complete fantasy in the mind of the OP.

[dx100uk]

YES I MUST AGREE WITH THIS TOO.

 

IT MATTERS NOT ITS A PRIVATE ROAD

 

UNLES IT IS GATED

 

THE [opps caps]

 

rta rules do apply

 

dx

[wobbly]

I was prosecuted about 40 years ago for careless driving on a private road,the police used section 5 of the road traffic act on the basis that although it was a private road the public had access to it .this road went to factories and a wholesale warehouse.I pleaded guilty , the police prosecuter interupted me when I was giving my version of what happened and why and the magistrates gave him such a glare and then fined me £30 and an endorsement.I was expecting about £100 fine and an endorsement.I dont kow wether section 5 still exists but that was what they used then.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

To go back to some comments made earlier re the DVLA it is an ''Executive Agency'' charged with the administration of specified Acts of Parliament.

This story is at best 'fanciful', and at worst very misleading to those with no knowledge of the RTA.

[Raykay]

It's nothing to do with the Road Traffic Acts. A motor vehicle is an exempt vehicle as far as Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 is concerned if it is being driven to or from a pre-arranged test, the legislation does not state that it must be to and from the same address.

 

As the ticket was attached to the car it would have to be done where it was. So the status of the land is relevant, not how it got there.