DVLA - SORN fine

[patdavies]

Even if that were true, and it is not in all cases, but even if it were (for DVLA documents), your responsibility is to inform the DVLA of the changes. If they do not recieve the notice they have not been informed and you have not completed your duty to them. All you have argued is that the letter you sent them now belongs to them, which is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether or not they have been informed.

 

I refer you to Art. 5 of the UPU Act - to which GB has been a signatory since 1875.

 

Article 5

Ownership of postal items. Withdrawal from the post. Alteration or correction of address. Redirection. Return to sender of undeliverable items

1 A postal item shall remain the property of the sender until it is delivered to the rightful owner, except when the item has been seized in pursuance of the legislation of the country of origin or destination and, in case of application of article 15.2.1.1 or 15.3, in accordance with the legislation of the country of transit.

2 The sender of a postal item may have it withdrawn from the post or

have its address altered or corrected. The charges and other conditions are laid down in the Regulations.

3 Member countries shall provide for the redirection of postal items,

if an addressee has changed his address, and for the return to sender of

undeliverable items. The charges and other conditions are laid down in the

Regulations.

Prot Article I

 

Ownership of postal items. Withdrawal from the post. Alteration or correction of address

 

1 The provisions in article 5.1 and 2 shall not apply to Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Hongkong, China, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom, Grenada, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania (United Rep.), Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu and Zambia.

If you think your argument would stand up in court, it is either only your humble opinion and will remain so until case law proves your position, OR you are already aware of such case law which you will cite for me, and which if it existed would largely negate the need to use recorded delivery for all sorts of situations of returning items and important documents to all sorts of organisations.

What part of an international treaty us unlikely to stand up in Court?

 

Under this treaty/Act, in the UK mail becomes the property of the recipient at the moment it is committed to the postal system provided by a Universal Postal Provider (usually Royal Mail). Thus a proof of posting is sufficient proof.

 

The Criminal Procedures Rules Part 4.10 - which despite not being applicable here, remain persuasive - state that an item is deemed served on the second business day after posting by first class mail. It would therefore be for the DVLA to prove non-recipt; alleging it is insufficient.

 

Not unfair because everyone is given INS160 "guidance notes" booklet with every V5 sent. And even this is supplementary advice not required by law, and the lack or loss of it would not absolve you from your responsibility under law to inform the DVLA of changes. Ignorance of law is never an excuse.

You are muddling the issue here.

 

I have never said that it is not the responsibility of the RK to notify the DVLA of changes. As you correctly state, that is law. Although, as an aside, there is no requirement for the V5 address to be either the residence of the RK or the address at which the vehicle is kept.

 

What I object to is the insistence of the DVLA that the individual remains responsible for ensuring that the DVLA does it job properly and how it attempts to place an unlawful burden on the individual.

 

VERA 1994 S.22(1)(d) is the legislation that place the obligation on the individual; there is no reference to the individual needing to 'follow-up such notification.

 

'Guidance' is, by definition, not law.

Edited September 15, 2008 by patdavies

[Wig]

I refer you to Art. 5 of the UPU Act - to which GB has been a signatory since 1875.

 

What part of an international treaty us unlikely to stand up in Court?

When arguing a case that proof of posting is proof of delivery, I suggest, that your proof of ownership, would be irrelevant.

 

Under this treaty/Act, in the UK mail becomes the property of the recipient at the moment it is committed to the postal system provided by a Universal Postal Provider (usually Royal Mail). Thus a proof of posting is sufficient proof.

It only proves posting not delivery. Ownership of the document is immaterial.

 

The Criminal Procedures Rules Part 4.10 - which despite not being applicable here, remain persuasive - state that an item is deemed served on the second business day after posting by first class mail. It would therefore be for the DVLA to prove non-recipt; alleging it is insufficient.

As I suggested earlier, you are confirming that yours is just a theory and has not been tested in law. Indeed, I have to ask, has even the rule you quote on the serving of legal documents ever been given proper judicial review? It is only at this stage a guideline not a law. You are right, whilst it is not applicable to our example of posting to the DVLA, it would be an argument to support your view. However, I doubt the court would find it to be a reasonable argument. And at this stage it* is Just your opinion not fact. Unless you have some case law? An argument against your idea is that in retail business, it has been held that proof of posting does not equal proof of delivery. Therefore if a supplier wishes to protect themselves they must have some form of recorded delivery.

 

* "it"...... That proof of posting any document or item to any person or organisation within the UK is to be taken as proof of delivery.

 

I have never said that it is not the responsibility of the RK to notify the DVLA of changes. As you correctly state, that is law. Although, as an aside, there is no requirement for the V5 address to be either the residence of the RK or the address at which the vehicle is kept.

 

What I object to is the insistence of the DVLA that the individual remains responsible for ensuring that the DVLA does it job properly and how it attempts to place an unlawful burden on the individual.

The DVLA does no such thing. There is a lawful requirement that the DVLA is informed of changes. It is up to the Keeper to ensure that this is done and No-one else. The DVLA simply recommend a sensible course of action and a promise not to make any charges on the keeper for a short period. If the keeper has no confirmation, the DVLA has advised them to follow up on their duty to inform the DVLA. If they do not do this, then the fault lies 100% with the keeper for not having ensured that the DVLA recieved the information.

 

VERA 1994 S.22(1)(d)

VERA 1994 S.22(1D) actually

is the legislation that place the obligation on the individual; there is no reference to the individual needing to 'follow-up such notification.

 

'Guidance' is, by definition, not law.

Exactly, advice (given by DVLA) is not law. What IS law is that the keeper has to inform the DVLA. There is no law that requires the DVLA to confirm this action but they do it to stop all the calls they would get from people wishing to confirm they have fulfilled their duty.

 

The law does not require the keeper to post the notice to the DVLA, it requires them to deliver to the DVLA. The law gives the keeper 1 day to do this (at the end of the licenced period) but the DVLA allow 4 weeks for the keeper to confirm that this did indeed occur. If the keeper has recieved confirmation in the meantime, then further confirmation sought by the keeper is unecessary.

 

Once the keeper has delivered to the DVLA, and can prove it, the DVLA has no further claim against the keeper for any failings from that point on by them to do their job properly.

 

"Why should the keeper have to prove it?" I hear you ask. The keeper has a responsibility, and should protect him/herself against false accusation in the future. If they don't do that, then they may well find that a court rules against them in the future. And the court may well look unfavourably on the fact they did not take any precaution to ensure delivery and having not done so, then also failed to seek a confirmation of reciept.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Wig

[danny_kiernan]

Sorry about this,

But since my court judgement (which I won) the DVLA has been factoring out SORN fines to a company called Capita - the same company that the TV licencing use. 1 of the directors has a distinctly scary past, I don't have any details on the other directors.

[patdavies]

When arguing a case that proof of posting is proof of delivery, I suggest, that your proof of ownership, would be irrelevant. It only proves posting not delivery. Ownership of the document is immaterial.

 

 

No it is not immaterial. The owner (or agent) is responsible for his property - not the sender.

 

An argument against your idea is that in retail business, it has been held that proof of posting does not equal proof of delivery. Therefore if a supplier wishes to protect themselves they must have some form of recorded delivery.

 

Separate legislation specifically require the supplier to deliver regardless of method used.

 

 

The DVLA does no such thing. There is a lawful requirement that the DVLA is informed of changes. It is up to the Keeper to ensure that this is done and No-one else. The DVLA simply recommend a sensible course of action and a promise not to make any charges on the keeper for a short period. If the keeper has no confirmation, the DVLA has advised them to follow up on their duty to inform the DVLA. If they do not do this, then the fault lies 100% with the keeper for not having ensured that the DVLA recieved the information.

 

You comments here are self-defeating. You state what the law requires and then try to ascribe the same authority to DVLA "sensible course of action".

 

In fact, the law doesn't acknowledge ther DVLA at all. the DVLA role here exists by virtue of regulation, not legislation

 

VERA 1994 S.22(1D) actually

Exactly, advice (given by DVLA) is not law. What IS law is that the keeper has to inform the DVLA. There is no law that requires the DVLA to confirm this action but they do it to stop all the calls they would get from people wishing to confirm they have fulfilled their duty.

 

The law does not require the keeper to post the notice to the DVLA, it requires them to deliver to the DVLA. The law gives the keeper 1 day to do this (at the end of the licenced period) but the DVLA allow 4 weeks for the keeper to confirm that this did indeed occur. If the keeper has recieved confirmation in the meantime, then further confirmation sought by the keeper is unecessary.

 

Try and make up your mind as to which verb appies here. (Hint: to do with providing information)

 

Once the keeper has delivered to the DVLA, and can prove it, the DVLA has no further claim against the keeper for any failings from that point on by them to do their job properly.

 

No, service of a document is a rebutttable presumption. It would be for the DVLA to 'prove' nion-receipt.

 

"Why should the keeper have to prove it?" I hear you ask. The keeper has a responsibility, and should protect him/herself against false accusation in the future. If they don't do that, then they may well find that a court rules against them in the future. And the court may well look unfavourably on the fact they did not take any precaution to ensure delivery and having not done so, then also failed to seek a confirmation of reciept.

 

Now we are definitely moving from fact to dreamland...

[Wig]

No it is not immaterial. The owner (or agent) is responsible for his property - not the sender.

Again for the 2nd time you have refused to acknowledge that this ridiculous argument is only your opinion, and you have nothing in directly related law or case law to show it is correct. Lets see if you can make a hat trick.

 

Separate legislation specifically require the supplier to deliver regardless of method used.

But it is, legislation, which puts the onus on the sender to deliver, so it would be relevant in counter argument to your quotation of unrelated "rules" which support your argument.

 

 

You comments here are self-defeating. You state what the law requires and then try to ascribe the same authority to DVLA "sensible course of action".

Your point is unclear. I simply said the Law is clear, and it is up to the keeper to ensure s/he complies with the law. The DVLA facilitate this by allowing 4 weeks, during which the RK can confirm the DVLA recieved the notification, and during which they will not take any action, and the DVLA make a recommendation to the RK that the RK phones up if they have not heard from the DVLA within 4 weeks. This is the DVLA recommending a "sensible course of action" for the RK to follow. There's nothing "self defeating" here.

 

In fact, the law doesn't acknowledge ther DVLA at all. the DVLA role here exists by virtue of regulation, not legislation

You'd rather I said the Secretary of State would you?

It was clear enough, there is a difference between VERA 1994 S.22(1)(d) & VERA 1994 S.22(1D). For anyone reading this who was relying on your reference, I thought it would be better to quote the correct reference. However in truth they both deal with notification of certain changes just different changes, so you were partially correct. I thought you might have been referring to SORN hence my reference.

 

 

Try and make up your mind as to which verb appies here. (Hint: to do with providing information)

Considering we are discussing the notification of the DVLA by means of Royal mail, the letter has to be delivered in order for the DVLA to be informed, so both verbs used were correct in the context. Plus I was counter arguing your position that simply posting was enough. Thus my use of the word delivered was appropriate.

 

 

No, service of a document is a rebutttable presumption. It would be for the DVLA to 'prove' nion-receipt.

You cannot prove a negative, thus it would not be for the DVLA to prove non-receipt, it would be for the court to decide who was telling the truth. The DVLA say "we did not recieve it, if we had it would have been processed as usual" The RK says "I sent it but can't prove they recieved it and did not confirm at any stage that they had recieved it and did not recieve any confirmation from them.

 

If what you said held any water you could ignore all speeding NIPs and when charged with a section 172 failure to disclose, just say "I did send it back, it's for the prosecution to prove they did not recieve it."

 

 

Now we are definitely moving from fact to dreamland...

In your opinion but it is only that.

[Wig]

Sorry about this,

But since my court judgement (which I won) the DVLA has been factoring out SORN fines to a company called Capita - the same company that the TV licencing use. 1 of the directors has a distinctly scary past, I don't have any details on the other directors.

 

You didn't explain what evidence in total was placed before the court by you to support your argument- for example proof of delivery, nor did you say if the DVLA bothered to turn up in court. Nor did you say why the judge agreed with you. You never did post the scans of the judgement, did you?

 

In any event, you struck lucky, other people have equally had to pay up. Your case does not make case law as I'm sure you know.

[patdavies]

Again for the 2nd time you have refused to acknowledge that this ridiculous argument is only your opinion, and you have nothing in directly related law or case law to show it is correct. Lets see if you can make a hat trick.

 

and

 

In your opinion but it is only that.

 

Pot? Kettle?

 

If what you said held any water you could ignore all speeding NIPs and when charged with a section 172 failure to disclose, just say "I did send it back, it's for the prosecution to prove they did not recieve it."

 

The argument that a NIP was not served has been used successfully time and time again. The negative is proved by credible statement under oath.

[Wig]

and

And it would have been nice if you had just admitted it as such when I first asked you, rather than continue to argue your position as though it were a fact.

 

 

 

Pot? Kettle? - Not at all - no one asked me if I was speaking of fact or opinion.

[shellysexbomb]

its quite simple if you can have someone validate your vehicle was scrapped like afriend whos a professional solicitor, vicar etc. the other bit of supprting evidence may be if you have claimed a refund on your road tax which proves yr intention the vehicle was of the road.

 

What about confirmation from your neighbours attesting the vehicle was of the road.

 

I would be inclined to find out who is in charge of the department and submit your letter to them. I'm sure if you challanged them it would cost them far more then £40 to investigate matters.

 

 

That wont work, I returned my car to the finance company and cashed in the tax way back in April, just had to pay a £40 fine

[meggiesdad]

Hi

I am new to this site and this is my first post. So pls be kind!

I run a motorcycle used spares business and as such have many motorcycles on our books.

All our bikes were due to be SORN'd at the end of Septemberand we were duly reminded. However, he reminders were put to one side and forgotten about. Next we know is we receive 22 letters informing us of LLP. A total of £880 in fines or £1760 if not paid in time.

I wrote to them and explained that this had been an oversight and that the vehicles wer in fact dismantled and had not been on the road for more than a year.

I then received a letter - for each vehicle - saying that I had failed to continually SORN the vehicle and that the fine still stands.

I accept I cocked up, but this is a huge fine for our small company and to my mind the fine is totally out of proportion to the 'crime'.

I have until boxing day before the fine doubles. Is there anything we can do to lessen this fine?.

Really would appreciate some help

Thanks in advance

meggiesdad

[crem]

HAs anyone tried to calculate how much of the "lost" mail through Royal Mail seems to have been addressed to the DVLA?

 

If the DVLA were a "real" retail company and not receiving the amount of mail it's clients/suppliers were telling it they had sent correctly addressed to it, they should be up in arms with the mail company for "losing" all this mail.

 

In reality, I think we all suspect that while it is in their [financial] interest to not receive this mail, then they will continue to have a huge amount of lost mail (and probably even have a whole department tasked with ensuring the correct quota is lost so they can send out their 80 quid fines)

[MARTIN3030]

Well theres talk of a small part of RM being farmed out and so privatised.Dont think GB wants to do it lock stock and barrel all in one-they will see how it goes-and if it works then private tenders will prob take the rest.

[The GodMother]

You know they only way to deal with them getting the mail is to send it recorded/ special delivery then you can prove they recieved it.

They then cant argue you never sent it as you will have the evidence. They can always argue anything they like like non recival but the evidence is clearly there for all to see of the recipt.

[frettful38]

I have been receiving letters from Phillips Debt Recovery for the last few months saying that I owe 2 fines of £80.00 each for Late Licensing Penalty. Every week I get 2 or 3 letters from them saying I have to pay in full immediately.

I am 210..00% sure that I sworn these 2 cars off the road march 08, The DVLA say they have no knowledge of this and put PHILLIPS after me. I am disputing this debt as I know they are pulling a [problem] here for sure. I have written a very nasty letter to them today, as they never acknowledge my letters, have sent 12 in last 3 months, so I told them I did not owe them any money or fine, I told them I am in the midst with DVLA trying to sort this dispute out, and further I told them I will be seeking legal action against them for a false claim and [problem] and undue harassment.

Lets see what happens knowing them they will probably think I am callling their bluff but if push comes to shove I will go ahead with whatever action they decide to do. Only downfall is I got no proof that I sent sworn documents, only 1st class post.

F.... sake if it was good enough for them then, why ain't it good enough now. I don't believe they never receive it, royal mail do a very hard job DVLA can;t blame their incompetence on them.

So we send all documents to them r/delivery or s/delivery, I bet soon these two options will not be enough proof of evidence and maybe they would like us to go to their buildings in person to get it stamped on our foreheads that yes they have received our sworn.

Or maybe DVLA should appoint someone to go to peoples homes and collect their sworns in person , give them a receipt, because then no one can blame royal , dvla, the post office and lastly you the poor blighter who has to go through all this uneccessary SH................................IT. :evil:Please forgive my remarks as I am over the edge with this DVLA nonsense.

So anyone going through anything similar just give as good as you get and a little more,

[The GodMother]

I have been receiving letters from Phillips Debt Recovery for the last few months saying that I owe 2 fines of £80.00 each for Late Licensing Penalty. Every week I get 2 or 3 letters from them saying I have to pay in full immediately.

I am 210..00% sure that I sworn these 2 cars off the road march 08, The DVLA say they have no knowledge of this and put PHILLIPS after me. I am disputing this debt as I know they are pulling a [problem] here for sure. I have written a very nasty letter to them today, as they never acknowledge my letters, have sent 12 in last 3 months, so I told them I did not owe them any money or fine, I told them I am in the midst with DVLA trying to sort this dispute out, and further I told them I will be seeking legal action against them for a false claim and [problem] and undue harassment.

Lets see what happens knowing them they will probably think I am callling their bluff but if push comes to shove I will go ahead with whatever action they decide to do. Only downfall is I got no proof that I sent sworn documents, only 1st class post.

F.... sake if it was good enough for them then, why ain't it good enough now. I don't believe they never receive it, royal mail do a very hard job DVLA can;t blame their incompetence on them.

So we send all documents to them r/delivery or s/delivery, I bet soon these two options will not be enough proof of evidence and maybe they would like us to go to their buildings in person to get it stamped on our foreheads that yes they have received our sworn.

Or maybe DVLA should appoint someone to go to peoples homes and collect their sworns in person , give them a receipt, because then no one can blame royal , dvla, the post office and lastly you the poor blighter who has to go through all this uneccessary SH................................IT. :evil:Please forgive my remarks as I am over the edge with this DVLA nonsense.

So anyone going through anything similar just give as good as you get and a little more,

 

 

You have a little tool called a SAR.

 

You can write to the DVLA and ask for all documents in relation to registration number 1234567890 and 0987654321 and for a £10 fee they have to supply them all if not you can report them to the ICO and to the courts and via either you can force them to reply. They have 40 days so i would get it done.

 

Inform phillips that you have done this and until they have complied with the legal request then they can bog off or words to that effect.

[The GodMother]

Also send them this.

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

This basically means unless you have an appointment please leave or l will call the police.

 

 

And this just in case the dvla have or may pass your number on.

 

Put in all your phone numbers print dont sign ANY letters and send by at least Recorded delivery.

 

Your Street

Town

City

Postcode

 

Re: Harassment by telephone

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

 

Dear Sirs

 

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

 

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

 

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

 

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

 

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

[NAME HERE]

 

Edited December 18, 2008 by The GodMother
letter did not come out.

[frettful38]

Thanks for that advice godmother and sorry if I crashed in on someones thread. I will do as you say and let u know how I get on. Thanks againxxxxxxxxxxx:)

[The GodMother]

YW i crashed in on this thread ages ago and have not had any probs. I think this is a learning thread where we can all post and learn from eachother.

[buzby]

This basically means unless you have an appointment please leave or l will call the police.

 

Really? That is simply an urban myth - what do you expect the police to do...? (Except possibly to suggest you grow up and stop wasting police time). This 'implied right' pf access to your property may certainly be relevant if somebody is attempting to ENTER it, but common areas are fair game and if the caller is enquiring about the payment of a debt they feel is legitimate, they can certainly use all reasonable means to make contact, which includes knocking on your door, whether you wish them to or not. Blustering about case law to someone on your doorstep is hardly useful, relevant or appropriate.

 

There are enough agencies that can demand entry to your premises without warrant, far more than ever before - the Council also has access powers, not just for their own Council/tenant property, but private property too.

[The GodMother]

not saying your wrong but when ever i have sent that to a DCA they have always said rite were not sending a agent to your door. Never had a agent since i have been sending it.

[patdavies]

You have a little tool called a Subject Access Request.

 

You can write to the DVLA and ask for all documents in relation to registration number 1234567890 and 0987654321 and for a £10 fee they have to supply them all if not you can report them to the Information Commissioners Office and to the courts and via either you can force them to reply. They have 40 days so i would get it done.

 

Inform phillips that you have done this and until they have complied with the legal request then they can bog off or words to that effect.

 

A Subject Access Request is a right granted by the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

The data covered by that Act is personal data - data which can lead to the identity of an individual. It certainly does not include a VRM (registration number).

 

The DVLA is not required to release the information you list in response to a Subject Access Request. They will not supply a vehicle history. They are only required to supply copies of data relating directly to fretfiul38 - this may include copies of his/her SORN letters, but not definitely as they would have no reason to hold a copy of the letter or form once the SORN marker had been applied to the vehicle record.

[frettful38]

Well seems I will just ask them to take me to court see what the judge says, as I have kept a copies of the letters I have been writing to DVLA and PHILLIPS to tell them I did send back the sworns, I know I have no proof as r/delivery but lost as to what to do next. Hope someone can come up with something, thanks ladies for your help and very interesting debate,

[patdavies]

I did send back the sworns,

 

Not sworn - SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification)

[buzby]

not saying your wrong but when ever i have sent that to a DCA they have always said rite were not sending a agent to your door. Never had a agent since i have been sending it.

 

I can't give you figures, but their claim of a 'visit from a debt collector' is simply a threat. Sure, in SOME areas they may have an agent who may be able to call, but what if you're not in? Do they come back again and again, and who pays? It is a VERY expensive process to send anyone in the offchance they'll call on you when you're there - so see it for what it is, another lying tactic to make you pay up.

[The GodMother]

i have a licenced field agent living 4 miles from me and he works for all the debt collection companys as he is freelance.

 

He has actually turned up on the door step for a friend of mine but got me and my consumer rites c&*p, his words not mine, and OFT guidelines on debt collection c&*p, again his words not mine.

 

handy he turned up when i was feeding the dogs as i answered the door with the most peed off looking and most dangerous one.