Code:
ctzreate
 |
 |
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion
forum (UK)
 FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  Register |
 Profile  Log
in to check your private messages  Log in
|
|
|
DVLA
Money Spinner
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
  |
swarb.co.uk Forum
Index -> Road Traffic
Law |
![]( "Swimmers Site")
 |
| View
previous topic :: View
next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fartcat
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts:
5
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 19,
2007 8:16 pm
Post subject: DVLA Money Spinner |
 |
|
Back in June I
renewed my annual SORN (Statuary Off Road Notification)
declaration by posting to the address instructed by
DVLA. Being a suspicious soul I even obtained a
certificate of postage.
I have just received an
£80 penalty for not declaring SORN. I sent off a copy of
my declaration and have been told that it was never
received.
I am being informed that I am eligible
for the fine as it is my responsibility to ensure that I
receive an acknowledgement of the SORN from DVLA and
herein lies my legal question:
I accept that it
is my responsibility to declare SORN and I maintain that
I have done this through returning the declaration to
the correct address and obtaining a certificate of
posting.
I also accept that the DVLA
instructions say that you should receive an
acknowledgement of SORN within 4 weeks and if not to
contact customer care after 4 weeks. Which, technically,
I am still in compliance with. It doesn't say anywhere
that I must contact them after 4 weeks and within x
amount of time, otherwise I will be liable to an £80
penalty.
I feel irritated by this as I have been
declaring this car off the road for a number of years. I
know it's only £80 but it's the principle.
Any
advice on my legal standing would be gratefully
received?
Cheers |
|
| Back
to top |
|
 |
moo_cow
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts:
22
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19,
2007 10:53 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
yep i had the exact
same thing happen. i called them and asked them how they
keep losing things all the time. I have not heard back
from them about their bill for £80 for about 5 months
now but maybee its in the pile waiting to become a
bigger extortion amount.
licence to print money
as far as i am concerned and does not reflect the true
cost of their misplacing the stuff. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
clive
pearson
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts:
369
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19,
2007 11:04 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
just tell them you
cannot be Fined without first being found Guily in a
Court of Law, it worked for
me
_________________
Welcome to Great Britain, the
Land of "Selective Freedoms"
this bonfire night
I intend to burn an effigy of the PM
"there will
be NO Birmingham Northern Relief Road"!!, Liars, Liars
Liars! |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
102
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20,
2007 9:31 am
Post subject: |
|
|
You have a right to a
hearing, precisely under the Bill of Rights 1688-9.
| Quote: |
| I am being informed that I am
eligible
for the fine. |
This looks like the setup for a
chocolate covered 'award', to palliate a
subtraction of £80.
Wayne Pendle asserted this
right, but only failed in the court of law, because he
couldn't prove he had sent the form.
You say you can prove it with
a certificate of posting. I should think IF the
court is fair, and not displaying the forces of
reaction, in government backing for fallacious rulings.
You should prevail.
What more are you expected to
do, drive all the way to Swansea, and get a receipt for
the deceipt, it's a farce, and discretion already should
have been exercised rather than banished in the zeal for
a meal..
Just
a point of view, on a point of what's just in today's world
of derogations and rebuttable presumptions.
You
had your eyes open when you posted it, so if you are
similarly alert in the court, you can show on the
balance of probabilities they SHOULD have received the
form, and relying on an excellent postal system being
delinquent is simply NOT an argument to persist in
plunder of the innocent.
I would record and
publish, it is after all supposed to be a fair and public hearing,
although sneering might be more apposite. It should cost
you no more to defend it than it is now, and the £30
court costs would be dismissed as well.
Their
solicitor said in court - re Wayne, she had never seen
such misconduct as their own in the past ten years of
this.
Bill of wrongs detailed here!
http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3560&sid=12143188642e87789594bdd50a3164d3
Wrong footed - Wayne's case here.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
_________________
Tony
Last edited by Tony on Sat Sep
22, 2007 6:19 am; edited 2 times in
total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
fartcat
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts:
5
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20,
2007 5:53 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the great
advice guys.
It's interesting that when we are
sent an NIP through the post it is considered received
if it was posted by first class mail. Different rules
apply to Joe public, as we of course can't be trusted!!
I'm going to fight this one all the way and I'll
let you know the outcome.
Cheers. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
clive
pearson
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts:
369
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20,
2007 9:51 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony
wrote: |
You have a right to a
hearing, precisely under the Bill of Rights
1688-9.
Wayne Pendle asserted this
right, but only failed in the court of law,
because he couldn't prove he had sent the form.
You say
you can prove it with a certificate of
posting. I should think IF the court is
fair, and not displaying the forces of reaction,
in government backing for fallacious rulings. You
should prevail.
What more are you expected to
do, drive all the way to Swansea, and get a
receipt for the deceipt, it's a farce, and
discretion already should have been exercised
rather than banished in the zeal for a meal..
Just
a point of view, on a point of what's just in today's
world of derogations and rebuttable presumptions.
You had your eyes open when you posted it,
so if you are similarly alert in the court, you
can show on the balance of probabilities they
SHOULD have received the form, and relying on an
excellent postal system being delinquent is simply
NOT an argument to persist in plunder of the
innocent.
I would record and publish, it
is after all supposed to be a fair and public hearing,
although sneering might be more apposite. It
should cost you no more to defend it than it is
now, and the £30 court costs would be dismissed as
well.
Their solicitor said in court - re
Wayne, she had never seen such misconduct as in
the past ten years of this.
Bill of wrongs
detailed here!
http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3560&sid=12143188642e87789594bdd50a3164d3
Wrong footed - Wayne's case here.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html |
Hi Tony
doesn't the BOR
Act imply that any Fine or Forfeiture before conviction
is null and void however?
in that case the very
serving of a fine or forfeiture makes such fine or
forfeiture invalid surely?
that's the way I read
it anyway, in the same way demanding money with menaces
invalidates the debt?
just my three penneth
worth
_________________
Welcome to Great Britain,
the Land of "Selective Freedoms"
this bonfire
night I intend to burn an effigy of the PM
"there will be NO Birmingham Northern Relief
Road"!!, Liars, Liars Liars! |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
102
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21,
2007 10:29 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's interesting that when we are
sent an NIP through the post it is considered
received if it was posted by first class mail.
|
Actually there's a material
difference, think about it, you just said
it!
It's considered received if THEY send
it, but not if YOU send it. but YOU have a cert' of
posting, THEY I doubt have one to balance the
probability. The only high probability they sent it;
without a cert', is because you replied! If they choose to not
reply, contrary to their duty, and duty is lax in
centralised offices because their minds are not focussed
on the tasks so much as those with incentives. With a
cert' in hand, clearly you did post it, there's no
equivocaton,
I'd love to read the judges attempt to find in
their favour with that in hand. Funny, in two snearings
recently, with similar precise incontravertible evidence
in hand, the Judge deftly ignored it, and ruled another
lame self inconsistent issue in order to get the
benefit. All this was acheived with grave countenance
that wrapped the misfeasance in sugar coated detriments
subsquently described as awards. It's in the book below.
If in the unlucky event that the Postal services
were delinquent, which I doubt very much, and have
proved categorically to be an abuse by councils relying
on time-outs because they have pecuniary benefit, then
at least you are not culpable, the third party would or
should be, and since you had a specific contract in
virtue of 'consideration
moving' towards the post office, they would come
into play under the privity rule 1861 (There's a case on
that two years ago when a carrier argued they were not
liable for a small claim of £8 they decided to fight at
a loss in costs of £1200.), and could be joined in the
action or counter claim. All they had to do, was respect
their own published contract, and refund £8, but didn't
want to open a floodgate,
'there's the rub'.
http://logiclaw.co.uk/Reason1.html
And yes, the system operates precisely as per
CPR 1.1 – 1.4 where the
court has a duty to further the overriding objective of
fairness, BUT they get the adjectives around the
wrong way. What they do is override the further objective
of fairness, when it is the
government, or its angels in the dock. I say that with
proof way beyond reasonable doubt; approaching beyond a
shadow of doubt, by judgement of subsumption AND
comparison with 4 recent cases in CLCC.
Good
luck, expect a load of muck! (semantic muck that is).
Hi Clive,
The BoR. Grants Freedom from
fines and forfeitures before a trial.
I deem
that to imply a duty of discretion by the 'alleged
authority'; they are an authority when they demonstrate
noblesse oblige. Not when they demonstrate abuse of
power that exiles discretion, to forbear on such as
this. They could but will not show discretion that 'tcat
DID what he knew he did, and can prove, rather than what
they believe to be a postal loss that could be
innocently ignored as usual when it comes to those
significant culpable omission that cohere with acts to
fit a specific pecuniary design and purpose that is just
too obvious.
But they believe this is all
un-discernible, it's really quite incredible.
There is a book shortly to be released on all
the fallacious forms of combined rulings, foolings, and
abductive reasoning; the worst kind of reasoning, to
Machiavellian consequences. An early leader is here.
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/critical.html
Nice to see you still on the side of the meek
that shall inherit, at the end of
time!
_________________
Tony |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts:
5826
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21,
2007 4:00 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I have not the
patience to get involved in this, buyt have some
responsibility for what appears here.
What Tony
says is said in a rather flowery nmanner, but is
genuinely believed no doubt.
Please do not take
it as a giude to any decision you make in such a
situation. It is utterly unconvincing.
I hate
parking fines as much as te next man, but doubt that if
Tony lives to a thousand years his arguments will
persuade judges.
I may be wrong, but make your
own mind up very carefully. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
102
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21,
2007 6:16 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I have not the patience to get
involved in this, buyt have some responsibility
for what appears here.
What Tony says is
said in a rather flowery nmanner, but is genuinely believed
no doubt.
Please do not take it as a
giude to any decision you make in such a
situation. It is utterly unconvincing.
I hate parking fines as
much as te next man, but doubt
that if Tony lives to a thousand years his
arguments will persuade judges.
I may be
wrong, but make your own mind up very
carefully. |
Thanks for the comment, your
views are well known about myself, being generally
argumentum ad hominems.
Not to make a fuss also.
It is worth
commenting, reference the thousand years issue,
I have not yet lost a case, in simply twelve years,
but don't go to court often, no doubt for a
thousand years I would lose a sizeable number.
On the privily rule argument tendered, the Judge
showed unusual agenda before he even
heard the argument that took three minutes to
defeat the privity rule the defendant was relying on. I
simply took the converse of the Tweddle V Atkinson case.
He reached for his books, sent us both out, to knock our
heads together, went off to another courtroom to
consult, and on his return he said “Mr. W. You are
right.” I will give you a hearing of two, no, two and
half hours.” The nice young lady CEO and solicitor burst
into tears, and he gave her tissues.
I remember
it clearly there is no
belief about it. The difference between belief
and knowledge in being intimately and epistemologically
in contact with sound memory and facts is for me, a vast distinction.
On laws of thought as opposed to logic, Newton's
laws of physics didn't die with him, the laws last
indefinitely, unless you can defeat them in the example
below. Einstein's contribution simple made an adjustment
to their frame of reference.
The 'utterly unconvincing'
comment / arverment surprisingly for a lawyer,
doesn't proffer any arguments to rely on, hence the
'feeling tone' for the averment overrides the appeal to
authority's fallaciousness, making it weak in cogency. I
do hope you see that.
In my last case. I made it
clear in writing,
to the Judge, that IF a thousand
solicitors, a hundred barristers and a hundred judges
all tried to reconcile the defendant's contradictions,
naming several of twenty I found blatantly written by
the council. They would
never; forget the thousand years, reconcile them. That
went for the whole planet, just as do laws of physics.
The council was never allowed anywhere near the
contradictions for fear I am sure of severe
admonishment, but he did say "their system was in a
mess", and asked if they planned to review it. It was a
challenge nobody cared / more like dared to take up!
I didn't
discover the laws of thought they were
first formulated by Aristotle, and since they are not 'a
posteriori', but 'a priori', not requiring reference to
empirical testing, they are true for all time and space,
in any world you care to reference. I use them as part
of at least 19 disciplines in analysing argument forms.
The averment derogation, as usual is noted.
It
might be worth remembering these laws of thought are as;
if not more, efficacious than the laws of physics, so
the next time you try to defy gravity by jumping off a
cliff, it might be apprehended the same applies to these
laws so frequently concealed in courts. I do take the
comments kindly
though, and hope you don't mind also, taking on
board as simple academic argument that's all.
By
the way I don't perceive this thread as a parking fine issue,
just a fine barking
one. The use of satire and lampoon is just
another device to make a point quicker and provide
amusement to what is quite ridiculous already. My
comments were intended to be simple locutions rather
than perlocutions. Perhaps my manner conveys it
otherwise, but I never suggested what anybody should
do, merely offered my own experiences rather than
beliefs. My reply did
say this is just a point of view.
Nobody should follow
them; unless they see the reason. Consider it as a balm
to sooth the pain in seeing some principles in things,
it helps the conscience of subtracters of dignity. I am
sure many are happier, as I have said before to think of
me as:
“I am but mad north-north-west. When the
wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.” -
Borrowed from Hamlet.
Nice meeting you
again.
_________________
Tony
Last edited by Tony on Tue Oct
23, 2007 10:25 am; edited 2 times in
total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts:
5826
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21,
2007 9:12 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
You are welcome to
post this stuff to the forum provided I can say every
now and again that it is generally speaking terrible
advice.
I do not have the energy or desire to
engage in this. Judges are paid to listen. I am not.
It is not personal, and it is not ad hominem. I just
have to save people who might listen to you thinking
that somehow giving ou the space indicates agreement. It
doesn't. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
102
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21,
2007 9:38 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the
freedom and also for posting your “stuff”.
Of course! All are entitled to speak their
minds, that's surely what Protocol 5 Article 10 is all
about, --- until free speech turns to agitprops for
despotism.
Its very illuminating to hunt for
your “arguments”.
I am very grateful you have some generosity of
spirit.
| Quote: |
| It is not personal, and it is not
ad hominem. |
There's gold for saying that. I'm am
so re-assured.
It's also nice to know that my
full agreement
with "DVLA Money
Spinner" Moo's and Clive's posting, meets with
your disagreement
with me, and by declension inclines to them also,
despite it being countenanced by want of 'patience',
'energy' and 'desire' for which I guess I am
responsible. It might however come from the belief this
is about your 'hate parking fines', that is the
abductive reasoning I refer to.
| Quote: |
| Judges are paid to listen. I am
not. |
Thank goodness they are, since I have
found all of them to be very much in agreement with my
arguments, and clarifies why you are not.
| Quote: |
| make your own mind up very
carefully |
The warning to be very careful
looks remarkably like the front end of a reductio ad
absurdum test that the entirety would fail to pass.
After all, what's so wrong in the Bill of Rights, that
is / was there to protect citizens from 'mischief'; the term
used by the DVLA
stating the
reason it was introduced.
He is already
being asked for £80, and the court costs being a mere
£30 to defend doesn't, nor should add much to deter free
speech and the right to defend that you are visibly keen
to caution with gravity, contrary to the four other
supportive responses. I find little in what I have said
to cause such alarm and caution, and more in what you
say to give the impression we should all just pay,
because questionable presumption argues we are eligible for these
lovely 'awards'.
(quoted from a council of leading authority.)
Again, nice meeting, I value your contributions
they are always enlightening. I am convinced sincerely,
your views have rights.
most respectfully
yours.
_________________
Tony |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Anisah786
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts:
1234
Location: UK,
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22,
2007 11:13 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| dls
wrote: |
You are welcome to post this stuff
to the forum provided I can say every now and
again that it is generally speaking terrible
advice.
I do not have the energy or desire
to engage in this. Judges are paid to listen. I am
not.
It is not personal, and it is not ad
hominem. I just have to save people who might
listen to you thinking that somehow giving ou the
space indicates agreement. It
doesn't. |
Hi,
I'm sorrry to say but
personally, none of this makes any sense to me. If I get
fined, I know I have done something wrong so it's worth
paying it and obviously being much more aware in the
future. I recently received a fine for driving in the
bus lane but I didn’t feel as it was wise for me to try
and dispute the fine when I clearly knew I was wrong and
that I had broken the law regardless of whether it was
intentional or unknowingly.
I have read a few of
your posts which have been interesting but some of the
stuff I just don't seem to understand.
Kind
Regards,
Anisah.
 |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
fartcat
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts:
5
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23,
2007 12:23 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
[ If I get fined, I
know I have done something wrong so it's worth paying]
You've missed the point, which is that I am
being fined when I believe that I haven't done anything
wrong.
& Tony is right that this is not a
parking fine issue but a fine for the alleged offence of
failure to delare SORN.
I have written to DVLA
informing them that before they fine me for the alleged
offence they will first need to prove, in a court of
law, that I am guilty of this offence and that I will
gladly attend court armed with the following-
-
a copy of my declaration
- a certificate of postage
proving that it was sent to the correct address
-
confirmation that I called their customer line to report
lack of receipt of acknowledgement.
- documentary
evidence that I have previously declared SORN on this
vehicle
- documentary evidence that I have
diligently declared SORN on my other vehicle for a
number of years.
I have also asked that they
refrain from sending me letters threatening fine
escalation, as the money is of no consequence to me,
unlike being wrongly accused of failing to declere SORN,
which is.
Watch this space.[/quote] |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
blig
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts:
48
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25,
2007 11:51 am
Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure I agree
with the advice here.
I would write back to DVLA
by recorded post attaching a photocopy of both the proof
of posting and the original SORN declaration, before
this even reaches court. Write that this appears to be a
genuine mistake by DVLA and ask for it to be considered
under their complaints procedure. DVLA are a large
organisation and they will lose a certain amount of
correspondence.
Personally, I send tax returns
to HMRC and similar post to DVLA by recorded
delivery. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
norbert
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts:
19
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27,
2007 3:02 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| blig
wrote: |
I'm not sure I agree with the
advice here.
I would write back to DVLA by
recorded post attaching a photocopy of both the
proof of posting and the original SORN
declaration, before this even reaches court. Write
that this appears to be a genuine mistake by DVLA
and ask for it to be considered under their
complaints procedure. DVLA are a large
organisation and they will lose a certain amount
of correspondence.
Personally, I send tax
returns to HMRC and similar post to DVLA by
recorded delivery. |
Right, so let me get this
straight, You make a mistake and you are 'awarded' £80
for it including the possibility of being accused of
further offences, the DVLA (because they are a large
organisation) make a mistake (in fact they make many if
you look at the foi requests on their website) and
somehow we should be satisfied with their complaints
procedure!!!!!! welcome to serfdom everyone.
As
for dls, you make blase references with regards to Tony'
advice yet no specifics, I notice that the traffic to
your site has increased immensely and I notice that many
of the views, are associated with Tony's posts. I for
one enjoy reading Tony's posts and whilst if I disagreed
with him, would challenge him. I sense that some on this
site look up to you dls and many will agree with you
regardless of whether you are in the right or indeed
wrong, I respect you for providing this site for the
masses however although you state that your tirade
against Tony was not personal, historically and with the
tone, I'm afraid that I disagree.
I have read
both good and bad advice on this site, I've have read
debates where the truth has been shaped to fit the
prejudices of the op rather than for the good your own
'posse' included, yet I cannot recall such a tirade
against any other poster than against Tony.
Why? |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
swarb.co.uk
Forum Index -> Road
Traffic Law |
All
times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page
1, 2 Next
|
| Page 1 of
2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this
forum
You cannot reply to topics in this
forum
You cannot edit your posts in this
forum
You cannot delete your posts in this
forum
You cannot vote in polls in this
forum
|
|
Powered
by phpBB
© 2001, 2005 phpBB
Group
|
