Code: ctzreate
swarb.co home
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

DVLA Money Spinner
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro

 
 
 
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fartcat



Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:16 pm    Post subject: DVLA Money Spinner Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
moo_cow



Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
clive pearson



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
fartcat



Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
clive pearson



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5826

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5826

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Anisah786



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 1234
Location: UK,

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fartcat



Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[ 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
View user's profile Send private message
blig



Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
norbert



Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:   
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