DVLA / Inter-credit Fine

dvr80 · 2 May 2009 at 4:03PM

Hi All

The short story is I received a letter from Inter-Credit International informing me they'd been appointed to collect £80 from me for a car I owned over 2 years ago. Basically the DVLA claim I didn't inform them when I p/ex'd the car back to the dealer I'd bought if from 6 months earlier and it was not declared SORN so the road tax went unpaid although the car was not in my posession.

I have no proof I sent the change of keeper slip back and although I've written to the DVLA and the debt agency, the DVLA did not reply and have refused to speak to me full stop and ICI have responed saying I'm still liable.
I called them yesterday and re-itterated I was not prepared to pay the fine as I had sent the slip off to the DVLA to which they said they would go ahead and issue a court summons.

At first I was tempted to fight it but now I'm wondering if my case would stand up against somebody like the DVLA as the small print does state that the previous keeper should check with them after 4 weeks that they received the change of keeper notification.

Could I call ICI's bluff and wait for the summons to arrive and they pay it off before it gets to court (assuming it would) or is this a risky strategy?

Thanks in advance for your help
Andy

TangledMemories_2 · 2 May 2009 at 4:20PM

Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10 you will not be able to successfully appeal the DVLA's decision as it clearly states on the V5 that you should receive a notice of disposal from the DVLA within 5 weeks of sale and if you do not receive it, you should contact them.
Can you prove you sent the slip off?

dvr80 · 3 May 2009 at 9:25AM

thanks for the responses, I don't think DVLA will even consider the appeal as I mentioned in my post, I sent them correspondance which they have not acknowledged and are not prepared to discuss on the phone.

I'm still considering waiting to see what Inter-Credit International's next move will be. There seems be be a heck of a lot of stories on the net similar to mine so I'm thinking they might be out to make a quick buck out of the people who pay up through fear.

Getting back to my other question, does anybody know if you can settle a fine / dispute once a court summons has been raised but before the case is heard? As I said before, if it got to this stage, I'm not sure whether I'd attend court to contest it or just pay up.

Thanks
Andy

dvr80 · 4 May 2009 at 2:31PM

Anybody know? -
Getting back to my other question, does anybody know if you can settle a fine / dispute once a court summons has been raised but before the case is heard? As I said before, if it got to this stage, I'm not sure whether I'd attend court to contest it or just pay up.

MX5huggy · 4 May 2009 at 6:11PM

Yes you can you will get some papers that will come from the court service saying how much is being claimed. You can then pay there and then there will be a legal fee added to the amount you pay for my unpaid water bill (an oversite, on my part but only got 1 reminder before court papers!) £50 if I remember correctly. If you lose in court and still pay up straight away (7? 14? 28? days) you still would not get a CCJ agaist you.

yarpsnehpets · 29 June 2009 at 3:01PM

I’ve also had a similar letter over the weekend from Inter-Credit International Ltd (ICIL). They are demanding that I pay them £80.00 immediately.

I do actually have a good deal of legal knowledge and experience and I have already noticed a good number of potential errors in the DVLA / ICIL procedures which could leave them in a potential no win situation.

The ICIL letter which I have in front of me is clearly marked, “Debt Recovery Notice”. Technically I believe this to be incorrect since I am not sure that any ‘debt’ actually exists yet since there has been no court case regarding my alleged failure to procure a SORN. Unbelievably the ICIL letter goes onto state that the DVLA might be about to take action against me but, if I send them an £80 out of court settlement, they (the DVLA) will drop the case. It therefore appears that ICIL are attempting to force me to make the out of court settlement on the grounds that the potential £80 fine is already a debt. This of course cannot be the case ; the out of court settlement of £80 is purely ‘an offer’ in legal terms. An offer is not enforceable unless they can show that I ‘accepted’ that offer which is not the case.
Therefore, if ICIL took this matter to court, you could defend yourself by simply claiming that you were exercising your right in not accepting their offer of an out of court settlement. There is no obligation for you to settle out of court. If you do not accept the £80 offer to settle then it is not a debt. Legally speaking I would suggest that they have acted incorrectly in calling their letter a “debt recovery notice” and as such a recipient might have cause to claim that he or she was being harassed or mislead in some way.

In my particular case I sent my SORN declaration to the DVLA by post as soon as I received the reminder for it. Initially I tried to do it online but I got a notice along the lines of, “We are unable to process your request at the moment.” About three months later I received a notice from the DVLA demanding that I pay £80 (£40 if I paid quickly) to avoid legal action.

In my opinion the DVLA are also exceeding their powers. In each case each person has the right to a fair and impartial hearing. That is statute law. The DVLA appears to breach this right via its use of its bullying tactics both through the way it deals with cases and how it portrays the law via the various methods of media which is uses from time to time. For example, in one advert the DVLA claims that, “we only have to look on our computer” – the suggestion being that they no longer have to detect if a crime is being committed (in terms of excise duty evasion). What they are trying to paint is a picture where they don’t need ‘evidence’ in order to convict. This is of course nonsense – a tax collectors utopia which would never stand a chance of flying if challenged in a high enough court.

What I also find misleading is how the DVLA word certain documents. When they send paperwork they write about ‘out of court settlements’ yet when you speak with them on the phone they say that you have been charged a ‘penalty’. It’s hard, from a legal perspective, to know exactly what the DVLA are claiming. In letters they say things like, “you maybe contravening Section ABC of the XYZ Act” but they never specify that you are. Instead they only appear interested in collecting your hard earned cash and describing the methods that you can use to pay in order to “prevent further legal action.”
As one of my mates (legally trained) says, it makes you think that they are scared to let some of these cases go to court for fear of a decision going against them. There is a massive risk for the DVLA on this since it would only take one person to pursue them on the basis of breach of statute rights (or breach of human rights) – if that person won then potentially the DVLA could be looking at having to refund every SORN fine it’s ever issued.

For the moment I am basically ignoring them. I’m more interested about this than worried. ICIL are just piddling into the wind sending me letters like the one they sent at the weekend. I’m going to enjoy reading the wording if they try to serve a summons. Of course in that instance it’s just best to save you evidence and arguments for the courts. Don’t give them a sniff of your defence in advance. It’s always the best way to get them tied in knots!

Good luck,
Yarps.

dvr80 · 14 December 2009 at 6:54PM

just to follow up on my own situation with Inter Credit, I wrote back to them threatening action (can't remember how i worded it exactly but I cited intimidation and bullying) against them if they failed to supply me with evidence for their case. I made it clear that the only correspondance I wanted from them was this and anything else would mean I would commence proceedings against them.
This was the last time I heard from them - sometime late May or June so I think they've gone away - either that or they rely on people being scared when they get these letters and the revenue from this covers them sufficiently not to go after the arguementative types like me

BexBB · 20 May 2010 at 5:16PM

I just want to thank you for your posts, I have just received a letter about my car supposedly being unlicensed. I have filled in forms and paid everything straight away so I have no idea what they have dreamt up. I have just composed a letter based on all of your comments, I am currently studying law so have thoroughly enjoyed writing it!

Fingers crossed it scares them off, thanks again!

Paradigm · 20 May 2010 at 5:59PM

TangledMemories wrote: »

Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10 you will not be able to successfully appeal the DVLA's decision as it clearly states on the V5 that you should receive a notice of disposal from the DVLA within 5 weeks of sale and if you do not receive it, you should contact them.

Makes no difference what it says on the V5 unless it's a legal requirement & this bit isn't. There is nothing in legislation demanding you chase up a confirmation letter, it's a little something the DVLA have added by themselves!

TangledMemories wrote: »

Can you prove you sent the slip off?

Although it's handy to have sent recorded delivery it's not necessary. It's a case of them having to prove you didn't send it, not you having to prove you did.

A google search on this will turn up many cases where the DVLA have lost in court, so much so that they have now resorted to using PPC tactics by employing a Debt collecting agency.

I would simply send a letter stating that the car was sold to xxxxx on xxxx date & the correctly filled in V5 was posted to them as required by road vehicles (registration & licencing) regulations 2002 & you have therefore fulfilled your legal obligation.

It's up to them to prove it wasn't sent, not for you to prove it was!

Hammyman · 20 May 2010 at 6:03PM

You need to read this:
theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/dvla_court/

DVLA have been taken to court by several people over SORN notifications and lost, the judge saying that the owners didn't have to send it recorded or even provide proof of postage and that the whole system at DVLA was a shambles.

The best part is the debt collection agency the DVLA employ has been under investigation for unlawful conduct.

property.advert · 20 May 2010 at 6:27PM

I think the law on postal rules could come into play here. If the post is deeded to be the normal method of communication, then it is deemed to have been delivered the second it is placed in the post box. There are variations and other rules to consider but I believe that to be the basic premise and I am not sure small print can be used as a get out.

DVLA / Inter-credit Fine

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free