DVLA / Inter-credit Fine

rev_henry

wrote:

Yes. There is no legal requirement for you to send such things to the DVLA by recorded delivery, nor to call 4 weeks later if you haven't received the acknowledgement letter. The onus is actually on the DVLA to prove that they didn't receive it, which of course they can't.

Wig

patman99 wrote: »

Didn't a High Court Judge rule that as DVLA do not require you to send documents to them by recorded delivery, or to check they have received them, So by the simple act of posting the document in a post box, you are deemed to have served said document on DVLA.
This makes the letters from ICIL worthless.

No.

There is a law The Interpretations Act 1978

Which says Section 7
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

The Act IMHO is drawn up to help public bodies not get caught out by defendants and litigants who say "I did not receive it". The Public department only has to show that it was addressed and posted. The fact it did not arrive or got lost once it had arrived is irrelevant.

Only here, the little man is using the same law against the machine, to say I did post it, as required by VERA 1994 and that is all that I am required to do under the law.

The argument has been used effectively in LOWER courts. The DVLA has not appealed to a higher court and I suspect never will appeal, because they don't want to lose in higher court as that will set precedent. Equally, if the little man were to lose, he could appeal to a high court. So DVLA don't really want to take these cases to court anymore, preferring now to farm them out to debt collection companies, so they can try to scare you into paying.

I used to have a couple of court case references for the wins does anyone else have them?

Obukit

If you quote the Interpretations Act to the DVLA they will give up. They tried to do the same to me (albeit regarding SORN), I wrote back to them saying Interpretations Act meant it was their problem if they didn't receive it and to either take me to court or go forth and multiply. This was the reply I got: -




Basically, yes we know the law, no, we don't follow it and no, we don't want it tested in court .

rev_henry

Obukit wrote: »

Basically, yes we know the law, no, we don't follow it and no, we don't want it tested in court .

Unbelievable arrogance. To add to that:
'...and we are onto a nice little earner 'losing' SORN declarations and would like to keep it that way.'

Wig

Here's an idea, why don't you (DVLA) put the onus on yourselves to chase a RK if you have not received notification of change of circumstances after 4 weeks. You could write to the RK and say "We have not recieved any notice from you regarding vehicle XXX" please contact us on .... as a matter of urgency. And hold off from imposing any fines on largely innocent people until they have failed to respond to two of these letters.

AdamHaigh

Hi all, looking for some help on this if possible.

I broke my car for spares last year and then the shell was taken by a scrap merchant.

I sent the 'V5C/3‘Notification of sale or transfer’ section of the logbook to the DVLA as per instructions.

Before sending the logbook off,I had moved house, so never received a confirmation letter from them.

Today I have been given some post by the new owners of my old house which contained 2 letters from 'Inter Credit International LTD'

The latest one was dated 2 days ago, saying that I have 72 hours to respond or they will be taking court action.

I have written a letter to them as below and wondering if I'm doing the right thing, I don't really want to pay them £80 for something that's not my bloody fault.

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Vehicle Registration K

---

J– Honda Civic CRX

I have been receiving correspondence from Inter-Credit International LTD on your behalf requesting payment for a fine for the above vehicle.

The correspondence has been sent to my previous address andI am no longer registered to that address. I request that any further contact from you be via my email address.......................

The vehicle was taken for scrap by AJ Metals (16 Berries Avenue, Bude, EX23 8QS) in September last year.

The log book was sent to theDVLA using V5C/3 ‘Notification of sale or transfer’ section of the vehicle registration certificate as per your instructions.

The Interpretations act 1978 section 7 says
‘References to service by post.Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whetherthe expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any otherexpression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service isdeemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a lettercontaining the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have beeneffected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinarycourse of post.’

As I had moved house I had neverchased a letter fromyourselves confirming receipt of this.

I have fulfilled my obligations to the DVLA by sending thecorrect section of the V5C to you and therefore request no more action on this matter bar you instructing Inter Credit International to stop contacting me.

Yours sincerely

Copy sent to Inter-CreditInternational Ltd as per instructionson the DVLA website.

Any input appreciated. :beer:

peter_the_piper

Wig wrote: »

Here's an idea, why don't you (DVLA) put the onus on yourselves to chase a RK if you have not received notification of change of circumstances after 4 weeks. You could write to the RK and say "We have not recieved any notice from you regarding vehicle XXX" please contact us on .... as a matter of urgency. And hold off from imposing any fines on largely innocent people until they have failed to respond to two of these letters.

There are 2 reasons why they won't do this.
1) its a sensible idea.
2) too many people just pay up when the begging letter gets there and it would impinge on their profits.

Wessexunderwater

I have received a similar letter from ICI.

I'm essentially guilty of the offence of keeping a motorcycle on my drive having forgotten to SORN it 12 months ago.

They are asking for £80 out of court settlement of an action in accordance with Section 7A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act. Which as i understand it is that they can impose a punitive fee for late payment.

They also state that I may be guilty of contravening section 31A, which commands a minimum fine of £1000 if convicted. As i understand this it is for keeping a vehicle that isn't licensed.

What should I do?
1) Should I just pay the £80 to ICI, as it's inevitable I will have to pay it one way or another, or could I pay less by going direct to DVLA?
2) How do I manage the risk of being fined the £1000? Is anything i do in regard to dealing with the section 7A part likely to be an admission of guilt wrt section 31A.
3) I guess I should just go down to the PO and sorn the vehicle toot sweet.

AdamHaigh

Well I have sent the letter to DVLA and ICI but heard nothing back as yet.

dcg67

I received a "f*** you" letter from DVLA Enforcement, Sidcup today, following my letter to them pointing out the legal flaws in their claim. They stated that it wouldn't be fair on the DVLA if they had to abide by the law and that they didn't want to go to court, but just be their own judge and jury, using Inter Credit as their executioner!

I have replied to the effect that I am giving them 28 days notice of my intention to take them to County Court for intentional negligence in the handling of my original SORN declaration and intentionally negligent interpretation of the law with a view to causing me a financial loss (i.e. £80.00 fine + costs).

I'll post back on here when I get a reply or if I just go ahead and sue them.