Legal Advice!

bramble1

Sorry if this is the wrong section - posting on behalf of a friend ...

this is the story

I sold a car about 2-3 years ago and about 6 months later i got a letter from the DVLA saying they had fined me due to not sending the log book off . I rang them and told them that i had sent it off within a week of selling the car and they asked for proof of postage in which i couldnt find, i told them i had done my part and sent the letter and that it was now with royal mail not me!

I am now on bail due to non payment of a fine and i now have to appear before magistrates in jan to dispute the fine! i told the warrant officer that my house had been on fire in july 08 and i moved house dec 08 so therefor cannot even try to prove i had sent the log book off, she told me to tell the judge what i had told her and hopefully i would get it sorted out.

Does anyone know if i should just face facts that due to royal mails F up i will have to pay regardless?
Should i tell the judge to get DVLA to prove i didnt send it and prove they didnt recieve it? or will it come down to me even after a house fire and a move?

so stressed over this!!!! im a mother of 4 and a law abiding person so this is really embarressing for me to be on bail


If anyone has any advise it would be much appreciated!

waynedance

DVLA send out a conformation letter when you sell a car and it is registered to the new owner. Did you get this letter, if the letter never turned up then you should have called them. Good to know should you/friend sell another car in the future.

I know this does not help, someone will be along with help.

aqueoushumour01

sorry about your situation. I will be selling my car soon so I will make sure I send mine special delivery just in case!

Yorkie1

Sorry to hear about this.

Unfortunately, I think that the onus is on you to prove that you sent the information / book, rather on DVLA to prove the negative.

Given that you can't prove posting, and you've not mentioned following up with DVLA the fact that you didn't receive a letter as referred to in post #2, I think the original fine is likely to stand.

Assuming that to be correct, I also think you're a bit stuck regarding payment of the fine.

It sounds as though the hearing is just about the fine, and not the original offence, so you'll probably be expected to be able to tell the court why you didn't pay in July, and how soon you'll pay / an offer of staggered payments.

However, it might be worth asking to see the duty solicitor (or getting a free initial consultation with a solicitor before the hearing) in case they can advise you more specifically.

Good luck.

Pitlanepiglet

Can I suggest you have a google about this - I'm pretty sure that there was a recent case where it was proved that the legal requirement for a seller was to send the documentation to the DVLA and that this was effectively good service (sending documents by RM is effective service). There is no requirement for the sender to send by Recorded/Special delivery the requirement is just to send.

The DVLA seem to have a huge problem with losing mail and then fining people and it appears that the Courts are losing sympathy with them.

Pitlanepiglet

Have a look here as a starting point

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/234620-dvla-court-summons-help.html

bramble1

Thanks guys - i will pass this information on, much appreciated.

Wig

bramble1 wrote: »

Thanks guys - i will pass this information on, much appreciated.

Please note how utterly annoying it is that in that other thread linked to above the OP has not been back with an update of what happened in court, or when the court date is.

Hopefully you will update this thread when your friend has a court date (perhaps they already have a date?), and most importantly what happend in court, what your line of defense was (section 7 of the interpretations act 1978 ? ) and what the outcome was.

I was just looking at Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and I think it is S22 which requires DVLA to be notified of a sale of a vehicle (transfer of ownership or keeper), but as with all laws it's a minefield of trying to pin it down precisely, it just refers to "by regulations as prescribed" I am yet to find those "regulations".... Anyone care to help look for them?

roger196

This might help ( may be out of date legislation) but what is good enough for the taxman should be good enough for everybody else. S115(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 can be found on www.opsi.gov.uk... as pdf file I was not able to copy.
Second the onus of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not post the item Article 6 (2) of Schedule1 of the Human Rights Act 1988.

Wig

roger196 wrote: »

S115(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 can be found on www.opsi.gov.uk... as pdf file I was not able to copy.

If you can tell me how to find it there I might be able to copy it across to here.

Yorkie1

roger196 wrote: »

This might help ( may be out of date legislation) but what is good enough for the taxman should be good enough for everybody else. S115(2) Taxes Management Act 1970 can be found on www.opsi.gov.uk... as pdf file I was not able to copy.
Second the onus of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not post the item Article 6 (2) of Schedule1 of the Human Rights Act 1988.

I'm afraid that's not always the case.

A reverse burden of proof (i.e. where the defendant has to prove something to the balance of probabilities rather than the prosecution proving something beyond reasonable doubt) is perfectly acceptable in cases e.g. where the fact is within the defendant's knowledge and would not pose a disproportionate burden on the D to prove (but may be disproportionate on the prosecution). An example is using a vehicle without insurance. The defendant has to prove that s/he has insurance; the prosecution do not have to prove the absence. Likewise for posting something - it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove the D did not post it at every single post box or post office; whereas the fact of posting is easily and proportionately within the D's knowledge and ability to prove.