Continuous Insurance Enforcement

vax2002

What a crap country we have become, petty fines for this that and the other.
Is this the freedom our young men died for in two wars ?

z3phyr04

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's just about perfect - courteous, clear, covers everything (at this stage), and concise.

It's very easy indeed to end up writing more than needed to try and make it "look" better but it doesn't work! Far better to stick to short, simple, statements of the facts, and of your position, rather than waffling on trying to make it look impressive!

Will this do as a follow up then? Your paragraph was so well written I didn't dare change or meddle with it at all.

DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BD

REF: **** ***

Dear Sirs
I am following up on my previous correspondence to you in relation to the above referenced vehicle. I have had no interest in this vehicle since 09/08/11 when it was scrapped at an authorized treatment facility. I since sent you the V5 document on this date to inform you of this and then followed up in two further letters sent on 10/10/11 and 09/01/12.

Despite this, you have failed each time that I have notified you to update your records and I have since received a letter advising me that there is a penalty in relation to Continuous Insurance Enforcement as the vehicle was not insured on 10/01/12. I reiterate that the vehicle was scrapped on 09/08/11 and the DVLA were subsequently notified by sending in the V5 for the vehicle (followed by a further two letters to this effect) so I am under no obligation in relation to the vehicle since this date.

Section 7 of The Interpretation Act 1978 establishes that, by posting the V5 notification to you using pre-paid post, I fully discharged my obligations under S22 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 in respect of the vehicle unless you can prove non-delivery to the satisfaction of a Court.

I trust that this brings the matter to a close. Please confirm to me in writing that you have now updated your records in relation to this vehicle.

Yours Faithfully,

One can have hope that it stops them?

Joe_Horner

Looks fine - minor edit suggestion for the fist sentence, second para, just to make it read "smoother":


"Despite this, you have still failed to update your records and ...."

The chances of it making them go away is slim, although they will be aware that the Interpretation Act argument has been upheld in court so they may make some noise but not actually take it further.

Sadly the argument hasn't gone high enough yet to create a precedent, but it's still persuasive and there's no obvious reason for any future judge to overturn it. If there was then the DVLA would almost certainly have taken previous cases to appeal and obtained a binding precedent to support their position

z3phyr04

Thanks, I've made that adjustment and I'll get it in the post (recorded 1st) ASAP!

vax2002

Been looking at some other cases, DVLA will know that you sent them the slip, they are renowned for this kind of thing.
You need to make a firm decision if you are going to pay or go to court and if it is court, then start building your case.

z3phyr04

vax2002 wrote: »

Been looking at some other cases, DVLA will know that you sent them the slip, they are renowned for this kind of thing.
You need to make a firm decision if you are going to pay or go to court and if it is court, then start building your case.

What would paying achieve? They still haven't updated their details so I am still liable for further 'fines'. Quite frankly, if nobody ever fights them it just gives them a license to carry on bullying innocent people.

It absolutely makes no sense that I would have a fully taxed, MOT'd and insured car and also an uninsured one so I can't see what they can do except send me threatening letters leaving me feeling indignant at their own failure to manage vehicle details, which at the end of the day is one of the main points of the DVLA's existence. Especially with the things I have had to deal with in recent weeks, it is an insult that they cannot get simple administrative tasks right.

Wig

Good advice so far,

But I think I would not bother to mention your Interpretation Act defence strategy at this stage, IMHO it would be better to still keep it simplistic and not look as though you are already on the attack.

Oh and BTW you only send yellow Section 9 (V5C/3) to inform them of vehicle transfer to a motor trader, so I assume you did send the section 9 completed with or without the rest of the V5 (the Salvage Co. should have kept the rest of the V5.)?

Not sure if the V5C for a year 2000 car would have just "section 9" or if also calls the section a V5C/3. (I can't find my V5C)...Anyone?

This is what I would ammend it to... And send it ASAP as the tax expires in Feb,.....which reminds me, did you not apply for a tax refund?

Dear Sirs

RE: VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK X333 XXX

I am following up on my previous correspondence to you [copy enclosed] in relation to this vehicle. I have not received any reply from yourselves. I wish to declare that I no longer have or hold any interest in this vehicle. I request that you send me a letter confiming that I am no longer the registered keeper of this vehicle.

The vehicle was, to the best of my knowledge, destroyed at Autosalvage Ltd of 123 Benton Rd, Crawley. Being an authorised treatment facility, on or after 09/08/2011. I sent you the completed section 9 of the registration document on 09/08/2011 to inform you of the vehicle transfer, the date of transfer was 09/08/2011. I sent two further letters to you on 10/10/2011 and 09/01/2012 reiterating what had happened.

There is also a penalty against me in relation to Continuous Insurance Enforcement Action as the vehicle was not insured on 10/01/2012. I would expect you to also cancel this penalty and halt any proceedings being brought against me, and confirm this to me by your reply.

Yours Faithfully,

Joe_Horner

Fair comment, Wig, but I'd be inclined to go (politely) for the throat because it's not like they're going to be wrong-footed by the defence later and there's not a whole lot they can do to counter it anyway.

Given their long history of effectively trying to bully people into submission over these matters, making it absolutely clear from the start that you know exactly where you're going with it is probably the best chance there is of having them agree to drop it "in this case" at an early stage rather than drawing it out into 6 months of threats before they drop it - or issue a summons but don't turn up on the gamble that you don't either (one of their nicer waste-of-taxpayers'-money tricks in the past)

z3phyr04

I'd just like to quickly update this thread to say that I have now finally recieved an acknowledgement letter from the DVLA that I am no longer the registered keeper of the car (after the last letter I sent 09/01/2012 recorded it seems). I of course have not recieved any form of reply to my last letter that forum members advised me to write yet but their first deadline of 18/02/2012 is getting closer. Interesting to see what happens now.

Wig

What date have they said you are no longer the keeper effective from?

Effective from 09/01/2012? Then you write a letter now, acknowledging reciept of this letter and you point out to them that you require it to be effective from 09/08/2011 giving them a copy of the letter you sent to them in October 2011. But this may not matter now....see below

However if the Continuous enforcement letter states the fine is becasue the car was not insured on 10/01/2012. And the date you ceased to be registered keeper is recorded as 09/01/2012, then you could tag on to the new letter that you expect them to confirm the CIE charge has been dropped as you were not the registered keeper on that date.

BTW did the January letter you wrote to them reference the October 2011 letter? i.e. "I've had no reply to my previous letter on 10/10/11" This would help your case in court if it does.

I also ask again why did you not take a tax refund? you must have lost out on about £80