We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

won a court case against the DVLA

2

Comments

  • vax2002
    vax2002 Posts: 7,187 Forumite
    The DVLA would have to prove he never posted or filled it in.
    Their case is based on they never received it, no magistrate would fall for that.
    The area in between is more than reasonable doubt.
    Hence the solicitor trying it on at the court door, they knew the case would be slung out and quite rightfully, for DVLA penalties are issued devolved of proof, but try to take such 3rd world summary justice in to a court room and you had better make sure your case is cast iron solid with no joints.
    DVAL lost because they could not prove their case, the defence would not make a great deal of difference.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • Bravehearted_2
    Bravehearted_2 Posts: 669 Forumite
    Premier wrote: »
    You can't prove a negative. The DVLA claimed they were not informed of a change of ownership. A court would need to hear the defence of such a claim. As the OP says, the magistrates then had to retire to review the matter, before informing the OP he was free to go.

    This may not be Zimbabwe; I am just going on the details provided in the OP :)

    This makes zero sense.

    As stated by another poster, the burden of proof is on the DVLA.

    Even you wrote "The DVLA claimed they were not informed..."

    If they claimed they weren't informed, they then have to prove the OP indeed didn't inform them.

    Otherwise they might as well bring charges against anyone the like and claim they didn't receive something or the other. And then ask them to defend it.

    What sort of mad autocratic system of govt would that be where the single motoring body would essentially have the power to dish out a conviction to people when it felt like it.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    cardifflee wrote: »
    it was not my choice to take 2 days off i am unable to take unpaid time off work unless it is an emergency

    And premier i have lost 2 days holiday which part are you struggling with?
    No, you chose to take 2 days holiday for which you would have been paid.

    Your employer would have had to allow you time off to attend magistrates court if you were summonsed to attend.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    vax2002 wrote: »
    The DVLA would have to prove he never posted or filled it in.
    Their case is based on they never received it, no magistrate would fall for that...
    Don't be silly. How can DVLA prove something was posted if they don't even have any evidence of receipt?
    Similarly, how can they prove it was never filled in if they don't have a copy?

    :huh:
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Bravehearted wrote: »
    ...If they claimed they weren't informed, they then have to prove the OP indeed didn't inform them...
    How do they attempt to prove a negative?
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Actually this thread is a nonsense anyway.

    Afaik, there is no legal penalty for failing to advise a change of keeper (and certainly no requirement to advise a change of ownership). The only effect of failing to advise a change of keeper is that the registered keeper remains liable for the vehicle ;)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Never mind the technicalities.

    From what the OP posted it seems that the magistrates refused the claim without a full defence being mounted.

    That's got to be a positive sign because it suggests that, at least in this case, the very dubious basis for these penalties has filtered down to the Bench, making future valid defence far more likely to succeed. If that continues into other courts then DVLA are less likely to bring these spurious cases in future - saving everyone time, money, and heartache :)
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    Never mind the technicalities. ...

    But this is a nonsense.

    If the OP had informed DVLA then they would have received confirmation of such a change of keeper.

    Even if they forgot that, then every year for the past 4 years then the OP would have been sent reminders to re-tax the said vehicle. Surely that would suggest to most people that perhaps DVLA were not holding the correct RK details?

    Hmmm... carry on hitting me for posting my opinions, but the sensible people know what I say makes sense :)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • mikey72
    mikey72 Posts: 14,680 Forumite
    Premier wrote: »
    I'm always happy to learn. Please post details of the relevent legislation that mandates this :)

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/contents/made section 22 probably, but part iv in general.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    mikey72 wrote: »
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/contents/made section 22 probably, but part iv in general.

    Thanks, but I think we all know and agree that a change of keeper should be advised to DVLA.

    What I was asking in particular was some legislation that confirms a penalty may be incurred for failing to advise.

    All that seems to happen is, as I previously mentioned and mentioned on the V5, the RK remains responsible for it. :)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture