won a court case against the DVLA

Joe_Horner

Premier wrote: »

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

Not at all. The OP's post isn't all that clear (but then he's probably on a bit of a high right now) but it suggests that he's moved since selling the car in question, in which case he wouldn't have received any reminders would he?

The "they'll send confirmation" is a bogus argument because there is nothing that requires them to do this - it's a "courtesy" by them with no legal standing - and, even if they do send one, there's absolutely no need in law for you to do anything if it doesn't arrive.

Having Government agencies attempting to impose obligations on you (such as chasing a missing acknowledgement) when they have no power to do so is exactly the sort of "power creep" that's unacceptable in a democratic society because (at least on paper) it's our elected representatives who make laws and impose obligations, not unaccountable civil service bureaucrats.

Finally, in the matter of what the offence is, try looking at VERA - I assume you know what that is? If not please don't be afraid to ask and learn something

mikey72

Premier wrote: »

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.

I don't think you quite understand what you're reading. I quoted you the specific law, not something it's nice to do on a good day. Break the law, and of course you get a penalty. That is what we have a justice system for, you get taken to court, and the judge decides if you're guilty, and imposes a penalty. The act doesn't set the penalty, otherwise they'd be updating them continually. Do you really every act has the punishment written into it?

cardifflee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not at all. The OP's post isn't all that clear (but then he's probably on a bit of a high right now) but it suggests that he's moved since selling the car in question, in which case he wouldn't have received any reminders would he?

The "they'll send confirmation" is a bogus argument because there is nothing that requires them to do this - it's a "courtesy" by them with no legal standing - and, even if they do send one, there's absolutely no need in law for you to do anything if it doesn't arrive.

Having Government agencies attempting to impose obligations on you (such as chasing a missing acknowledgement) when they have no power to do so is exactly the sort of "power creep" that's unacceptable in a democratic society because (at least on paper) it's our elected representatives who make laws and impose obligations, not unaccountable civil service bureaucrats.

Finally, in the matter of what the offence is, try looking at VERA - I assume you know what that is? If not please don't be afraid to ask and learn something

LOL

Now back to my question?

can i claim costs?

Sgt_Pepper_2

cardifflee wrote: »

LOL

Now back to my question?

can i claim costs?

Actual costs yes.

Travel and parking.

You've been paid for your two days off so you can't claim for loss of earnings.

mikey72

I think the first people to ask are the courts you went to, they can usually advise you on what you need to do, and what you can do to reclaim costs. Go for the two days as well. Speak to your employers, and ask them if you claim successfully, can they change them to two unpaid days off, pay them the money, and take the two days holiday later.

Joe_Horner

Regardless of the OP's reason for posting (which you'll note I didn't comment on in my original post that you attacked as "nonsense") the fact that the magistrates in this case, or more likely the Court Recorder, were obviously aware of the unsound basis of the DVLA case is excellent news in terms of limiting the continued abuse and unlegislated extension of the fairly limited powers DVLA have.

The Op won't be able to claim costs now without starting his own claim against DVLA which, imho, would be very unlikely to succeed. He may or may not have been successful if he'd entered a counter claim at the time but that's an academic question now that the case has been disposed of.

Hopefully he can take the fact that he's successfully stood up for his legal rights, and won, against "da man" as fair payment for his 2 days holiday - kudos to him for doing so. With luck he's helped make things a little fairer for everyone - a nice bit of voluntary public service. It's not the same as cash in the bank but it's good karma all the same

Now you've had a chance to look, btw, the offence is committed under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 c.22 Part III Section 46A "Duty to give information: offences under regulations". This is a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of L3 on the Standard Scale (currently £1000)

Premier_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Regardless of the OP's reason for posting (which you'll note I didn't comment on in my original post that you attacked as "nonsense")...

It wasn't your post that I was attacking as nonsense.

It was the the thread that the OP created that I claim to be a nonsense

I apologise to you if this caused any confusion

Joe_Horner

Premier wrote: »

It wasn't your post that I was attacking as nonsense.

It was the the thread that the OP created that I claim to be a nonsense

I apologise to you if this caused any confusion

Accepted