DVLA / Inter-Credit International Fine

Stroma

antrobus wrote: »

There is an automatic £80 late licensing penalty. Inter-Credit International are simply acting on behalf of DVLA and seeking to collect the £80.

So if anyone writes to you demanding £80 do you blindly pay it ? If there is a debt they are demanding they must provide proof on request, if there is no proof there is no obligation to pay it. If this went to court it will show that some company is demanding money without any evidence of it owing.

The oft is specific in collecting debts

4. If a debtor queries a debt and money that is owed, it is unfair for the creditor to continue with recovery proceedings during the time the debt is being disputed. If requested, the creditor or debt-collecting agency must provide details of an outstanding debt. It is not all up to the debtor to prove they do not owe a debt, is it up to the creditor to prove they do if the debt is disputed.

This specific if they don't provide proof they are actually in breach!

antrobus

I'm sorry I don't understand, what game are you all playing here?

I was simply pointing out that there is an automatic fine of £80 for failure to pay your car tax on time, and that Inter-Credit International are employed by DVLA to collect said £80. From the facts stated, it appears that the OP failed to pay their car tax on time, hence the fine was correctly issued, so what's the point of playing silly b*gg*rs?

spacey2012

DVLA can not "fine" anyone.
At best they can issue a civil penalty that could only be enforced by taking the OP to a civil court and obtaining a judgement.

Guys_Dad

If anyone cares to Google "Inter-Credit International DVLA" it is apparent that they are the collection agents appointed by the DVLA. There are lots of threads, some even on here, going back years.

So we come to "Did I contravene a law by not having a Road Tax licence?" If the answer is "YES", then you are being fined by a branch/agency of government, not a Mickey Mouse PPC, even if they are using a 3rd party outfit to do the dirty work.

Can you avoid paying without repercussions? Read a few threads and make your mind up. For my part, I think that you will finish up paying a lot more than the initial fine dealing with a Govt bureaucracy if, knowing you are guilty for whatever reason, you choose to treat them like a fake PPC parking charge.

SodG24

The OP has received nothing from DVLA ( the alleged creditor here ). Given he hasn't been given ANY information by DVLA why would he automatically, without question, pay a DCA what they demand ?

What's to say ICI haven't got it wrong ?

To me it seems a perfectly reasonable and lawful request to be told what the alleged debt is for. I certainly wouldn't pay it without at least questioning it.

There are many examples of DVLA acting beyond their remit and making mistakes. It would take them or ICI minimal effort to provide the evidence of the debt owed - assuming of course it actually exists.

Stroma

antrobus wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand, what game are you all playing here?

I was simply pointing out that there is an automatic fine of £80 for failure to pay your car tax on time, and that Inter-Credit International are employed by DVLA to collect said £80. From the facts stated, it appears that the OP failed to pay their car tax on time, hence the fine was correctly issued, so what's the point of playing silly b*gg*rs?

It's no game, the OP has a legal right to know who and why this debt is allegedly owed. Sorry if you think that guidelines set out by the office of fair trading mean nothing. But creditors and their agents particularly when they are dca's must comply with the law.

If I was in the position of the OP I would doing exactly what he is doing, either show where, when and how I owe this debt or sod off. Of course keep everything in writing in case these try a court. It will show the debtor acting reasonable but not the dca

Rover_Driver

Stroma wrote: »

It's no game, the OP has a legal right to know who and why this debt is allegedly owed.

It's in the letter in post 8 - The Late Licensing Penalty, s.7A, Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994. A civil debt payable if a licence is not taken out on or before the expiry of the existing licence.

Stroma

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It's in the letter in post 8 - The Late Licensing Penalty, s.7A, Vehicle Excise & Registration Act 1994. A civil debt payable if a licence is not taken out on or before the expiry of the existing licence.

Nope that is just a letter saying to pay and under what legislation is being used. In itself there is no proof that the debt is owed. It's no more valid than the debt collectors using the protection of freedoms act 2012 in the collection of alleged debts for parking tickets.

The DCA is being asked to provide proof that this is due, so they must provide the evidence of this debt, which means the dvla must provide it as they haven't done so.

Guys_Dad

Two things.
The OP admits they committed the offence, albeit unintentionally.
Second, when dealing with DVLA and other govt agencies, the boot is on the other foot and you need to prove your innocence. OP can not show that they paid for Road Tax at time of offence and admits it.

However, from one reference I saw on line, a motorist who was taken to court for a similar offence received no fine as they had paid for the tax.

Rover_Driver

The debt is due because the OP was late taking out the licence.
s.7A V.E.R.A. 1994 creates the debt, unlike the Protection of Freedoms Act which debt collectors (try to) use to enforce their own alleged debts.