DVLA / Inter-Credit International Fine

Rover_Driver

Stroma wrote: »

And it still goes back to the dca having to prove the debt. You don't appear to know that the dca must on demand by the debtor prove the debt. It's a legal requirement it's that simple.

The proof that the debt is due is in the letter - s.7A V.E.R.A. 1994.
The OP was late taking out a licence, so the Late Licensing Penalty is due.

Stroma

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The proof that the debt is due is in the letter - s.7A V.E.R.A. 1994.
The OP was late taking out a licence, so the Late Licensing Penalty is due.

But the dvla hasn't informed the OP of this, it still comes down to the DCA, you don't appear to know the role of one, this from the OFT

v
-
iii

Timing of issue of letters referring to legal action

However, letters which refer to legal action would, in the OFT's view, have the potential to be perceived as a threat of legal action and therefore could be an unfair and oppressive business practice:

against someone who has a legitimate dispute with the original creditor

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, it is up to the creditor to prove they do if the debt is disputed.

Rover_Driver

Stroma wrote: »

But the dvla hasn't informed the OP of this, it still comes down to the DCA, you don't appear to know the role of one, this from the OFT

The letter sent to the OP explains that it is the DVLA that are making the claim, and the DCA are acting for them and offering an out of court settlement on their behalf.
It also gives details of the outstanding debt - s.7A V.E,R.A. 1994, which is the Late Licensing Penalty.


"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, it is up to the creditor to prove they do if the debt is disputed."

A disputed claim would be proved in the County Court, which is what may happen in the OP's case if the out of court settlement offer is not paid. The DCA will return the matter to the DVLA for court action.

Coupon-mad

And then the DVLA will not show up or will muck it up...as is their track record.

Stroma

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The letter sent to the OP explains that it is the DVLA that are making the claim, and the DCA are acting for them and offering an out of court settlement on their behalf.
It also gives details of the outstanding debt - s.7A V.E,R.A. 1994, which is the Late Licensing Penalty.


"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, it is up to the creditor to prove they do if the debt is disputed."

A disputed claim would be proved in the County Court, which is what may happen in the OP's case if the out of court settlement offer is not paid. The DCA will return the matter to the DVLA for court action.

You are still not seeing this, the OP has asked for proof of this debt, this proof must be supplied on request, it's not a refusal to pay, it's a redusal to accept the dca's word that its owed without any proof.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

You are still not seeing this, the OP has asked for proof of this debt, this proof must be supplied on request, it's not a refusal to pay, it's a redusal to accept the dca's word that its owed without any proof.

I am surprised at some of the replies from regular contributors on this thread who seem to be treating this as a usual claim from Roxburghe.

OP tried to buy Road Tax in July. Cheque bounced. Tax eventually bought in October.

1. Was there a RFL supplied in July or was car driving without one on display?
2. In October, when OP got tax, presumably this was backdated to July and July - September tax charged. That in itself is proof of the offence as far as DVLA goes. (Their records will show a July Tax purchased in October)
3. This is not a new way for DVLA to try to collect their penalties without going to court- been going on for years.
4. This is a simple offer to an offender to accept the penalty or take the court route, which could cost considerably more or, if the DVLA blow it in court, get off with no penalty. The DVLA should have absolutely no bother in proving its case from facts supplied by OP and, unlike PPC cases, there is no wriggle room on legality of penalty, signs or anything else.
5. Unlike normal DCA letters, this lot won't go into protracted exchanges about "prove the debt". No time for that or sufficient money in it for them with such a small fee they will earn from the 80 quid collection.

It's a simple choice, OP. Pay the DCA (check with google if you are worried about their legitimacy) or wait for the court letter and risk costs as well.
Maybe some regulars will organise a whip round if you follow their advice and it gets to court and you have costs added. Equally, if the DVLA muck it up and the penalty is set aside, you might want to send the same people a few quid.

Stroma

We are going in circles, the OP has not received notification of this from the dvla, without the original letters how does he know this is a legitimate charge ? No matter what you say the OP is entitled by law to question whether this charge is valid, the dca must comply and so must the dvla if asked.

It's not a refusal to accept the law exists its asking a simple question and requiring both to comply to the law, you appear to think that because its the dvla that the OP has no rights at all to question this, and must pay ! If he pays he accepts the penalty and can't do anything after.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

We are going in circles, the OP has not received notification of this from the dvla, without the original letters how does he know this is a legitimate charge ? No matter what you say the OP is entitled by law to question whether this charge is valid, the dca must comply and so must the dvla if asked.

It's not a refusal to accept the law exists its asking a simple question and requiring both to comply to the law, you appear to think that because its the dvla that the OP has no rights at all to question this, and must pay ! If he pays he accepts the penalty and can't do anything after.

The OP admits committing the offence. There is a fixed penalty of 80.00. DVLA have sub contracted collection to the DCA. OP can pay them or go to court and risk higher cost..

That's it.

SodG24

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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.

That's not true - a number of court cases brought by DVLA have failed. When you send something to DVLA they claim that the onus is on the sender to make sure DVLA get whatever is sent. On the other hand they argue that by the very act that they send something to you then the onus is on YOU to tell them you haven't received something.

A number of courts have throw out the DVLA cases because it's unfair that the onus is on the driver whichever way documentation is sent and that DVLA claim they hold no responsibility for ensuring their own documentation arrives. DVLA can't have it both ways !

I'm shocked by the number of people that just assume government bodies can't be challenged - remember it's DVLA that sell OUR details to scammers - hardly a trustworthy government department.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The OP admits committing the offence. There is a fixed penalty of 80.00. DVLA have sub contracted collection to the DCA. OP can pay them or go to court and risk higher cost..

That's it.

Has he ? Don't think the dvla or dca know that unless they trawl this forum! It still comes down to what the OP is legally entitled to, and that is proof that the debt exists, remember its a dca writing to him and not the dvla.

At the end of the day it's not up to us to decide what the OP is to do, all we can do is offer the advice and the OP decides which he follows.