DVLA / Inter-Credit International Fine

AltheHibby

The fact that people have a legal right to know which debt they apparently owe.

Guys_Dad

AltheHibby wrote: »

The fact that people have a legal right to know which debt they apparently owe.

1 It is not a debt, it is a penalty. OP has been informed of the offence, albeit by the DCA and has been notified in writing by the DVLA that they are acting as collection agents for them.
2 The DVLA have delegated collection to the DCA and informed OP in writing that if he wishes to avoid court, to follow instructions in their agent`s letter.
3 OP is at liberty to reject offer and go to court.

So what law has been broken ? Just post up the relevant Act/Statute.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

1 It is not a debt, it is a penalty. OP has been informed of the offence, albeit by the DCA and has been notified in writing by the DVLA that they are acting as collection agents for them.
2 The DVLA have delegated collection to the DCA and informed OP in writing that if he wishes to avoid court, to follow instructions in their agent`s letter.
3 OP is at liberty to reject offer and go to court.

So what law has been broken ? Just post up the relevant Act/Statute.

Sorry but a dca is legally obliged to provide on demand the proof of the debt, and it is a debt when a debt collector is involved ! Actually the dca should have this proof when chasing debts!

The OP has not been informed of this debt by the dvla, as they are the original creditor they are actually in breach of the oft guidelines, and that is together with the dca!

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/oft1299.pdf

provide you with information on your debt, such as the amount you owe

if you ask for it, provide you with more information about your debt, such as what your original agreement was, and if there were any changes made to it later.

Guys_Dad

It is not a debt it is a penalty. The back tax from July to September, if the tax was paid in October would have been a debt.

Of course, OP is free to dispute penalty in court, with the possibility of costs as well if the DVLA win. All that is being offered is an alternative to going to court that the OP can take up or not. It is a criminal rather than civil matter as payment of RFL or SORN are governed by statute.

This is very different from a usual civil case where I agree completely with your link and reasoning.

This link may be of interest. see reply from DVLA and the reference to out of court settlement.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/appeal_of_continuous_registratio

Dave_TH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think if you care to read some other posts by Rover Driver you will see that he does seem to be well informed on the law. Which relevant law that says something else are you citing?

now that was a better response than the "pitiful" one earlier, certainly more informative and better reasoned.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It is not a debt it is a penalty. The back tax from July to September, if the tax was paid in October would have been a debt.

Of course, OP is free to dispute penalty in court, with the possibility of costs as well if the DVLA win. All that is being offered is an alternative to going to court that the OP can take up or not. It is a criminal rather than civil matter as payment of RFL or SORN are governed by statute.

This is very different from a usual civil case where I agree completely with your link and reasoning.

This link may be of interest. see reply from DVLA and the reference to out of court settlement.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/appeal_of_continuous_registratio

You still failing, when a dca is involved they must follow guidelines set out by the oft, no matter who owns the debt. The dvla is no different to any other creditor. Yes they have legislation to back up their penalties. But it doesn't negate the obligations of the dca.

Rover_Driver

Stroma wrote: »

You still failing, when a dca is involved they must follow guidelines set out by the oft, no matter who owns the debt. The dvla is no different to any other creditor. Yes they have legislation to back up their penalties. But it doesn't negate the obligations of the dca.

The Late Licensing Penalty, although treated as a debt, is not a debt owed, it is a penalty. The DVLA are not a creditor, they deal with the matter on behalf of the Crown.
The guidelines are not legislation, they advise what should happen, not what must happen, and may not apply in all cases.

Stroma

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The Late Licensing Penalty, although treated as a debt, is not a debt owed, it is a penalty. The DVLA are not a creditor, they deal with the matter on behalf of the Crown.
The guidelines are not legislation, they advise what should happen, not what must happen.

You still failing as dca must operate within those guidelines which is actually is entrenched in legislation. And the dvla is a creditor as far as a dca is concerned, perhaps if you looked at it like this

dca - debt collection agency

They collect debts, is that clearer for you ?

Rover_Driver

Stroma wrote: »

You still failing as dca must operate within those guidelines which is actually is entrenched in legislation.

Guidelines are advice, if you read the one you quoted earlier:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/oft1299.pdf
You will see that it advises what should or should not be done, not what must or must not be done.

Guys_Dad

Dave_TH wrote: »

now that was a better response than the "pitiful" one earlier, certainly more informative and better reasoned.

I read the previous one as serious. There have been others of a similar content, that have accused some people of being PPC staff because they were of a different view. And at least one other contributor took that poist as being serious.
Had it been serious, I would stand by my post, but since it wasn't, I withdraw it.