Tax Disk Fine... Bang to rights or innocent victim?

vanbanger

Moved house last year. My partner told the DVLA (updated the address on her licence). But she didn't realise she needed to re-register the car separately.

So when the tax disk expired, the reminder letters were sent to the old address.

This summer they spotted the car untaxed, we were clamped, and paid ~£100 for the unclamping. Then a month ago the DVLA sent us a letter saying we needed to pay a ~£80 fine to them, separate to the unclamping fee.

My partner paid this charge over the phone, we have a reference number and proof of transaction. But she forgot to sign and return the letter.

Now she's been summoned to the magistrate court for not signing and returning the letter, and is liable to pay a fine of £1,000.

It all seems a bit unfair - do we really need to find £1,000 or ought we be able to get out of it?

Iceweasel

As you are a newbie I will be extra polite.

Lots of people come to this forum saying things are 'unfair', after they have made naieve, ill-informed, or foolish decisions, and want to 'get out of it'.

1. She didn't realise she needed to change the address on the car docs.

2. She forgot to sign and return the letter.

Why? Especially after paying £100 + £80 how is it possible to let that slip one's mind?

In all seriousness - what is unfair about the current situation?

The impression the court will get is someone who doesn't care a jot, not someone who is 'forgetful'.

I doubt she will be fined as much as £1000 - that's the max.

I'm making no judgements at all - but I feel that is how the legal bods will see it.

Master_Blaster

Bang to rights according to the law.

Strider590

It's unfair that the DVLA tries it's hardest to trip people up, by making everything so damn confusing, BUT by the same token this should make people more careful about any and all dealings they have with them.

Aretnap

She hasn't been summonsed for not signing and returning the letter - she's been summonsed for failing to tax the car. The maximum fine for that it (from memory) £1000 or five times the annual duty - which ever is greater.

The £80 will have been a fixed penalty - essentially it's an offer to settle the matter without going to court, which allows her to get a smaller penalty than she'd otherwise be liable for in return for not arguing the toss and taking up more of the court and DVLA's time. She can choose whether to accept that offer or not, but in order to accept it she has to comply with whatever conditions it comes with, including returning the paperwork if applicable. If she doesn't, it ends up with her in court for the underlying offence.

As above, £1000 if the maximum fine. It won't be that much in practice - the exact amount will depend on her income. She can apologise for taking up the courts time and explain that she tried to accept the fixed penalty and it was confusion/an oversight on her part that let to the DVLA not accepting it - hopefully the magistrates will take that into account when setting the level of the fine.

Meanwhile the DVLA should be returning her £80 if they're not going to accept it - if she doesn't have it back yet she should call them up and ask for it.

Car_54

She should have received a form - with the summons - to complete with details of her income.

Any fine will be income-based, and probably very much less than £1,000. It will also be reduced by 33% for an early guilty plea.

mgdavid

Strider590 wrote: »

It's unfair that the DVLA tries it's hardest to trip people up, by making everything so damn confusing......

Presumably you are exaggerating in an attempt to make a point; could you quote examples please?
Surely if one can read (and understand) English, it's simple.

Rover_Driver

vanbanger wrote: »

Now she's been summoned to the magistrate court for not signing and returning the letter, and is liable to pay a fine of £1,000.

What is the summons for? There is no offence of just failing to return a letter. Usually it would be the offence of failing to update the registered keeper's details, or failing to licence a vehicle.


What was the £80 for? It was not a 'fine', it could have been the Late Licensing Penalty, which is treated as a civil debt (a civil matter) and would be nothing to do with the issue of the summons.

AdrianC

Strider590 wrote: »

It's unfair that the DVLA tries it's hardest to trip people up, by making everything so damn confusing

What, exactly, is confusing here?

roonaldo

Have a I missed something. Your partner failed to inform DVLA of the change of address for the car and failed to tax it. But its the DVLA's fault and the fine is unfair? What about the now obsolete disc in the windscreen with the expiry date on that she walked past every day, didnt that remind her? Sounds like she was trying to chance it and got caught out. The fine sounds perfectly fair to me.

jimjames

mgdavid wrote: »

Presumably you are exaggerating in an attempt to make a point; could you quote examples please?
Surely if one can read (and understand) English, it's simple.

The current situation with car tax (duty) looks to be highly confusing. It may not be once it has settled down but the intervening period will cause confusion.

Cars are still being advertised as having tax on adverts.

Cars can be driving round with a valid tax disc that are untaxed.

Not the situation here but the implementation could have been done so much more cleanly by separating out the changes.