DVLA problems, can anyone help?

[nowimgone]

I forgot to claim SORN on one of my old cars in the yard.
I accepted the £40.00 fixed pen fee and sent them a cheque.
The cheque bounced.
I repeated the process, cheque bounced again.
They sent me another warning, but this time i wrote back using challenges i learned from tpuc.org, like 'On claim that i am ***** and not john doe,
'on claim i am a member of a namable society whose statutes you are enforcing' etc etc, there were a lot....

they have now sent me back a final warning for £80.00 saying they could send my case to a collections agency and that this could affect my credit rating etc.

Im guessing because i accepted their offer to contract by sending a cheque in the first place, that this law based defence will not work now?
Is this the case?
Any help or suggestions would be great.... thanks

[nowimgone]

anyone?

[boots]

Hi nowimgone,

First off, have you let the corporation know (government) with NoU&I and CoR? it's a slight problem but you may be able to get around it.

I'm sorry but I do not know what SORN is or are?

If you can't come to an agreement with SORN to pay off the debt by installments. Then thats a good thing if it goes to court because you have shown that you tried to settle the matter out of court and they would not give you a remedy. Keep it in mind.

If they do send it to a collection agency all the better. Ask them to send you the contract. and not on behalf of a third party, that being the Collection Agency. They can't. They will hassle you but that OK, they DONT have a legal standing in this matter.

If you do go to court, conditional accept to the FACT, not the charge.

Have a read of this and see if it fits into what you are going through.

Hi fellow freedom seekers,


Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court, and what a first time performance he put in. He actually took the magistrate. and prostitutor (prosecutor) by surprise as he had not 'reported to the general enquiries desk on his arrival, however it appears evident to us that they only want you to do that so that the prostitutor can contract you prior to the defendant being called.
Anyhow he told the magistrate that he wanted to plead guilty to the facts.
The look on the mag's (and the prost's) faces was a mastercard moment.
Priceless.
He immediately tried to intimidate Brian into agreeing that he wanted to plead guilty to the charges!
Now WHY would he insist that Brian had to plead either guilty or not guilty to the charges if there was no difference between charges and facts?
Brian stuck to his guns and did not waiver from his stance.
However, after the mag got really frustrated, telling Brian that he was trying his patience and got quite red in the face, it was obviously a Mexican standoff.
At that point the prostitutor jumped in and offered that the mag do a short adjournment to allow him to discuss the case with the deft out in the foyer.
Well the prost wanted to plea bargain and offered to withdraw the 'Dog at Large in Daylight Hours' charge if Brian was prepared to nod the scone to 'Fail to Re-register Dog' charge.
So after a few minutes discussion Brian decided that on this occasion, his first ever time at court, that he would accept the prost's offer.
Back in the court, the mag, whom we expected to still be burning up inside, went through the motions of striking out the first offer, and then blow me down if he didn't say 'I find the case proven without proceeding to conviction OR FURTHER PENALTY.'
You should have seen the prost scrambling to his feet to put in the council's claim for costs!
Shit it was funny.
So all in all, Brian went from facing nearly $400 in fraudulent claims that most unfortunate slaves end up paying with barely a wimper, to only $62 in costs.
What we learned most of all today, was what Mark stated heaps of times last w/e,
'You must break their presumption!'
The only thing Brian didn't remember to do was to break their presumption that he and the deft (defendant) were one and the same.
Other than that he did very well for a first time appearance.
But very importantly Brian's performance was more than enough to make them feel the ground tremble under their feet. Even to the extent that the prost chased us up the street wanting to find out if Brian intended advising others about how to deal with them.
Next it's my own turn at the same venue on June 30.
My biggest challenge will be to not let them engage me in argument!


Good Luck.

.

[fnulnu]

SORN - Statutory Off Road Notification

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_4022058

[boots]

SORN - Statutory Off Road Notification

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_4022058


Thank you fnulnu:)

.

[boots]

Shit :( They even tax you to have your car OFF the road.:rolleyes:

Blimey That sucks.

nowimgone it is a contract so without being a freeman by notifying the authorities you will have to pay.

Ask to pay by installments or let it go to the debt collectors the choice is yours.

.

[cacadores]

I got off a SORN fine.


I forgot to claim SORN on one of my old cars in the yard.
I accepted the £40.00 fixed pen fee and sent them a cheque.
The cheque bounced.
I repeated the process, cheque bounced again.
They sent me another warning, but this time i wrote back using challenges i learned from tpuc.org, like 'On claim that i am ***** and not john doe,
'on claim i am a member of a namable society whose statutes you are enforcing' etc etc, there were a lot....

they have now sent me back a final warning for £80.00 saying they could send my case to a collections agency and that this could affect my credit rating etc.
Im guessing because i accepted their offer to contract by sending a cheque in the first place, that this law based defence will not work now?
Is this the case?
Any help or suggestions would be great.... thanks
I got a notification of a fixed penalty charge for failing to make a SORN. I sent them a letter, quoting the reference on their letter.
I told them that my car is temporarily abroad and not kept on private property and therefore I am not allowed to make the SORN declaration, which is:

The SORN declaration:
• I declare I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, it will be kept on private property and it will not be used or parked on a public road
from the date given above, until a licence is applied for.
• I declare that I have checked the information provided on this form and I believe it is correct.

I then got a letter of notification of court proceedings form the DVLC. Which I doubted, since you have to be notified by the court, not the DVLC. So this time I sent them a letter which said 'I refer you to my letter dated ../../.. where this matter has already been dealt with. I therefore demand payment for the price of this registered post letter, which should be remitted to me within 14 days'. I included the receipt for the cost of registered post.

I never heard back from them.

In the advice leaflet, V546, it suggests you are supposed to keep a vehicle UK registered if it's abroad. But I can't find any legislation to suggest you have to pay road tax: the DVLC has no jurisdiction abroad.

Should they look in your yard, they might query how you got it back from being abroad without paying road tax. But if you bought it back on a transporter that's OK. If you booked it for it's MOT, on the day you returned it to the UK, and be driving to the garage, which is what I did, then you don't have to pay
.
If it had failed the MOT, then it's back in the yard and you just have to make another SORN declaration now.

I'm not suggesting you do anything illegal, as I really did have my car abroad. But I noted there was no proof.

[boots]

Don't pay it.


I got a notification of a fixed penalty charge for failing to make a SORN. I wrote sent them a letter, quoting the reference on their letter.
I told them that my car is temporarily abroad and not kept on private property and therefore I am not allowed to make the SORN declaration, which is:

The SORN declaration:
• I declare I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, it will be kept on private property and it will not be used or parked on a public road
from the date given above, until a licence is applied for.
• I declare that I have checked the information provided on this form and I believe it is correct.

I then got a letter of notification of court proceedings form the DVLC. Which I doubted, since you have to be notified by the court, not the DVLC. So this time I sent them a letter which said 'I refer you to my letter dated ../../.. where this matter has already been dealt with. I therefore demand payment for the price of this registered post letter, which should be remitted to me within 14 days'. I included the receipt for the cost of registered post.

I never heard back from them.

In the advice leaflet, V546, it suggests you are supposed to keep a vehicle UK registered if it's abroad. But I can't find any legislation to suggest you have to pay road tax: the DVLC has no jurisdiction abroad.


Brilliant, well done cacadores.


.

.

[h2pogo]

best thing in my experience with sorn fines is ignore them.
imho any one that pays them is collaberating with a dictatorship.

[nowimgone]

thanks for those replys. i'll look into the car abroad thing.
Im ignoring them until they get really nasty.

i accepted that i had to pay, so that was me accepting they're offer to contract, which means i dont have a leg to stand on? is this right?

Any way to squeeze out a bit more money, they're assholes

respect to the freemen/ fremen

[cacadores]

thanks for those replys. i'll look into the car abroad thing.
Im ignoring them until they get really nasty.
i accepted that i had to pay, so that was me accepting they're offer to contract, which means i dont have a leg to stand on? is this right?
Any way to squeeze out a bit more money, they're assholes
respect to the freemen/ fremen
Well, just to be clear, I'm not personally convinced by this 'law is a contract' stuff. But whatever you believe, it's what works that matters.
So, to answer your question, you must reply: because otherwise you'll just go through the system and end up in court for sure. If you want to go to court, then ignore this! Moreover you can use questions as weapons.

I think of my case like this, it exists as a letter (either a real one or a computer document) in the DVLA in Swansea. It has to jump through various hoops in their building, decided by a computer programme and one thing I can do is bugger up their hoops and get my case document out of their computer programme.

But first, I must reply: that's imperative 'cos if I don't their computer, de facto will just carry on until court. And you need proof for the court, even if you don't go there. I'll explain:

So I write back denying the charge, charging them for the stamp and demanding a reply. The great thing about this, is that if they send me another warning, I later claim that's oppressive 'cos they know I already denied it (you can win a case even if your guilty, if the authorities are 'oppressive'. It's even in the Magna Carta if you're interested in such things). This is the great thing: in a second letter, you refer to your previous letter by date (not content - you don't give them a clue about that) and tell them your waiting for a reply. Now, nine times out of ten they won't be able to find your letter, their computer system cannot deal with it, and when it does come in front of a real person, they'll be lost. Because you send your letter to Mr Clive Bennett Chief Executive DVLA SWANSEA SA6 7JL. If they demand you reply to a different address, then write to that one with a letter telling them you're waiting for a reply to your letter dated ../../.. (you don't have to tell them where you sent it). You want them to lose it as long as you have proof you sent it. You copy all your letters. You can write to the Chief Executive, or another to their Head of Claims because in court, they will be treated as one legal 'person': they cannot claim the courts sympathy if one arm doesn't know what the other is doing.

The point of all this, is to make a trail that you could show a court. Your trail, will show a normal reasonable human asking questions and awaiting replies. Their trail, will show your letters have been ignored, that questions you ask (which they have a statutary obligation to reply to) have been answered incompletely and if they're using a computer system to do this, then you'll have letters that make no sence, that repeat things you've already dealt with..... They will look unreasonable, and that's important in a court.

Normally, the final decision to go to court will be made by a human (!). He'll have about a minute to scan your letters, he'll see they mention that you're still waiting for a reply to a letter he can't find and 9 times out of 10 they'll drop they case. Time is money.

[cacadores]

i accepted that i had to pay, so that was me accepting they're offer to contract....You just don't want to admit it in words. Sending a cheque is not in itself an admission: the test is reasonableness: is it possible you tried to pay only because you got scared by the demand and threat of court action? But having thought about it, you decided it's important to fight for your innocence? I think so.

However, if I understand correctly, you aren't innocent, are you? You say the cheque bounced: is that your fault for not having enough money there or was the bank at fault?

[ag3nt5mith]

Hmm, I having some trouble with the DVLA. They have basically threatened me with a fine for not renewing my drives license...

Funny thing is I only got the letter a few days ago and I have less than 3 weeks to comply with their demands before they decide I'm breaking the Law.

Fuckers...

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/Legendary-Soldier/DrivingLicenseRenewal.jpg

I would like to know exactly which Law they are making reference to in this threatening letter.

[yozhik]

It isn't a threatening letter.
It's a polite request. :rolleyes:

Look at it again, with a different pair of eyes.
Take care in detecting the use of the words; "must", "may", "please", "application", etc

It is a request, disguised as a threat.

I particularly note, with a wry smile, their reference to;
(paraphrased) ... "important notes about your application are on the back"

Oh really? Your application? :D
So, you are applying to change your photo?
Ummmm ... when did this happen?

[ag3nt5mith]

It isn't a threatening letter.
It's a polite request. :rolleyes:

Look at it again, with a different pair of eyes.
Take care in detecting the use of the words; "must", "may", "please", "application", etc

It is a request, disguised as a threat.

I particularly note, with a wry smile, their reference to;
(paraphrased) ... "important notes about your application are on the back"

Oh really? Your application? :D
So, you are applying to change your photo?
Ummmm ... when did this happen?

Indeed, I may be writing a letter with some interesting questions for them to answer.

Maybe I should send them a bill for my administration cost also, lets say 35 quid... :D

But honestly I'm torn over what to do about this, the rebel in me wants to tell them to get fucked, but the nagging little bitch of slave that's still in me wants to curl up and just pay. I haven't got the knowledge to take them on with confidence YET... But that day is coming closer.

This really is just extortion with a side order of fear as well.

Also can anyone point me in the direction of the statute that governs photo I.D's I have tried but have had no look so far...

Notice how they completely fail to say which Law I will be breaking if I do not comply. I went to their website and again nothing to show me what Law they are referencing. That's not complete, clear & accurate information in my experience.

Me thinks I may have some funny with the DVLA tomorrow... I'll keep you folks update on what happens...

Any one what to take a pop at a first draft reply with all the Freeman trimmings included, it would be greatly appreciated.

Namaste. ;)

[yozhik]

Indeed, I may be writing a letter with some interesting questions for them to answer.

Maybe I should send them a bill for my administration cost also, lets say 35 quid... :D

But honestly I'm torn over what to do about this, the rebel in me wants to tell them to get fucked, but the nagging little bitch of slave that's still in me wants to curl up and just pay. I haven't got the knowledge to take them on with confidence YET... But that day is coming closer.

This really is just extortion with a side order of fear as well.

Also can anyone point me in the direction of the statute that governs photo I.D's I have tried but have had no look so far...

Notice how they completely fail to say which Law I will be breaking if I do not comply. I went to their website and again nothing to show me what Law they are referencing. That's not complete, clear & accurate information in my experience.

Me thinks I may have some funny with the DVLA tomorrow... I'll keep you folks update on what happens...

Any one what to take a pop at a first draft reply with all the Freeman trimmings included, it would be greatly appreciated.

Namaste. ;)

The key point is to remain in honour.

So you have two choice; acceptance or conditional acceptance.
The first being to simply pay, the second being to offer to pay upon a condition being met.

For example;

"I reply to your letter, with this letter, for the purpose of notifying you that I do not intend to apply for a photo renewal. I acknowledge your offer to apply, however I respectfully decline."

OR

"I acknowledge your letter dated XX/XX/XX and conditionally accept your request for payment upon proof of claim that such payment is required. Please provide me with the following;

1. The Act referred to in your letter which specifically requires ... blah blah blah
2. A signed application form for a photo renewal, from me as, referred to in your letter.
3. blah blah blah"

It can be anything you want it to be. :)

Acknowledge their letter, respectfully, but make it clear that you do not wish to accept their offer nor their invitation to apply for something you do not desire ... and then offer them some form of remedy. Maybe you could offer to them the suggestion that they could continue to use the existing photo, which would also be mutually beneficial as it would not require them lengthy administration procedures which would also result in you not having to pay for the administration fee. :D

The best option would be to have completed a NoU and COR, stating that you are not "Mr" - the person the letter is addressed to ... and revoking your driver's licence, as you are not involved in commercial activity and use your private car for travelling ...

OR ... you could just do as you have been "told".

[ag3nt5mith]

Thank you for your reply, it has given me much to think about.

I do not like being told what to do, I am a Taurus and I am rebellious by my very nature.

This maybe the STRAW that broke my camels back!!! :D

I have been content to just read from the side line up until now, maybe it's time to get involved in the game.

When I reply, should I:

Send it by way of registered mail, so I can prove that I took steps before the deadline to engage in honorable discussion?

Does this freeze the deadline or will they go ahead regardless of what I may or may not do?

I have a fair understanding of the Freeman technology but have yet to implement any steps.

I have a baby on the way and don't want to risk fucking this all up at the first hurdle.

Thanks again for helping out yozhik. :)

[yozhik]

Thank you for your reply, it has given me much to think about.

I do not like being told what to do, I am a Taurus and I am rebellious by my very nature.

This maybe the STRAW that broke my camels back!!! :D

I have been content to just read from the side line up until now, maybe it's time to get involved in the game.

When I reply, should I:

Send it by way of registered mail, so I can prove that I took steps before the deadline to engage in honorable discussion?

Does this freeze the deadline or will they go ahead regardless of what I may or may not do?

I have a fair understanding of the Freeman technology but have yet to implement any steps.

I have a baby on the way and don't want to risk fucking this all up at the first hurdle.

Thanks again for helping out yozhik. :)

Hey, don't take my word for it!
I'm simply recanting what I've read on this forum and would consider doing myself.

Have I done it? No.

Do I know it works? No.

However, I genuinely do not believe there is any harm in respectfully asking for some clarification on a couple of points. :)

You mentioned that you would like to know what "law" they refer to. Are you entitled to ask for clarification of this? Of course you are. That is perfectly reasonable and responsible.

If I received this letter, I would definitely want to know what "application" they were referring to, given that no application had been made. Is it reasonable to ask the question? Of course it is. You're not refusing - which would be dishonourable - you are simply conditionally accepting, upon clarification.

Is there any information "in their records" that shows you are required to have a driving license? i.e. are you involved in commerce? Again, it is not unreasonable to ask this. You're not refusing or dishonouring the request; you are simply conditionally accepting upon proof of claim that you require a licence for commercial activity.

I don't think any of these reasonable and respectful questions could be deemed unlawful or dishonourable. :rolleyes:

[cacadores]

........I have been content to just read from the side line up until now, maybe it's time to get involved in the game.
When I reply, should I:
Send it by way of registered mail, so I can prove that I took steps before the deadline to engage in honorable discussion?
Does this freeze the deadline or will they go ahead regardless of what I may or may not do?
I have a fair understanding of the Freeman technology but have yet to implement any steps.
Hello,

I hope you are not confusing the letter (which relates to paying for a photo) with the law of the road (which relates to driving).

The letter is essentially just a piece of information and should be treated as
such, although you need to be careful of it. It is incorrectly worded.

But do you have to send your licence in?

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) - ammended.
(2A) Where, in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, a licence in the form of a photocard remains in force for a period of more than ten years, the holder of the licence must surrender it and its counterpart to the Secretary of State not later than the end of the period of ten years.

Yes, that's your obligation (which I presume you gave when you applied for the photocard licence in the first place). And the ''Secretary of State'' = the DVLA because they are apponted to act for him. But you didn't say how long your licence was valid: the letter refers to the validity of the photo, not the licence.

But, do you have to pay for the new one, if you choose to drive?

(7) On the surrender of a licence and its counterpart by a person in pursuance of subsection (2A) above, the Secretary of State must (subject to the following provisions of this section) grant a new licence to that person and any licence granted under this subjection shall be granted free of charge.

Er..... no. What do you have to give them (if you want a new licence)?

(7B) The Secretary of State may require a person to provide—
(a)evidence of his name, address, sex and date and place of birth, and
(b)a photograph which is a current likeness of him,

You can drive while your old licence is surrendered (that's in another section).

Must the DVLA give you a new licence if you give them evidence?


97. Grant of licences.— (1) Subject to section 92 of this Act [on physical fitness] the Secretary of State must grant a licence to a person who—
(a)makes an application for it in such manner and containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may specify and pays the fee (if any) which is prescribed,
(b)provides the Secretary of State with such evidence or further evidence in support of the application as the Secretary of State may require,
(c)surrenders to the Secretary of State—
(i) any previous licence granted to him after 1st January 1976 and its counterpart.

Yes, they must.

But, there seems to be a conflict in the law about if a new licence is free or not, although the fee for photocard to photocard exchange is announced on their web-site as £17.50.

I think the best you can to is to argue if the cost applies and meanwhile continue to drive with a photocopy of your old licence, and proof of your application for the exchange one at home, which is legal and presumably you could do this ad infinitum.

What I would do, is to give back the old licence (but copy it first in case you get stopped on the road). To get a new licence I'd fill in the application form and do what it says but where it mentiones the fee, write ''subject to enclosed letter'' in large writing. In the letter, I would say that I am requiring the Secretary of State to supply me with a new licence for free under section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) - ammended. Date and copy this letter.

To any reply they give, I'd simply ask them one question in return, for example to show me where section seven was repealed, to provide evidence that the Secretary of State made such an order etc. You could also write all your letters to the The Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport at the House of Commons, Westminster, SW1A 0AA, provided you inform the DVLA in at least one letter that's what you're doing.

If they make further demands or a threat by letter, you should reply with this, ' Dear Sirs,
I refer you to my letter dated .../.../o9 which is still awaiting reply. Copy and date all letters

I'm not giving you legal advice, because you haven't supplied enough information. These are just avenues you could try.