DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

[Stuffedagain]

Hope someone can help with a SORN question.

To cut a very long story short

my son's car became undriveable so bought another.
Phoned DVLA after getting a fine for no insurance because the vehicle wasn't SORN. He paid it and asked the DVLA what he need to do now. They told him
what he needed to do to SORN it as he hadn't received the log book from the DVLA and couldn't do it online. He was told to send in a letter which he did.

After a couple of months he got a summons from Stevenage Court for not having insurance. This for the same continuing offence.
He wrote to them and explained he'd sent a letter and lo and behold, notification and tax refund was received the next day and dated back to the receipt by them of the letter.

He has now just received a further letter saying that as the SORN was backdated the offence of no insurance still stands albeit well after the date that the vehicle has been SORN'd.

He has an acknowledgment from them stating "Your SORN starts on 11/09/2015" Summons states that he had no insurance on the 6/10/2015??

Is this legal??
Surely if the vehicle has an official SORN date and the tax refunded back to the 11th,
how then can they say it was uninsured after that time?


Any help would be gratefully received.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Short answer is no they can't, as you say the SORN is proof that it was covered at the date of the letter sent. If the SORN penalty was paid prior then he has nothing to worry about - DVLA are a nightmare.

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Thanks Rob for taking the time to respond. DVLA says the original penalty that was paid has nothing to do with any subsequent action. I'm only worried that the SORN starts when they decide to process it which could be months later than when they received the correspondence which is effectively what they are saying. The fact that it has been backdated seems, according to them, irrelevant even though their acknowledgement stating "Your SORN starts on 11/09/2015" and the offense of being uninsured is for the 27/10/2015.

Very Bizarre.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Well if you think about it logically, they have supplied you evidence that the SORN date started on 11 September and if they took it to court how are they going to explain to the judge that the SORN date is irrelevant despite saying that no insurance notification starts from 27 October which is after the SORN date? Simple answer is they can't.

I'm going to hazard a guess it will be one of their template letters probably the same or similar to what I've received from them before. There'll usually be some code for the letter at the bottom or near the top - half the time the letters they send to you don't even apply in your case!

You could write back to them but you'll no doubt get another template letter from them. If the continue to send you letters write to them and request them to stop as you will consider action against them for harassment - usually stops after that

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Many Thanks Rob for your reply. My only concern is that the last paragraph states "Your declared SORN on the 27th October" and "Your legal responsibility did not end until you received
confirmation of your SORN from the DVLA. After reviewing you case I am satisfied blah blah.... The Acknowledgement says that it was "Printed on the 27th"

It doesn't look like a template, no references as you suggest.

Any advice you can give will put our minds at rest in this worrying development.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Are you able to upload the letter with personal info removed and I'll take a look at it?

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

I'll have a go Rob. I'm new to this site so will have to try and figure my way through it.

Thanks a lot.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

If you click on the Go advanced button when you reply, there will be a paperclip button if you click on that you can then attach your image to upload, then click the close button and submit reply.

[Kati]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Are you able to upload the letter with personal info removed and I'll take a look at it?

I'll have a go Rob. I'm new to this site so will have to try and figure my way through it.

Thanks a lot.

You could email it to me for uploading if you want?? kati@legalbeagles.info ... just put a link to your thread in the email so I can find it xx

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Just mailed to you Kati, thanks a lot.

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Thanks a lot Rob, I've e-mailed to Kati but will try to upload as well.

[Kati]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Just mailed to you Kati, thanks a lot.

Got them xx

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

thanks [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION], [MENTION=66943]Stuffedagain[/MENTION] I'll give a more in depth response to this but I'm sure we can do a defence to this - I'll post up more information soon

[Stuffedagain]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

Have look if this works Rob

Thanks

[R0b]

Re: DVLA Court Summnons SORN.

@Stuffedagain lets have some fun with this, i'll do each point on the letter in turn.

DVLA in conjunction with MIB ... Road Safety Act 2006 ... ensure all vehicles taxed at all times

First mistake by the DVLA is that they seem to argue that this is for the same continuing offence. Here is what the Road Safety Act 2006 says:

Section 144C

where a person commits an offence … the person may be discharged of any liability to conviction by payment of a fixed penalty notice

Section 144C (2)

a person may not be convicted of any offence if he pays the fixed penalty within 21 days.

Now, if your son paid the fine within 21 days then his liability is discharged for that offence. The DVLA would then have to issue a new penalty notice for the same which would be entirely separate and contain new details such as having a further 21 days to pay the penalty or risk a summons to court. The DVLA cannot summons a person within 21 days, the person must have that time to make payment and discharge any liability.



Now onto the SORN problem

Page 1 of the letter:

You should contact the DVLA if you are not in receipt of an acknowledgement letter. Until such time as the acknowledgement letter is received the registered keeper cannot assume their vehicle has been SORN.

you declared SORN on 27/10/15 … after the summons issued on 19/10/15.

Page 2 of the letter:

Your legal responsibility does not end until you received confirmation of your SORN from the DVLA.

It's a shame this forum doesn't have a poo icon or i'd be using it here! There is no legal requirement for you to receive an acknowledgement from the DVLA to discharge your duty of SORN. Section 7 of the Interpretation act gives you a defence to this, it is up to the DVLA to prove undeniably that they didn't receive it. Either way they have acknowledged your SORN and so it has been applied retrospectively hence the SORN saying that the start date is 11 September. The DVLA clearly use this and scare people into paying further costs, and alot of the time will rock up to court on the day before dropping the case. Have a google of some of the cases below and you'll see what I mean.

DVLA v James Collins
DVLA v Duncan Peck
DVLA v O’Sullivan, Staines County Court October 2009
DVLA vs Kennedy - convicted at magistrates, appealed case but DVLA withdrew offering no evidence knowing that they didn't have a leg to stand on and would have set a precedent.


Do you have a contact number or email address for this Kellie Ingram? I would be inclined to explain all of the above over the phone and in email inviting her to drop the case. She might try and use some 1807 case law which says that to deliver means handing in person i.e. hand it to the DVLA at swansea but the case of Peck (i think) the judge criticised this as being non-sensical in this day and age and cannot expect every person to hand deliver to swansea, post is sufficient.

She would be well aware of these cases and I would certainly point it out to her and threaten to report her to the SRA as she is in breach of SRA Code of Conduct (Outcomes 11.1 - "Do not take unfair advantage of third parties either in a professional or personal capacity") and Principle 1 of the SRA Principles. You could potentially argue that deliberate mis-interpreation of the law amounts to fraudulent mis-representation which again would be a serious offence and the SRA would likely strike you off for something like that, albeit it is probably harder to prove but nonetheless something to remind her of.

She or they might offer you a discount payment but I would refuse, the whole thing to me is flawed from head to toe, and even if she does drop it I would still report her to the SRA

Hope this helps!