Tweet
Hi All,
I've been following this fabulous site for some time now, while privately locked in my own legal battle with the DVLA over a pending prosecution for failure to notify disposal of a vehicle. Like so many, I sent in my V5 via first class post, and it never turned up in Swansea. Yes, I should have sent it recorded etc, etc, I know that now, but irrespective of what might be construed common sense, my priority here is in getting the DVLA and the magistrates to understand that I have not committed an illegal act (I haven't).
Anyway, I received a letter from the court last week saying my case was due for trial on October 16th. Unfortunately, the previous week I am having fairly involved skull surgery to remove some damaged bone, which will mean I am signed off work for up to four weeks and most probably not fit to stand trial five to six days after being released from hospital as suggested.
I called the court (Peterborough) to explain this and was told to write in with a copy of the hospital admission letter and my defence statement, which I duly did (and have cut and pasted below - apologies for the length). However, I've learned today that my entire letter including the defence statement has been sent on to the DVLA prosecutors for their consideration and that the trial will be adjourned until a later date. Is this really the correct practice, that the prosecution gets to see my entire defence in advance?
This is too stressful given everything else that's going on in my life at the moment. If I could turn back the clock, part of me wishes I could just pay the £35 penalty charge and make it all go away, but the stubborn little so-and-so in my head tells me "no, this is NOT your fault, and you owe it to others in the same situation to show them the DVLA can be beaten". Likewise, I do not want to engage private legal representation as if I lose I can't really afford it, and if I win I don't want the taxpayer to have to pick up those costs. Rightly or wrongly, I have a very firm ethical stance on such matters.
Anyway, will the DVLA now try to take me to the cleaners by picking apart my defence (surely making a mockery of the criminal justice system as a result) and can I expect a criminal record on the back of this? Or have I got them well and truly backed into a corner? Somebody please help me make light of this as I can't take the stress any longer - I was only trying to stand up for the little man all along, because bullying is something I have very strong views about. Help....please - and if you can give me some firm legal advice please allow me to make a charitable contribution in return!
Letter, as sent to HM Courts Service, Peterborough Magistrates' Court:
Mr C R Cheetham
XXX
XXX
XX
XXX
Ref case no: XXX
September 23, 2014
Cambridge Magistrates Court Listings Dept
c/o The Court House
Bridge Street
Peterborough
PE1 1ED
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my conversation this morning with Karen in your listings team, please find enclosed a copy of a letter from Peterborough City Hospital outlining that I am having head surgery on October 9th 2014. As such, I will be signed off work for 3-4 weeks and am not certain of my ability to attend court on the proposed date of October 16th for my trial in defence of a DVLA allegation for failure to notify a change of vehicle keeper.
Please can the court advise by return if it believes the matter can be determined in my absence, if it is advisable for me to attend irrespective so as not to weaken my defence, or if the case could be moved to a different date?
I have pleaded not guilty to the offence and while I do not wish for my defence to be discussed with the prosecution in advance of the trial date, I would ask for the below statement to be put before the court to consider either as my defence on the day, or to determine if the case really does need to be put before the magistrates as it is my belief that this whole process is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers’ resources. Indeed, despite devoting a considerable amount of my personal time and funds to my defence, I would not pursue my own costs should the trial be found in my favour, as ethically I would not want the taxpayer to have to fund another penny in what I believe to be an absolute sham that, based on the DVLA’s inaccurate information, should never have been put before the courts.
I should also underline the fact – and it is fact, not supposition – that I have not at any point intentionally committed a crime. I am a married father of three of good character, a company director and have no previous criminal convictions. I am merely standing up for my right as a British citizen by pleading not guilty and refusing to be bullied into paying a penalty.
Primarily, it is my understanding that in a court of law the prosecution needs to prove guilt in order to secure a conviction. The DVLA alleges that I committed an offence on February 5, 2014, by failing to notify them of a change of vehicle keeper even though I have documentary evidence that the new owner did not view the car until after this date, and that the sales transaction between us did not take place until March 4, 2014.
There are other areas of the law that I believe come into effect as well, and my desire would be to see them legally tested, as I do not believe a government department should be allowed to play judge and jury against its citizens. However, based on the fact my defence primarily questions the DVLA’s accuracy in making the allegation, I’m not sure as the trial could or would go this far. I will leave that for the magistrates to decide.
Herewith follows my statement:
Statement of Craig Robert Cheetham (DOB XX XXXX 1977), XXX, XXX, XXXX PEXX XXX made in writing on September 23rd 2014.
I, Craig Robert Cheetham, plead not guilty to the offence of failing to notify the DVLA of the disposal of vehicle Peugeot 205, registration mark DXXX XXX, on February 5th 2014 – as alleged by the DVLA. On the date the alleged offence, I was still the registered keeper of said vehicle and had no intention of selling it.
I present to the court evidence of a text message exchange between myself and the new keeper, Richard XXXX of Flat X, XXXX Avenue, Peterborough, PEX XXX, which shows the date of February 16th 2014 when Richard first came to view the car, a second text message exchange on February 17th where he agreed to buy it and a third exchange between us on March 4th, when I dropped it off to his work address. I also enclose a copy of my bank statement for March 2014, which shows a transfer from Richard into my account of £450 as payment for the vehicle the following day, March 5th. (Copies enclosed – I am happy to hand my phone and computer over to the court for independent inspection as I have nothing at all to hide).
Irrespective of the above elements, I informed the DVLA immediately upon me finding out the V5 had not been received, when they wrote to me asking for such details, of the new keeper details and of the date I returned the V5C, which was March 8th 2014. I had kept a diligent record of this as I have when selling any car, precisely for the eventuality of correspondence being mislaid in the post. On this occasion, I believe this is what has happened.
If so, then I refer the court to Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which reads as follows:
7: References to service by post.
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
The DVLA alleges it was my responsibility to ensure the V5C had been received and that I should have queried this when I did not receive an acknowledgement letter. I would also add that nowhere in the DVLA’s documentation or on the V5C does it say that it is a legal requirement for the previous owner to pursue or produce this document, and that it is entirely reasonable – in mitigation – that I may not have remembered to do this. As a busy father of three who was in the middle of being made redundant, applying for a new job and managing the wind down of a business I had other things on my mind. Perhaps I should have pursued the matter, but the fact here is that, in not doing so, I did not commit a criminal offence as there was no legal requirement for me to pursue the confirmation.
I would also refer the court to the case of DVLA vs Paul Kennedy in Chelmsford Crown Court, September 2011, where Mr Kennedy was found not guilty on appeal of a similar offence using the above legislation.
In addition, under Article 6, Clause 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the law clearly states that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Therefore, is it not the DVLA’s requirement to prove I have committed an offence, undisputedly, before I can be found guilty of it? If so, then the DVLA must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I did not post the envelope containing the V5C.
I also attach a letter acquired in 2009 by defendant James Collins (DVLA v Collins, 2009), who was being prosecuted by the DVLA for an alleged Statutory Off-Road Notification offence. Under a freedom of information act request, Mr Collins determined beyond doubt that the DVLA acknowledges some correspondence does not reach its final destination, even when it has been delivered to its Swansea offices. This is confirmed by the DVLA’s own operations manager, Richard Batchelor, in the attached.
At no time have I done anything but try to cooperate with the DVLA and help bring this matter to a sensible and timely resolution, but at no point has the Department wanted to engage in discussion over the matter nor recognise the inaccuracies in its allegation or subsequent prosecution.
For someone like me, who has a very strong moral compass, gets heavily involved in local community organisations and wishes to raise his own family in an ethical, well-adjusted, law-abiding and decent manner, it is both stressful and extremely upsetting that a Department funded by the British taxpayer can have the power, or perceive it has the power, to extort monies from people who may not have the gumption to stand up to the allegations, nor do I believe the threatening language or means employed to try and get motorists to pay these penalties is acceptable.
Furthermore, and it may be a trivial point but one I think the court should be made aware of, is that the DVLA are using the word ‘fine’ when talking to people accused of committing such offences. Assuming the DVLA records all of its phone calls, I would ask the court to listen to a conversation held at 10.19am on September 23rd 2014 between myself and a lady called Christina in the DVLA Enforcement Centre. I asked if it was possible to speak to an officer about my case having found out I may not be able to attend court on the proposed date due to my surgery. As well as informing me it wasn’t possible to discuss such matters with anyone at the DVLA, which is why it has got this far I suspect, she referred to the penalty as a ‘fine’, but surely it is only a UK Court that can issue a fine upon a citizen? If so, then this is another example of DVLA inaccuracy that I wish to put before the court.
In closing, I would also add that it is not my desire to acquire a criminal record by not electing to pay a penalty charge of £35 as I have the means to do this, but that I would not have refuted the allegation this vehemently did I not have 100 per cent confidence in my innocence. I honestly cannot believe it has come before a British Criminal Court, and I hope the magistrates will see that, all along, I have done nothing but try to cooperate with the DVLA but at the same time protect my good character against an allegation I believe to be inaccurate and unjust.
I will, of course, cooperate with whatever outcome the magistrates determine.
Signed:
Dated:
So - where do I stand? And moreover, what happens next? I don't want to let the DVLA bully me any further, but I'm in the middle of starting a new job, have health concerns, three young kids to look after and my wife isn't currently working, so we have enough pressures as it is. I genuinely never thought the DVLA would take it this far...
And if you can help, many, many thanks. It genuinely is appreciated.
I've been following this fabulous site for some time now, while privately locked in my own legal battle with the DVLA over a pending prosecution for failure to notify disposal of a vehicle. Like so many, I sent in my V5 via first class post, and it never turned up in Swansea. Yes, I should have sent it recorded etc, etc, I know that now, but irrespective of what might be construed common sense, my priority here is in getting the DVLA and the magistrates to understand that I have not committed an illegal act (I haven't).
Anyway, I received a letter from the court last week saying my case was due for trial on October 16th. Unfortunately, the previous week I am having fairly involved skull surgery to remove some damaged bone, which will mean I am signed off work for up to four weeks and most probably not fit to stand trial five to six days after being released from hospital as suggested.
I called the court (Peterborough) to explain this and was told to write in with a copy of the hospital admission letter and my defence statement, which I duly did (and have cut and pasted below - apologies for the length). However, I've learned today that my entire letter including the defence statement has been sent on to the DVLA prosecutors for their consideration and that the trial will be adjourned until a later date. Is this really the correct practice, that the prosecution gets to see my entire defence in advance?
This is too stressful given everything else that's going on in my life at the moment. If I could turn back the clock, part of me wishes I could just pay the £35 penalty charge and make it all go away, but the stubborn little so-and-so in my head tells me "no, this is NOT your fault, and you owe it to others in the same situation to show them the DVLA can be beaten". Likewise, I do not want to engage private legal representation as if I lose I can't really afford it, and if I win I don't want the taxpayer to have to pick up those costs. Rightly or wrongly, I have a very firm ethical stance on such matters.
Anyway, will the DVLA now try to take me to the cleaners by picking apart my defence (surely making a mockery of the criminal justice system as a result) and can I expect a criminal record on the back of this? Or have I got them well and truly backed into a corner? Somebody please help me make light of this as I can't take the stress any longer - I was only trying to stand up for the little man all along, because bullying is something I have very strong views about. Help....please - and if you can give me some firm legal advice please allow me to make a charitable contribution in return!
Letter, as sent to HM Courts Service, Peterborough Magistrates' Court:
Mr C R Cheetham
XXX
XXX
XX
XXX
Ref case no: XXX
September 23, 2014
Cambridge Magistrates Court Listings Dept
c/o The Court House
Bridge Street
Peterborough
PE1 1ED
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my conversation this morning with Karen in your listings team, please find enclosed a copy of a letter from Peterborough City Hospital outlining that I am having head surgery on October 9th 2014. As such, I will be signed off work for 3-4 weeks and am not certain of my ability to attend court on the proposed date of October 16th for my trial in defence of a DVLA allegation for failure to notify a change of vehicle keeper.
Please can the court advise by return if it believes the matter can be determined in my absence, if it is advisable for me to attend irrespective so as not to weaken my defence, or if the case could be moved to a different date?
I have pleaded not guilty to the offence and while I do not wish for my defence to be discussed with the prosecution in advance of the trial date, I would ask for the below statement to be put before the court to consider either as my defence on the day, or to determine if the case really does need to be put before the magistrates as it is my belief that this whole process is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers’ resources. Indeed, despite devoting a considerable amount of my personal time and funds to my defence, I would not pursue my own costs should the trial be found in my favour, as ethically I would not want the taxpayer to have to fund another penny in what I believe to be an absolute sham that, based on the DVLA’s inaccurate information, should never have been put before the courts.
I should also underline the fact – and it is fact, not supposition – that I have not at any point intentionally committed a crime. I am a married father of three of good character, a company director and have no previous criminal convictions. I am merely standing up for my right as a British citizen by pleading not guilty and refusing to be bullied into paying a penalty.
Primarily, it is my understanding that in a court of law the prosecution needs to prove guilt in order to secure a conviction. The DVLA alleges that I committed an offence on February 5, 2014, by failing to notify them of a change of vehicle keeper even though I have documentary evidence that the new owner did not view the car until after this date, and that the sales transaction between us did not take place until March 4, 2014.
There are other areas of the law that I believe come into effect as well, and my desire would be to see them legally tested, as I do not believe a government department should be allowed to play judge and jury against its citizens. However, based on the fact my defence primarily questions the DVLA’s accuracy in making the allegation, I’m not sure as the trial could or would go this far. I will leave that for the magistrates to decide.
Herewith follows my statement:
Statement of Craig Robert Cheetham (DOB XX XXXX 1977), XXX, XXX, XXXX PEXX XXX made in writing on September 23rd 2014.
I, Craig Robert Cheetham, plead not guilty to the offence of failing to notify the DVLA of the disposal of vehicle Peugeot 205, registration mark DXXX XXX, on February 5th 2014 – as alleged by the DVLA. On the date the alleged offence, I was still the registered keeper of said vehicle and had no intention of selling it.
I present to the court evidence of a text message exchange between myself and the new keeper, Richard XXXX of Flat X, XXXX Avenue, Peterborough, PEX XXX, which shows the date of February 16th 2014 when Richard first came to view the car, a second text message exchange on February 17th where he agreed to buy it and a third exchange between us on March 4th, when I dropped it off to his work address. I also enclose a copy of my bank statement for March 2014, which shows a transfer from Richard into my account of £450 as payment for the vehicle the following day, March 5th. (Copies enclosed – I am happy to hand my phone and computer over to the court for independent inspection as I have nothing at all to hide).
Irrespective of the above elements, I informed the DVLA immediately upon me finding out the V5 had not been received, when they wrote to me asking for such details, of the new keeper details and of the date I returned the V5C, which was March 8th 2014. I had kept a diligent record of this as I have when selling any car, precisely for the eventuality of correspondence being mislaid in the post. On this occasion, I believe this is what has happened.
If so, then I refer the court to Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which reads as follows:
7: References to service by post.
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
The DVLA alleges it was my responsibility to ensure the V5C had been received and that I should have queried this when I did not receive an acknowledgement letter. I would also add that nowhere in the DVLA’s documentation or on the V5C does it say that it is a legal requirement for the previous owner to pursue or produce this document, and that it is entirely reasonable – in mitigation – that I may not have remembered to do this. As a busy father of three who was in the middle of being made redundant, applying for a new job and managing the wind down of a business I had other things on my mind. Perhaps I should have pursued the matter, but the fact here is that, in not doing so, I did not commit a criminal offence as there was no legal requirement for me to pursue the confirmation.
I would also refer the court to the case of DVLA vs Paul Kennedy in Chelmsford Crown Court, September 2011, where Mr Kennedy was found not guilty on appeal of a similar offence using the above legislation.
In addition, under Article 6, Clause 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the law clearly states that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Therefore, is it not the DVLA’s requirement to prove I have committed an offence, undisputedly, before I can be found guilty of it? If so, then the DVLA must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I did not post the envelope containing the V5C.
I also attach a letter acquired in 2009 by defendant James Collins (DVLA v Collins, 2009), who was being prosecuted by the DVLA for an alleged Statutory Off-Road Notification offence. Under a freedom of information act request, Mr Collins determined beyond doubt that the DVLA acknowledges some correspondence does not reach its final destination, even when it has been delivered to its Swansea offices. This is confirmed by the DVLA’s own operations manager, Richard Batchelor, in the attached.
At no time have I done anything but try to cooperate with the DVLA and help bring this matter to a sensible and timely resolution, but at no point has the Department wanted to engage in discussion over the matter nor recognise the inaccuracies in its allegation or subsequent prosecution.
For someone like me, who has a very strong moral compass, gets heavily involved in local community organisations and wishes to raise his own family in an ethical, well-adjusted, law-abiding and decent manner, it is both stressful and extremely upsetting that a Department funded by the British taxpayer can have the power, or perceive it has the power, to extort monies from people who may not have the gumption to stand up to the allegations, nor do I believe the threatening language or means employed to try and get motorists to pay these penalties is acceptable.
Furthermore, and it may be a trivial point but one I think the court should be made aware of, is that the DVLA are using the word ‘fine’ when talking to people accused of committing such offences. Assuming the DVLA records all of its phone calls, I would ask the court to listen to a conversation held at 10.19am on September 23rd 2014 between myself and a lady called Christina in the DVLA Enforcement Centre. I asked if it was possible to speak to an officer about my case having found out I may not be able to attend court on the proposed date due to my surgery. As well as informing me it wasn’t possible to discuss such matters with anyone at the DVLA, which is why it has got this far I suspect, she referred to the penalty as a ‘fine’, but surely it is only a UK Court that can issue a fine upon a citizen? If so, then this is another example of DVLA inaccuracy that I wish to put before the court.
In closing, I would also add that it is not my desire to acquire a criminal record by not electing to pay a penalty charge of £35 as I have the means to do this, but that I would not have refuted the allegation this vehemently did I not have 100 per cent confidence in my innocence. I honestly cannot believe it has come before a British Criminal Court, and I hope the magistrates will see that, all along, I have done nothing but try to cooperate with the DVLA but at the same time protect my good character against an allegation I believe to be inaccurate and unjust.
I will, of course, cooperate with whatever outcome the magistrates determine.
Signed:
Dated:
So - where do I stand? And moreover, what happens next? I don't want to let the DVLA bully me any further, but I'm in the middle of starting a new job, have health concerns, three young kids to look after and my wife isn't currently working, so we have enough pressures as it is. I genuinely never thought the DVLA would take it this far...
And if you can help, many, many thanks. It genuinely is appreciated.
Comment