DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

[R0b]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

I can't see the image you've posted up properly but can barely see the RTA act, which is a separate act to the RTAO.

A Stat Dec under the RTAO does not apply generally to all fixed penalties, as I highlighted above the Act states that for the purpose of the Act (and in the case of using the Stat Dec under s.73) FPNs are defined in schedule 3 and the relevant sections set out in column 1. There is no offence for failing to insure the vehicle except for driving without insurance.

So in reference to the RTA, yes there are fixed penalties but again there's no reference to statutory declaration in that act as far as I recall and I will check later tonight to confirm this.

Going back to your point, the stat Dec under the RTAO is of no use because you cannot use it in relation to another Act where the Act does not allow this. It can only be used for the offences committed under Schedule 3 of the RTAO

The DVLA always deny having received it when they send out letters and as proved in another thread they will just drop the case when challenge as they cannot prove that they did not receive the notice when there has been previous evidence that they lose a lot of post.

You will get several letters and threats from them taking you to court but at the end of the day unless that Stat Dec says under s.xxx of the RTA 1988 it cannot be used for that purpose.

[Nibbler]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

I can't see the image you've posted up properly but can barely see the RTA act, which is a separate act to the RTAO.

Fine here. Probably depends on screen size.

Meant to post full link as well, but forgot.

Here: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...__revised_.pdf

[Openlaw15]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Morning all

Hopefully someone can help...

In late December 2015 I received a letter from AskMid advising that the insurance on my previous vehicle had lapsed, and it was a legal requirement for vehicles to either be insured or SORN'd. I thought this was slightly strange, as the vehicle had been returned to the finance company on the 11th September 2015.
When the vehicle was collected by the finance company agents, the appropriate yellow slip was completed and posted via 1st class mail to the DVLA the following day.

As I was slightly concerned that the vehicle was still apparently in my name, I sent the following letter to the DVLA on the 11th January:


However, on the 19th January I received a 'Failure to Insure' penalty notice from the DVLA, for a vehicle that I returned to the finance company on the 11th September last year.
They are claiming that I am still the registered keeper, and as the vehicle insurance and tax lapsed that month, they were issuing a £100 fixed penalty, reduced to £50 if paid within 30 days.

As I have no intention of paying a fine on a vehicle that I no longer own, and following research on here and several other sites, I sent the following letter to the DVLA on the 4th Feb via 1st Class recorded delivery.


I'd hoped that would be the end of it, however I received a follow up letter from the DVLA on Friday, as follows.


So they basically ignored everything I wrote in my response, and are still trying to get me to pay a fine...

Any advise on how best to respond?

Regards
Gavin

Gavin, if your situation is being dealt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (part of court's system), you can put in a statutory declaration at a Magistrates court. TEC have the power to cancel your fixed penalty. Contact TEC on: 0300 123 1059/ 01604 619450. If this applies to your situation you can simply stop the process by doing this rather than having to go to court which is just not necessary unless your statutory declaration were to fail because you can't prove you were not in ownership etc.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

[MENTION=77627]Openlaw15[/MENTION]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/no...rcement-centre

The first two paragraphs make clear that the TEC does not deal with uninsured vehicles. Again local authorities, not the DVLA

Does that provide clarification for you?

[Openlaw15]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

@Openlaw15

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/no...rcement-centre

The first two paragraphs make clear that the TEC does not deal with uninsured vehicles. Again local authorities, not the DVLA

Does that provide clarification for you?

Rob, no it does not it's what we call circumstantial evidence at best. Since the declaration act 1865 there will have been many and varied statutes which relate to statutory declarations in its various and substantive form. TEC is simply no exception, and TEC for that matter is the government body that deals with traffic enforcement as you'll not were you to look at the Civil Procedure Rules, Notwithstanding, they work in partnership with DVLA and the local authorities (ie local government, councils), as per the relevant secretary of state's traffic enforcement guidance. I do not doubt that you are successful with your citing of DVLA case law and directing Ops to plead 'not guilty' in the Magistrate where and when the Ops are in person. However, where the circumstances commensurate with a statutory declaration, although i will concede they are indeed limited to genuine cases, this is the most efficient, practical, and likely most suitable remedy for the OP. A statutory declaration will likely halt action as soon as one were made in the case of TEC and, seemingly, DVLA context; but, as for the police scenario issuing fixed penalties/ fixed penalty notices, the remedy is likely statutory declarations under RTOA 1988, sections 72-74. Or it may be a simple remedy as visiting the police station with proof that someone is insured even if that evidence is not the actual insurance certificate itself.

[R0b]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Rob, no it does not it's what we call circumstantial evidence at best. Since the declaration act 1865 there will have been many and varied statutes which relate to statutory declarations in its various and substantive form. TEC is simply no exception, and TEC for that matter is the government body that deals with traffic enforcement as you'll not were you to look at the Civil Procedure Rules, Notwithstanding, they work in partnership with DVLA and the local authorities (ie local government, councils), as per the relevant secretary of state's traffic enforcement guidance. I do not doubt that you are successful with your citing of DVLA case law and directing Ops to plead 'not guilty' in the Magistrate where and when the Ops are in person. However, where the circumstances commensurate with a statutory declaration, although i will concede they are indeed limited to genuine cases, this is the most efficient, practical, and likely most suitable remedy for the OP. A statutory declaration will likely halt action as soon as one were made in the case of TEC and, seemingly, DVLA context; but, as for the police scenario issuing fixed penalties/ fixed penalty notices, the remedy is likely statutory declarations under RTOA 1988, sections 72-74. Or it may be a simple remedy as visiting the police station with proof that someone is insured even if that evidence is not the actual insurance certificate itself.

I am still struggling to understand how you say it is possible to use a statutory declaration under s.73(2) of the RTAO when, the Act sets out what is deemed to be a fixed penalty notice (it also says that a fixed penalty is one of which described in a fixed penalty notice so they are one and the same here) in Schedule 3. You are saying that it can be used despite s.73 saying it only applies where a fixed penalty notice has been fixed to a vehicle. I have even picked out the relevant sections under the RTAO and you seem to have avoided any comments on them yet still insist that the Stat Dec can be used.

From the number of issues have seen and dealt with by the DVLA on this, not one of them have I seen being registered as a charge certificate with the TEC. Notification of registration must be given to the offender, presumably this is not the case as the OP has suggested letters only. Despite that, the DVLA have their own in house prosecutors who deal with these cases through the magistrates or through the civil courts depending on which route they want to take. Even if the Stat Dec can be used this does not prevent the DVLA from still bring the matter before the magistrates, it simply revokes the Order and reverts back to the DVLA for further consideration.

I will admit defeat and concede on your argument that the Stat Dec can be used if you can show me with reference points to this fact. The RTAO and the RTA 1988 are two separate Acts and you cannot use the Stat Dec under the RTAO and apply it to the RTA.

[Openlaw15]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

I am still struggling to understand how you say it is possible to use a statutory declaration under s.73(2) of the RTAO when, the Act sets out what is deemed to be a fixed penalty notice (it also says that a fixed penalty is one of which described in a fixed penalty notice so they are one and the same here) in Schedule 3. You are saying that it can be used despite s.73 saying it only applies where a fixed penalty notice has been fixed to a vehicle. I have even picked out the relevant sections under the RTAO and you seem to have avoided any comments on them yet still insist that the Stat Dec can be used.

I have provided several uses of a statutory declaration as a broad argument of its use. as opposed to the more lengthier remedies, which you seemingly support. The Ops facts are different to a RTOA 1988 use, but I was providing an overview of statutory declarations in general in accordance with Parliament's clear intent to not want to unfairly punish the innocent. You're stuck on this fixed penalty/ fixed penalty notice but I am looking at entire remedy in all scenarios, hence more than one statute will apply.

From the number of issues have seen and dealt with by the DVLA on this, not one of them have I seen being registered as a charge certificate with the TEC. Notification of registration must be given to the offender, presumably this is not the case as the OP has suggested letters only. Despite that, the DVLA have their own in house prosecutors who deal with these cases through the magistrates or through the civil courts depending on which route they want to take. Even if the Stat Dec can be used this does not prevent the DVLA from still bring the matter before the magistrates, it simply revokes the Order and reverts back to the DVLA for further consideration.

My point is Parliament does not want to punish the innocent so statutory declarations will also apply to DVLA once the fixed penalties are registered,

I will admit defeat and concede on your argument that the Stat Dec can be used if you can show me with reference points to this fact. The RTAO and the RTA 1988 are two separate Acts and you cannot use the Stat Dec under the RTAO and apply it to the RTA.

Admit defeat when my argument is sound in logic, not until I am proved otherwise. It is simply logic that there will be statutory declaration in a statute for a DVLA scenario given statutory declarations date back to 1865. Given TEC deal with traffic offenders under CPR, ill make an educated guess and say there are likely many that you have missed as having TEC application.

[fatmcgav]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Thanks for all the responses... It certainly sounds like this practise by the DVLA is in a very grey area.

Is there anything I can do to confirm one way or the other? It sounds like calling the TEC might be one option to see if it has been registered as a penalty or not...

For the time being, I may well just send another letter to the DVLA stating that I have fulfilled my obligations, and see what they say...

Cheers again.

Gavin

[wales01man]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Contact the TEC that will settle the argument that's taken over this post I am no expert but IMO the DVLA will not take this to court Its well documented on here that faced with a defence they give up

[R0b]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Admit defeat when my argument is sound in logic, not until I am proved otherwise. It is simply logic that there will be statutory declaration in a statute for a DVLA scenario given statutory declarations date back to 1865. Given TEC deal with traffic offenders under CPR, ill make an educated guess and say there are likely many that you have missed as having TEC application.

By all means look at remedies as a whole but when you refer to a Stat Dec made under s.73(2) you can't say it applies in general across the board when it only applies to FPN's attached to a vehicle.

Is there anything I can do to confirm one way or the other? It sounds like calling the TEC might be one option to see if it has been registered as a penalty or not...

Contact the TEC and find out, you should have been given notice of the charge being registered, if you haven't then its unlikely to have been registered.

As I've said above it's very unlikely that they will win in court. They have attempted on a number of occasions over the years and as far as I recall, they've yet to win any case that has been contested.

[Openlaw15]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Morning all

Hopefully someone can help...

In late December 2015 I received a letter from AskMid advising that the insurance on my previous vehicle had lapsed, and it was a legal requirement for vehicles to either be insured or SORN'd. I thought this was slightly strange, as the vehicle had been returned to the finance company on the 11th September 2015.
When the vehicle was collected by the finance company agents, the appropriate yellow slip was completed and posted via 1st class mail to the DVLA the following day.

As I was slightly concerned that the vehicle was still apparently in my name, I sent the following letter to the DVLA on the 11th January:


However, on the 19th January I received a 'Failure to Insure' penalty notice from the DVLA, for a vehicle that I returned to the finance company on the 11th September last year.
They are claiming that I am still the registered keeper, and as the vehicle insurance and tax lapsed that month, they were issuing a £100 fixed penalty, reduced to £50 if paid within 30 days.

As I have no intention of paying a fine on a vehicle that I no longer own, and following research on here and several other sites, I sent the following letter to the DVLA on the 4th Feb via 1st Class recorded delivery.


I'd hoped that would be the end of it, however I received a follow up letter from the DVLA on Friday, as follows.


So they basically ignored everything I wrote in my response, and are still trying to get me to pay a fine...

Any advise on how best to respond?

Regards
Gavin

Hi Gavin

Did the response from the DVLA have this post code 'SA 99 1AH' in their address?

[fatmcgav]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Hi Gavin

Did the response from the DVLA have this post code 'SA 99 1AH' in their address?

Openlaw15,

Yeh, their correspondance address is:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea
Swansea Enforcement Centre
D12, DVLA,
Longview Road
Swansea
SA99 1AH

Regards
Gavin

[Openlaw15]

Re: DVLA 'Failure to Insure' penalty on VT'd car...

Openlaw15,

Yeh, their correspondance address is:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea
Swansea Enforcement Centre
D12, DVLA,
Longview Road
Swansea
SA99 1AH

Regards
Gavin

Hmm, that's their final response then before Magistrates. Apparently, it could take months too.