DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

[bizzybob]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

The DVLA needs another kicking from Watchdog, they demand fines for their own cock ups, then stonewall when challenged.

[baldrick]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

Just been to court today, cited the interpretation act, DVLA prosecutor tried to claim that "delivered" was not the same as "served" but the court was having non of it, especially when I pointed out the the act specifically says "delivered" in the wording... almost felt sorry for the prosecutor who spent a good ten minutes studying the sample V5C form to challenge my statement that it said specifically I should post it ;-) walked with only £10 compensation for travel as I didn't know you couldn't claim loss of earnings.

My next step is to find out how I bring a malicious prosecution claim, any ideas?

[bizzybob]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

Great result baldrick, bet the DVLA representatives face was a picture.

The DVLA would have had difficulty indicating where in law a motorist is compelled to send a V5 back to them by a signed for service, and where they are compelled to phone DVLA on premium rate numbers and ask if they have had it. In fact asking them if they have received it, and they have lost it would trigger their issuing a wrongful "fine" for non return which is void due to the Interpretations Act being a defence absolutely.
Report the matter to BBC Watchdog, they have exposed their shenanigans in the past, and they have not improved one iota. Don't know if a malicious prosecution claim would be a goer, maybe if there were a collection of many wronged motorists baying for blood .

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I have to agree with BB on the matter of proceedings for Malicious Prosecution. A class action against the Secretary of State for Transport, who has ultimate responsibility for DVLA, which is an executive agency of DfT, would, in all probability, be a more practical course of action to pursue. However, I suspect those who have been illegally pursued by DVLA would pay good money to witness the SoS for Transport kicking Simon Tse's ample backside up and down Marsham Street repeatedly and then up and down Horseferry Road, which is longer, for an encore. DVLA's incompetence has gone from bad to worse under Mr Tse's stewardship and the time has come for him to go.

[bizzybob]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I have to agree with BB on the matter of proceedings for Malicious Prosecution. A class action against the Secretary of State for Transport, who has ultimate responsibility for DVLA, which is an executive agency of DfT, would, in all probability, be a more practical course of action to pursue. However, I suspect those who have been illegally pursued by DVLA would pay good money to witness the SoS for Transport kicking Simon Tse's ample backside up and down Marsham Street repeatedly and then up and down Horseferry Road, which is longer, for an encore. DVLA's incompetence has gone from bad to worse under Mr Tse's stewardship and the time has come for him to go.

Simon Tse getting a roasting from the Wicked Witch of Watchdog Anne Robinson who could inform him he is the weakest link, would be good. DVLA are one of the quangos that should be culled

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

Simon Tse getting a roasting from the Wicked Witch of Watchdog Anne Robinson who could inform him he is the weakest link, would be good. DVLA are one of the quangos that should be culled

Simon Tse's performance the last time he was on Watchdog was pathetic. Before the last Conservative and Labour governments started buggering around with government departments, DVLA was run efficiently. Yes, there were cock-ups from time to time, but nowhere near the scale of cock-ups and illegal behaviour that exists now.

[bizzybob]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

Simon Tse's performance the last time he was on Watchdog was pathetic. Before the last Conservative and Labour governments started buggering around with government departments, DVLA was run efficiently. Yes, there were cock-ups from time to time, but nowhere near the scale of cock-ups and illegal behaviour that exists now.

The rot set in when the rules changed somewhat with continuous insurance, requirement and the SORN implications springing from it, SORN itself where there have been numerous prosecutions where the vehicle has been legitimately SORNed, but still DVLA cock up and fine someone. the tightening up of various things, and well creating extra avenues for exiting fines to raise revenue for DVLA by the back door.

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

The rot set in when the rules changed somewhat with continuous insurance, requirement and the SORN implications springing from it, SORN itself where there have been numerous prosecutions where the vehicle has been legitimately SORNed, but still DVLA cock up and fine someone. the tightening up of various things, and well creating extra avenues for exiting fines to raise revenue for DVLA by the back door.

Continuous Insurance is something designed to ensure the insurance industry has a steady flow of revenue as well as an excuse for the government to raise finance in an underhanded way through fines. SORN is an excuse to raise revenue through fines. The only ones who benefit from these fines are not the likes of you and me, but the wealthy, who are given tax cuts, and the bankers. Human rights are also being violated. But that is an irritation to the wealthy and the bankers as they can still be held to account through that, even if the government change the law to make it fit their law-breaking.

[baldrick]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I have now made official complaints to:-
DVLA (not holding my breath)
My local MP
The Courts Service (I am trying to stop them intimidating people just before the hearing by taking them off unsupervised into an interview room)

I will not let this lie, I will do my level best to make this "scam" unprofitable so they stop...

[baldrick]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

According to an FoI I read there have been at least 2,000 people been found not guilty just of failing to notify... although of course we don't do class actions here, I sometimes wish we did!

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I have now made official complaints to:-
DVLA (not holding my breath)
My local MP
The Courts Service (I am trying to stop them intimidating people just before the hearing by taking them off unsupervised into an interview room)

I will not let this lie, I will do my level best to make this "scam" unprofitable so they stop...

Your MP is probably in the best position to kick backsides. You are wise to bring to the attention of H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) the practice of DVLA "prosecutors" who take defendants into interview rooms, prior to hearings, in order to obtain details of their defence and lie to them that they haven't a cat in hell's chance of gaining a "Not Guilty" verdict. I can tell you that this practice is not only unlawful, as it breaches human rights legislation, it is also illegal as it is, essentially, perverting the course of justice, which is a Common Law offence and carries a substantial custodial sentence on conviction.

[baldrick]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I agree totally and have raised exactly those concerns, plus safeguarding vulnerable adults in such a situation, warning them that if they allow this practice on their premises they are actively condoning it, I'll let eveyone know what replies i get...

My MP complaint is mostly as follows:-

Should any department be allowed to offer an out of court settlement when a crime has taken place?


Can someone still be prosecuted for that crime after “fee” has been paid? This is a very awkward crossover between criminal and civil law.


Should a Government department be allowed to threaten a citizen with a £1000 fine if they fail to settle out of court?


Should a DVLA prosecutor be allowed unsupervised access to an accused in private chambers of a court building as a matter of course prior to a court hearing to again threaten a heavy fine or pay £35?


Should a Government department continue with a strategy where over 2,000 people have been found not guilty with the same defence, namely the interpretation act 1978, is this not, either a mocking of the Justice system or a waste of Courts time?


Should a Government department cynically accept appeals at higher courts to avoid setting a legal precedent when they are fully aware that they are demanding money under false pretences?


Likewise I will publish any responses where possible, without exposing any identities without their permission,

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

I agree totally and have raised exactly those concerns, plus safeguarding vulnerable adults in such a situation, warning them that if they allow this practice on their premises they are actively condoning it, I'll let eveyone know what replies i get...

My MP complaint is mostly as follows:-

Should any department be allowed to offer an out of court settlement when a crime has taken place?
No. The practice of "plea bargaining" and doing deals outside of court or pressuring people into pleading guilty is against not only UK law, but international law also. It is a breach of Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 ensures the right of a person accused of committing any offence to have their case heard in public before a court or other legally-convened tribunal. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority, including DVLA, to carry out ANY act which is incompatible with a person's Convention rights. Notwithstanding, it is a criminal offence to do anything with the intention of unduly influencing the just outcome of a court hearing, that is, to pervert the course of justice.
Can someone still be prosecuted for that crime after “fee” has been paid? This is a very awkward crossover between criminal and civil law.
There is an attempt to blur the lines between civil and criminal law. Strictly speaking, civil law requires a case to be proven on balance of probability whilst criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Should a Government department be allowed to threaten a citizen with a £1000 fine if they fail to settle out of court?
No. This could be seen as an attempt to unduly influence the just outcome of a court hearing and an attempt to induce a person to give up their Convention rights. Article 17 of ECHR prohibits the destruction or denial of Convention rights and Article 18 prohibits restriction of Convention rights. Whatever way you look at it, DVLA is breaking the law in more ways than one.
Should a DVLA prosecutor be allowed unsupervised access to an accused in private chambers of a court building as a matter of course prior to a court hearing to again threaten a heavy fine or pay £35?Certainly not. If a DVLA prosecutor is a legal professional and is caught doing this, not only could they face prosecution, in addition, they could also face being struck-off, as such behaviour amounts to serious professional misconduct. Likewise, for a legal professional to mislead a court is serious professional misconduct.
Should a Government department continue with a strategy where over 2,000 people have been found not guilty with the same defence, namely the interpretation act 1978, is this not, either a mocking of the Justice system or a waste of Courts time?
It is an abuse of the legal process. After 2,000 cases, one would have thought DVLA would have gotten the message. Clearly not. They believe they are above the law. No-one is.
Should a Government department cynically accept appeals at higher courts to avoid setting a legal precedent when they are fully aware that they are demanding money under false pretences?
Simon Tse and his management team, along with senior civil servants, ministers and the SoS for Transport all need pulling in front of a House of Commons Select Committee and asked what the hell is going on. If they cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, they go. No arguments.
Likewise I will publish any responses where possible, without exposing any identities without their permission,

Responses in red text.

[bizzybob]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

The government rely on the status of DVLA as a Quango, to give them plausible deniability when DVLA fecks up. The whole DVLA prosecution scram is a kangaroo system that relies on a defendant who has likely not done anything wrong is punished for DVLAs own internal failings.

[bluebottle]

Re: DVLA saying I didn't return a logbook

The government rely on the status of DVLA as a Quango, to give them plausible deniability when DVLA fecks up. The whole DVLA prosecution scram is a kangaroo system that relies on a defendant who has likely not done anything wrong is punished for DVLAs own internal failings.

The legal status of DVLA is an executive agency of the DfT, BB, not a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. The SoS for Transport has ultimate responsibility for DVLA's feck-ups. Tse is a bumbling oaf and the taxpayer should not have to fund his salary or pension a day longer. It is time for him, his management team, senior civil servants at the DfT, ministers and the SoS to go.