DVLA car seizure, DVLA issued fine then dismissed section 142 |
DVLA car seizure, DVLA issued fine then dismissed section 142 |
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 1 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,723 |
Looking for advice regarding an issue i have with the DVLA regarding a fine, car seizure
I had a car seized by the dvla or their partners NSL.at the time the car was parked opposite a garage where it was booked in for an MOT ie literally on the other side of the road 20ft away. I had the usual offer from the dvla of an out of court settlement etc which I in no uncertain terms told them what to do with it telling them there were mitigating circumstances ie the car was there at the garage for an mot to which the dvla responded by simply pushing ahead taking me to court. I was issued a fine in the nearby magistrates court for a ridiculous sum for non payment of vehicle duty. After taking legal advice I applied to have the case reheard under section 142 of the 1980 magistrates court act where the fine was dismissed due to the car being booked in for an mot.My hearing didnt actually take place in the court room actually in the corridor and the court didn't even want to see the evidence I had brought to dismiss the fine, this making the whole basis of its seizure in the first place null and void I contacted the DVLA after the hearing and was told to approach NSL for the cars value or what they got from selling the car at auction,totally unacceptable I want the value of the car at the time the lost earnings from the sale that fell through and compensation for the stress and hassle,the court was starting to pursue me for the fine threatening letters etc. I have been through the independent complaints assessors procedures,and the ombudsman who agreed with the dvla saying they had followed procedure just pushing aside the court dismissing the fine as though it as no bearing or significance. Im considering various paths I dont want to go into to much detail there is something very wrong here that needs addressing,can someone advise thank you |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:59
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
To claim against the DVLA for any loss I think you would have to show that the seizure of the car was unlawful or unreasonable and I am not sure you can do that. You left it on the road with no valid MoT in force, it was near the MoT garage, but was there any indication, such as a note on the windscreen, that it was there for an MoT?
The court accepted that it was on route for a pre-booked MoT and acquitted you, but that is not the same thing as finding that it was seized unlawfully or unreasonably. As far as NSL were concerned, they came across a vehicle parked in the road with no MoT in force, you were not there to tell them it was on its way to the garage and if you left no note on the vehicle, it seems quite reasonable that they should seize it. The complaints assessor's ruling seems sound. I am afraid you took a chance leaving the car there, and you lost. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 21:37
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,167 Joined: 5 Aug 2006 Member No.: 6,999 |
How did this get to the point of being sold - did DVLA not accept that it was en route to a booked MOT when you contacted them immediately after it was siezed?
To claim against the DVLA for any loss I think you would have to show that the seizure of the car was unlawful or unreasonable and I am not sure you can do that. You left it on the road with no valid MoT in force, it was near the MoT garage, but was there any indication, such as a note on the windscreen, that it was there for an MoT? The court accepted that it was on route for a pre-booked MoT and acquitted you, but that is not the same thing as finding that it was seized unlawfully or unreasonably. As far as NSL were concerned, they came across a vehicle parked in the road with no MoT in force, you were not there to tell them it was on its way to the garage and if you left no note on the vehicle, it seems quite reasonable that they should seize it. Did you immediately contact DVLA? If so then although the siezure itself may have been legal, the refusal to release when the circumstances were made known to them may not have been, in which case DVLA ought to be liable for everything from that point on. |
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 23:15
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
How did this get to the point of being sold - did DVLA not accept that it was en route to a booked MOT when you contacted them immediately after it was siezed? To claim against the DVLA for any loss I think you would have to show that the seizure of the car was unlawful or unreasonable and I am not sure you can do that. You left it on the road with no valid MoT in force, it was near the MoT garage, but was there any indication, such as a note on the windscreen, that it was there for an MoT? The court accepted that it was on route for a pre-booked MoT and acquitted you, but that is not the same thing as finding that it was seized unlawfully or unreasonably. As far as NSL were concerned, they came across a vehicle parked in the road with no MoT in force, you were not there to tell them it was on its way to the garage and if you left no note on the vehicle, it seems quite reasonable that they should seize it. Did you immediately contact DVLA? If so then although the siezure itself may have been legal, the refusal to release when the circumstances were made known to them may not have been, in which case DVLA ought to be liable for everything from that point on. But it was not on the way to an MOT - it was parked unattended on the road. |
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 23:49
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The DVLA have no interest in MOT offences, that's strictly a police matter. The car would have been seized for not being taxed. If the car was untaxed at the time the seizure would likely be lawful, regardless of any later court outcome.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 06:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
But it was not on the way to an MOT - it was parked unattended on the road. There is nothing in the statute that prevents a car stopping part way along the route though, is there, you can drive 600miles to a precooked MOT and would clearly have to stop en route at some point. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 13:02
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
But it was not on the way to an MOT - it was parked unattended on the road. There is nothing in the statute that prevents a car stopping part way along the route though, is there, you can drive 600miles to a precooked MOT and would clearly have to stop en route at some point. Indeed, which is presumably why he was acquitted of the offence of driving without an MoT, but it does not make it unreasonable for the car to have been seized for no VED, since there was no way of knowing it was on its way to an MoT test. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 13:14
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I fully agree with that Log', it was the comment by 666 I was addressing ONLY.
This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 13:14 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 18:44
Post
#9
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 1 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,723 |
Thanks everybody and apologies for not getting back sooner.
I contacted the dvla telling them the situation about the car being booked in for an mot and work done to get it ready for the sale but i was greeted with the same arrogant view ie pay the out of court settlement and shut up,in their eyes it was parked on a public road and fair game for their NSL thugs to seize,no extenuating circumstances would apply. i was going through a bereavement at the time and in no mood or fit state to really give this my attention. I knew my position was correct and legal so i let the issue run its course knowing that I could invoke section 142 for the case to be reopened,or the act states for the court to consider further evidence. I didnt hold back with the dvla in my language or attitude towards them,I wasnt just going to roll over and give up as most probably do a fact that maybe had bearing on them pushing things forward like a spoilt child legally it means nothing "in line with current legislation" being the dvlas over used phrase. I did have big doubts about going to court under section 142 and was frankly flabbergasted by the courts speed in dismissing the fine,dismissed null and void in their words almost contemptuously towards the dvla blowing their case out of the water "it was booked in for an mot",not sorned because it was a trade car ,after all the process of the court pursuing me for almost a thousand pounds had started to kick in I had expected a fight. i took up the issue of approaching the dvla about getting the cars value back,approach the dvla I was told,the dvla when i rang them said approach the court. the ombudsman and complaints assessor are just i feel toeing the line and supporting the dvla conveniently,the dvla now need to correct their pig headed blunder |
|
|
Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 18:57
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
OP.
Out of interest, did you leave it untaxed on the road, or did a garage employee? -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 20:19
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Just to pick on one of your many errors, the court chase you for nothing, they judge a prosecution and a defence and arrive at a verdict, and of course the £1000 is the maximum and not what anyone was chasing you for.
As pointed out above it’s whether the DVLA’s action was reasonable AT THE TIME that mattered and by your own version of events it was, which is likley why the ombudsman agreed with it. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 20:22 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:02
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 1 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,723 |
Just to pick on one of your many errors, the court chase you for nothing, they judge a prosecution and a defence and arrive at a verdict, and of course the £1000 is the maximum and not what anyone was chasing you for. As pointed out above it’s whether the DVLA’s action was reasonable AT THE TIME that mattered and by your own version of events it was, which is likley why the ombudsman agreed with it. (why do i get the feeling this site is being trolled by the dVLA) certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting After spending most of today researching the DVLa and their goons NSL Im frankly shocked at what they have been up to and gotten away with, I think Im done here OP. Out of interest, did you leave it untaxed on the road, or did a garage employee? no it was a garage employee |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:14
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
no it was a garage employee I know who i'd be getting angry with... And it wouldn't be DVLA... What did the garage say when you raised the issue of their actions? This post has been edited by peterguk: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:41 -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:35
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
(why do i get the feeling this site is being trolled by the dVLA) Don’t know, why do you? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:45
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting An acquittal just means that you might have been innocent, nothing more. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:58
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting If the tests for seizing the vehicle and convicting you of an offence are different, what bearing does one have upon the other? By your logic, every arrest of a person subsequently acquitted of an offence would be unlawful, which is simply not the case. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:58
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting You misunderstand how it works, the seizure at the time was reasonable, so there is nothing to correct, I understand you feel hard done by. You’d only have recourse if it wasn’t reasonable. That is why the ombudsman has sided with DVLA, he’s applying the law. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:04
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting If the tests for seizing the vehicle and convicting you of an offence are different, what bearing does one have upon the other? By your logic, every arrest of a person subsequently acquitted of an offence would be unlawful, which is simply not the case. I think taking the OP's view to its natural conclusion, every person who is arrested and not subsequently convicted could sue the police for kidnapping and false imprisonment, which is self-evidently absurd and illustrates why it's equally absurd to suggest the DVLA were wrong to seize the car. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:04
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting If the tests for seizing the vehicle and convicting you of an offence are different, what bearing does one have upon the other? By your logic, every arrest of a person subsequently acquitted of an offence would be unlawful, which is simply not the case. I think taking the OP's view to its natural conclusion, every person who is arrested and not subsequently convicted could sue the police for kidnapping and false imprisonment, which is self-evidently absurd and illustrates why it's equally absurd to suggest the DVLA were wrong to seize the car. ‘Zactly. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 00:26
Post
#20
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 1 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,723 |
My conclusion stands I even think this site was created by the dvla to support its own ends masquerading as something it isn't, very devious please prove me wrong.
No I'm not some mindless twerp quoting freeman on the land concepts though it as validity. The state and law is for the benefit and protection of its citizens not hounding them and penalizing them as it sees fit,I have a valid argument here, if the owners of this site dont come forward the site will be hacked and brought down,try helping people with a valid need |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 00:36 |