ChatterBank2 mins ago
Notifying DVLA of a change of keeper
7 Answers
When you send off the V5C logbook to notify DVLA that you have disposed of a vehicle, they maintain that you have not completed your legal requirement to notify the disposal until they have received the form.
I was under the impression that items were deemed to have been received a few days after being posted, but they say that if it gets lost in the post, you are still liable, as the vehicle's keeper, for any fines for failure to relicence, or similar penalties, until the vehicle's record is finally updated.
Can this be right? I would have thought that being able to demonstrate that you had taken reasonable steps to fulfil your legal requirement to notify them would be a legitimate defence.
I was under the impression that items were deemed to have been received a few days after being posted, but they say that if it gets lost in the post, you are still liable, as the vehicle's keeper, for any fines for failure to relicence, or similar penalties, until the vehicle's record is finally updated.
Can this be right? I would have thought that being able to demonstrate that you had taken reasonable steps to fulfil your legal requirement to notify them would be a legitimate defence.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by moomintroll1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Playing Devil's Advocate here but I suppose the strength of your defence may depend on the definition of "reasonable steps" - is it reasonable NOT to allow for the possibility of a Royal Mail failure to complete their task of Standard Mail delivery?
Many organisations recommend Recorded Delivery or equivalent for important documentation. You may begrudge paying an extra 70p to confirm delivery of your letter, but compared to the possible consequences...
Many organisations recommend Recorded Delivery or equivalent for important documentation. You may begrudge paying an extra 70p to confirm delivery of your letter, but compared to the possible consequences...
Thanks for your responses. Just to put it into context, I work for a motor trader, so we deal with hundreds of logbooks. In the past, we have had to suffer fines on two separate occasions because a new keeper obtained a refund on the tax disc without declaring the vehicle off the road, which left it unlicenced and without SORN.
We had filled out and sent the logbooks off to DVLA, but they had not received them, so we were still recorded as the keeper and the fines came to us. We keep copies of all paperwork, so we could state when and to whom we had sold the vehicle, but they simply weren't interested.
We now use Special Delivery for them all, so it shouldn't happen again - I'm just really trying to satisfy a long-standing curiosity!
Someone once told me that English Law considers an item to be received if it is posted first class, and I was really just wondering if anyone could confirm that (or not).
We had filled out and sent the logbooks off to DVLA, but they had not received them, so we were still recorded as the keeper and the fines came to us. We keep copies of all paperwork, so we could state when and to whom we had sold the vehicle, but they simply weren't interested.
We now use Special Delivery for them all, so it shouldn't happen again - I'm just really trying to satisfy a long-standing curiosity!
Someone once told me that English Law considers an item to be received if it is posted first class, and I was really just wondering if anyone could confirm that (or not).
When motoring summonses or fixed penalty notices are issued they are usually sent by normal first class post and are deemed to have been delivered if it can be shown that they have been posted.
If an intended recipient does not receive the document it is likely that the matter will be progressed as if he had. It will then be incumbent upon him to have the matter reopened so that he can explain to the appropriate authority about the non-receipt.
A similar stance can be taken in the situation you describe. If you are prosecuted for any matter arising from non-delivery of these documents you can defend the matter on the grounds that you posted the documents and assumed they had been delivered. If you can satisfy a court that this is indeed what happened it would be very difficult for them to convict you.
The test of �reasonable� which kempie mentions is not, as far as I know, defined. You could therefore argue that if it is reasonable for, say, Safety Camera partnerships to launch prosecutions (for failure to supply driver�s details) on the strength of a letter sent by first class post, then it is equally reasonable for you to assume safe delivery of change of ownership details and so be immune from the penalties you mention.
The only thing I would say is that I believe the DVLA acknowledge receipt of these documents. They could argue that if you did not receive such an acknowledgement it is reasonable that you enquire whether your documents were received by them.
If an intended recipient does not receive the document it is likely that the matter will be progressed as if he had. It will then be incumbent upon him to have the matter reopened so that he can explain to the appropriate authority about the non-receipt.
A similar stance can be taken in the situation you describe. If you are prosecuted for any matter arising from non-delivery of these documents you can defend the matter on the grounds that you posted the documents and assumed they had been delivered. If you can satisfy a court that this is indeed what happened it would be very difficult for them to convict you.
The test of �reasonable� which kempie mentions is not, as far as I know, defined. You could therefore argue that if it is reasonable for, say, Safety Camera partnerships to launch prosecutions (for failure to supply driver�s details) on the strength of a letter sent by first class post, then it is equally reasonable for you to assume safe delivery of change of ownership details and so be immune from the penalties you mention.
The only thing I would say is that I believe the DVLA acknowledge receipt of these documents. They could argue that if you did not receive such an acknowledgement it is reasonable that you enquire whether your documents were received by them.
Thanks, New Judge.
The problem is that these are decriminalised offences, so courts do not get involved - you address your appeal to DVLA (or the issuing council for parking fines) and they decide whether to accept it or not.
In fact, there doesn't appear to be any way of challenging their decisions, in court or otherwise, so they are allowed to be the judge of reasonableness. As they openly state in their fine notices that you cannot rely on the postal service to fulfil your obligation to notify them of the change, I don't think they would be receptive to an appeal on that basis, whatever its legal merits!
As I said before, it's not affecting anything current as these are past cases - it just annoys me that they are allowed to act in this way. It seems to bypass due process by not allowing independent review of individual cases, not to mention the fact that it pretty much says: "we don't care if you are actually responsible for the offence or not, we just want the money", and the real culprit gets away scott-free! It just doesn't send the right message out.
Anyway, I'm ranting, but thanks again for taking the time to reply!
The problem is that these are decriminalised offences, so courts do not get involved - you address your appeal to DVLA (or the issuing council for parking fines) and they decide whether to accept it or not.
In fact, there doesn't appear to be any way of challenging their decisions, in court or otherwise, so they are allowed to be the judge of reasonableness. As they openly state in their fine notices that you cannot rely on the postal service to fulfil your obligation to notify them of the change, I don't think they would be receptive to an appeal on that basis, whatever its legal merits!
As I said before, it's not affecting anything current as these are past cases - it just annoys me that they are allowed to act in this way. It seems to bypass due process by not allowing independent review of individual cases, not to mention the fact that it pretty much says: "we don't care if you are actually responsible for the offence or not, we just want the money", and the real culprit gets away scott-free! It just doesn't send the right message out.
Anyway, I'm ranting, but thanks again for taking the time to reply!
1 to 7 of 7
