< All Blogs

The DVLA has taken more than £38 million from motorists in the last five years after sending out letters threatening drivers with a court summons. 
The money was raised by collecting fines for offences such as not reporting a change of ownership, even when this was due to the form being lost in the post – or possibly in the DVLA’s own system. Drivers who chose not to contest the allegation in court were fined £35 each. 
Our investigations reveal that in most instances when a motorist challenged the DVLA, the case was dropped – as happened to tenaciousClassic Car Weekly reader Craig Cheetham.
The discovery came after Craig asked questions using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The agency confirmed it withdrew more than 60% of cases for one particular type of allegation and banked more than £1.7m from those who did not challenge that same accusation in one year alone. 

In two FOI requests issued earlier this month, the DVLA admitted the following:
• Since 2009 the DVLA has taken more than £38m in out-of-court settlements for fines related to incorrect vehicle paperwork, taxation and SORN notices.
• A further £19.2m was accrued through prosecuting motorists in court.
• In 2013 alone, 48,618 cases for failure to notify disposal of a vehicle were settled out of court, netting the DVLA at least £1.7m (assuming all were settled at the basic £35 within 28 days).
• In the same period, 78,086 cases for the same offence were not pursued – 62% of all alleged offences.
• Since 2007, almost 1000 complaints have been lodged about missing mail.
• There is no way of guaranteeing that mail sent to the DVLA will reach the correct department.

Craig is now calling for a change to the law, as he believes the DVLA threats are unenforceable. He was issued with a summons for failing to notify the DVLA of the disposal of a vehicle earlier this year. The case was withdrawn by the DVLA on 14 October, two days before it was due to be heard in Cambridge Magistrates’ Court.
He said: ‘Following the review of my case, it’s my belief that not only should the law be changed, but that the DVLA should be made to refund every single out-of-court settlement paid by motorists unsure of the system, or who felt threatened by criminal prosecution.
 ‘The DVLA approach is heavy handed and frightening: they threaten you with a big fine if the court finds in their favour, and for those who don’t have the belief in their own defence or may not read between the lines in the strongly worded DVLA-issued letters, paying £35 in an out-of-court settlement to make the problem go away may well be the least frightening option. It’s unethical, and it should not be allowed.’
In a letter to Craig, the DVLA said it was dropping the case ‘in view of further information received’ after he wrote to the court outlining that it was incumbent on the DVLA itself to prove he had not posted the V5C upon the sale of the car, citing the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Human Rights Act 1985 in his defence.
Clause seven of the Act states: ‘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.’
In a response asking the DVLA about whether postal correspondence ever went missing, the agency confirmed it had received almost 1000 complaints relating to lost mail since 2007. In a follow-up email, a DVLA officer stated: ‘The agency receives between 80,000 and 100,000 items of mail per day. We cannot confirm that every item of mail is received.’
In his second FOI request Craig asked the DVLA to confirm how many cases for failure to notify a change of keeper were pursued in 2013, and how many were successfully convicted. Of 126,704 alleged offences, 48,618 were settled out of court (ie, fines were paid) and 78,086 (62%) were not pursued. 
The DVLA refused to say how many cases were taken as far as Craig’s, where court paperwork was lodged and a hearing date fixed before withdrawing, as this would have cost the agency more than £600 to find out.
‘Apparently that’s DVLA policy,’ Craig said. ‘Yet with £38 million in out-of-court settlements in the bank I’d call that a drop in the ocean…’
While the DVLA was unable to extrapolate how many of the out-of-court settlements related to failure to notify offences, the same principle applies for any notification such as SORN or Change of Taxation Class that may have been made via post – especially since all the DVLA’s local offices have now been closed.
The total income for both in and out-of-court settlements amounts to more than £57m over a five-year period, of which over 65% was received through postal out-of-court settlements.

How the DVLA responded

The DVLA pointed out that the £38m in the article relates to all Out of Court Settlement payments received between 2009-14 for all offence types, not specifically instances of owners failing to notify it about a change of vehicle. It added that while many cases do go to court, cases can be withdrawn for a variety of reasons.
An agency spokesperson said: ‘Anyone who keeps a vehicle must tell the DVLA when they sell or transfer it. Telling us when a vehicle is sold or transferred is quick and easy and works well for the vast majority of motorists. In cases where we do not receive a notification of sale or transfer we issue an Out of Court Settlement notice which gives people the opportunity to avoid prosecution. Every time a registered keeper tells us, we send them an acknowledgement letter.  
‘We advise motorists to contact us if they haven’t received this after four weeks as they may still be liable for the vehicle. Further information is available on our website.’ www.gov.uk

The legal viewpoint

Cambridgeshire-based solicitor Andrew Kirkby argues that the DVLA’s penalty notices for owners failing to dispose of vehicles are ‘completely unenforcable’ unless the agency has ‘undeniable proof’. He said: ‘I’d say to anyone, do not pay up without carefully considering your position. You have a right to have your case heard in court, and it’s clear from the numbers of withdrawn prosecutions that the DVLA doesn’t really like going to court. Furthermore, in a conversation Craig had with the DVLA, the agency had apparently referred to his own alleged penalty as a ‘fine’. From a legal perspective, this is more significant than it seems. The DVLA cannot issue a fine nor claim to be allowed to. Under British law, only a court can issue an enforceable fine – the wording is very clear. If the magistrates determine that a fine is payable, then it must either be paid or appealed. By calling it a fine, the DVLA is not telling the truth.
‘The fact that 62% of cases are dropped before they reach court suggests that they may not have the evidence they need to secure a conviction.’