Soldato
By then I suppose it's too late though so what's the use.
It's up to them to prove that you did not post it![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
It's up to them to prove that you did not post it
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
[TW]Fox;22134673 said:The time to do this is surely when the DVLA tell you that you are going to get a fine. Not 9 months later when they've given up chasing and flogged the debt?
How can he prove he even sent it? Mind you if he doesn't need to prove it then it might be worth a go!
References to service by post.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.
[TW]Fox;22133928 said:You get a confirmation from the DVLA a few weeks after you send the notification in. Send them a copy of this and the problem will go away.
Would be pretty comical to hear the DVLA try to explain how their rules about acknowledgement take precedence over the Interpretations Act ^^
[TW]Fox;22136417 said:If they didnt have some sort of policy all you'd need to do to avoid ever bothering to declare SORN is just say 'Yea its scrapped, I sent you the V5, honest'.
The Interpretations Act to me looks like a really badly written peice of legislation. Allowing something to count as 'served' with ZERO proof it actually is strikes me as bonkers. Both for us AND them - ie, the police shouldn't be able to say that simply putting a NIP in a post-box is proof it was served.