Slightly weird one...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

izools

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
49
Location
Exeter
Car
W211 E55 AMG
Well I sold my old car on 12th August, to a motor trader, and promptly sent the yellow slip to the DVLA who signed for said slip (send special delivery along with tax for a refund) on the 13th August.

I've just received - 20 days later - a Notice of Intended Prosecution due to the chap who bought it off me having been speeding.

Now, like a complete and utter retard I didn't make a copy of the yellow slip before sending it in to the DVLA, so I don't know the details of the buyer any longer - all I have is his first name, Mobile number, and email address.

I have two questions:

1. Is it normal for the DVLA to take this long to not update their records with the new keeper details?

2. Is there any way of me contacting the DVLA to find out the details entered on to the yellow slip that I signed and the motor trader filled in so that I can provide this information to the police?

Thanks in advance :thumb:
 
Speed camera? Photo evidence should prove it was not you.
 
Fill in the NIP to say the car was sold and you sent the record to DVLA.

Do you have a receipt of change of ownership?
 
DVLA usually fairly quick with acknowledging change of ownership & tax disc refunds. Would have thought you should have heard from them by now.
Special Delivery? Do you have some sort of receipt from Post Office? Is it the one where you can track on-live to see that it has been delivered?
 
The offence was doing 65 in a 50 zone on the M4, jct 19-20, so it was an average speed camera zone - these don't take a picture of the driver do they?

I'll chase up the DVLA tomorrow as I've tracked the special delivery letter to them and they did indeed sign for it but that was nearly a month ago and I've had no cheque for the tax and of course now this so they've obviously left it on a pile somewhere...

Unfortunately I don't have a receipt of the change of ownership as I'm an absolute numpty...

I sure hope I can get a straight answer from the DVLA otherwise it looks like I'm going on a driver improvement course lol just what I need...

Thanks for the help / tips though guys :)
 
I sure hope I can get a straight answer from the DVLA otherwise it looks like I'm going on a driver improvement course lol just what I need...

Of course you're not. The police have to prove it was you driving, not you prove you weren't.
 
I got a speeding ticket in my E430 the day I bought it.
A whopping 37mph travelling downhill on a country road in Oxfordshire and thought I might avoid prosecution.

Last week, I completed the speed awareness course, and I learnt a thing or two there. It was actually worth getting caught speeding. :D
 
Of course you're not. The police have to prove it was you driving, not you prove you weren't.

They said however it's an offence for me to not be able to provide the details of who I sold it to?
 
The offence was doing 65 in a 50 zone on the M4, jct 19-20, so it was an average speed camera zone - these don't take a picture of the driver do they?

No, only Truvelo are car front facing. Gatsos, gantries etc. are all of the rear of the car.

Unfortunately I don't have a receipt of the change of ownership as I'm an absolute numpty...

I normally produce a receipt but do two copies. Then get the new owner to sign both and I do.

I keep a copy. Last time I sold a car, I didn't bother and of course they got a CC penalty notice... :rolleyes:

Luckily, I was able to contact the DVLA and get a copy of the V5 from them which was the date before I sold it.

Contact the DVLA and get a copy of the V5 and get the details from there - then you wont fall foul as you rightly suggest above.
 
Of course you're not. The police have to prove it was you driving, not you prove you weren't.

In criminal law I would agree with you but I am not sure innocent until proven guilty applies to motoring law.
 
In criminal law I would agree with you but I am not sure innocent until proven guilty applies to motoring law.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat...
 
Thanks for the reassurances guys! Fingers crossed for call to the DVLA tomorrow :)
 
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat...

Yes, this applies in Criminal law - not motoring.

The burden of proof in civil matters is based on probability rather than reasonable doubt. You also have no right to silence (you get convicted of other offences if you try). The reality of this however you dress it up is that you have to prove your innocence, simply saying prove it doesn't wash in motoring law. The burden of proof effectively shifts to the defendant by statute.
 
Last edited:
The burden of proof in civil matters is based on probability rather than reasonable doubt.

I struggle to see how motoring law can supersede the laws on which our democracy stands (that sounds quite melodramatic when I say it out loud).

Otherwise, you would have people running around accusing others of all sorts and getting away with it.
 
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal law and even then, the burden of proof often switches to the defendant.

Lets take the defence of insanity for instance.

If a defendant wants to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity then he needs to prove that he is insane. The prosecution does not need to prove he isn't as that is presumed.

In motoring law, the presumption is that you (the registered keeper) were the driver and you need to prove you weren't.
 
Last edited:
Lets take the defence of insanity for instance.

If a defendant wants to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity then he needs to prove that he is insane. The prosecution does not need to prove he isn't as that is presumed.

That's useless as an example, by the very definition of someone pleading insanity, they've already admitted an offence and they're arguing the reason why they did it.

Using your logic, say I ran someone over in a car that was registered in your name, that would mean that you would have to prove it wasn't you that did it and not that the police have to prove it was you?
 
Running over someone and not stopping is actually a criminal offence and not a road safety offence so reasonable doubt applies and therefore the presumption of innocence. Having said that, I wouldn't have a right to silence as I would face further charges if I took this stance so in effect I would have to prove it wasn't me.

The insanity example is the one most often used to explain this. You would be pleading not guilty on the grounds of insanity. You have therefore not admitted guilt yet the burden of proof has been reversed.

'your right to silence'? Criminal law = yes (but not always) , Road Safety Legislation = no.
 
Last edited:
Respond to the NIP explaining the situation, giving the details that you have, i.e. when you sold the car, his first name, telephone number and email address, plus a copy of receipt for payment, assuming you gave him one and kept a duplicate for yourself.

Let them sort it out.
 
Do you have bank statements etc showing receipt of sales proceeds?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom