Letter to DVLA - opinions please

[merlincove]

Having been watching Pleasuredomes own foray into the arena of DVLA, i decided that i'd reclim my own right as to ownership of my motorbike.

I've penned a letter to the DVLA as an interim before i let them have my Notice of Intent and Claim of Ownership, that i've been working on, which i have posted elsewhere here abouts, though that is still a work in progress, because although PD's was pretty brilliant, i don't want mine to be a carbon copy - tho there is a lot to be said for tried and tested :rolleyes:

So in the mean time i thought i'd let them have this little teaser, to see what, if anythin, they have to say in respect of ownership of vehicles.

Please let me know what you think, constructive criticism is, again, much appreciated. So if you think it's bollix and a waste of time, that's ok :eek: and if you think it's bob on, even better :D

I wonder if in places i am labouring a point, or perhaps laying it all on a little too thick. I don't know if they'l take it seriously or not, or whether i'll get a half decent let alone a proper reply, but it will be entertaining to see how the DVLA react:

(also posted this on TPUC)

So, here's the letter, enjoy:

Lee: of the Freeman family
*** **** **
********
Nottingham NG** ***


DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BA

Dated this: **day of the month of May in the year of our Lord 2009

Request of Clarification and lawful understanding.

Dear Sirs,

It is in my interest to ascertain both the DVLA’s and the Secretary of State for Transports understanding in respect to unequivocal ownership of a transport conveyance used as a private carriage on the public roads, rights of way, highways and byways of England.

With this in mind I would appreciate it if you could attend to me in writing a full appraisal of the following points:

It is in my understanding that once a vehicle is registered with the DVLA, it is subsequently accounted for in the DVLA’s database where a record exists of the registered keeper and vehicle specifics. It is in my understanding that such a record is maintained in order that relevant checks may be carried out in order to convey joinder of statute law and acts of parliament with the registered keeper.

It is in my understanding that such joinder is ascertained in order to secure revenue collection under statute law by enforcement.

It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent.

It is in my understanding that any requisite claim that the registered keeper may have over the vehicle post registration is void in respect to ownership through such a contract.

It is in my understanding that although a human being of spiritual origin, a man or woman, has passed a motion to obtain a vehicle through lawful sale of goods, registration of the vehicle effects surrendered-ownership to the entity with which the vehicle is registered.

It is furthermore in my understanding that once a vehicle has been duly registered, a V5 ‘log book’ is passed to the ‘legal fiction’ affixed to the registration and affords that person the right of ‘registered keeper.’

It is in my understanding that a ‘registered keeper’ has no equanimity of ownership of the vehicle, as such is often emphasised with the apparent legal stance of removing vehicles for crushing when there is sufficient lack of compliance with the statute and acts of law imposed upon the legal fiction by the DVLA and Secretary of State for Transport.

If ownership of the vehicle was the sole concern of the human being who entered into a lawful account of sale of goods, then is it lawful that a third party may intervene and remove the aforementioned human beings property without the consent of his / her authority? And therefore has that authority been given through the act of registration?

It is my intention to understand the right of ownership of a vehicle registered with the DVLA and I would ask therefore for clarification of the following points:

1. Once a vehicle is registered, who is the owner of the vehicle?

2. Can you please clarify what a V5 document is, legally speaking?

3. Does the registration of a vehicle equate to a contract?

4. How can the state or corporation remove a vehicle for crushing / impounding unless the rights of ownership are given to that state or corporation by concent?

5. How can any corporation or any other member of society own an item that has been lawfully purchased in the first instance under sale of goods by a third party human being?

6. And furthermore: if it is a given fact that the human being who has purchased a vehicle and attends to its upkeep is purely the ‘registered keeper’ as evidenced through your own documentation: can you please clarify under full liability of perjury the explicit ownership of vehicles registered with the DVLA?

Thank you for your time and patience with this enquiry and I look forward to receiving a response from you soon.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

Lee: of the Freeman family

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Lee of the Freeman family, as commonly accepted under my inalienable right of Common Law.


Unless changes are called for, i'll be posting this registered delivery to the DVLA and jeff hoon toward the middle of the week - i have a few months before the tax runs out :cool:

Thanks

lee

[the worm that turned]

Great letter. It asks all the right questions and there is ABSOLUTELY no way that it can be misconstrued by the reader.

Therefore - expect a crap response, not answering any of your questions and the quoting of a few statutes!

You probably know that they won't answer your questions anyway, therefore the only way forward really is claiming back rightful ownership via you Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right.

Keep us posted and well done!

[rjl9332]

Its a nice letter, and this is not a dampener, please just dont expect a breakthrough response here. It is in their blood to send back a standard response which quotes the obligations generated by the road traffic actzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

know what i mean?

But still, you can use the first letter to start building your notice of understanding and intent / COR, and start breaking those assumptions

[yozhik]

Hi ... Mr Pedantic here :D

Some minor points for you to choose from :)

1. In your address line, put the postcode in [ ]
2. I would address it to ONE name rather than a generic "Dear Sirs". You then have a specific receiver of your Notice and it can not be fobbed off as "we didn't get it", once it is sent registered or recorded delivery.
3. Make each understanding its own paragraph ... 3rd paragraph is 2 x understanding.
4. In point 4. of your letter spellcheck "consent".
5. General comment ... go through and remove any unnecessary "fluff"; make the statements, statements - not questions ... make the understandings, understandings - not vague or verbose generic ideologies.

From another travelling the Freeman path, I was introduced to the following sentence,
"If it is not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED."

As a suggestion; if this statement is placed at the end of each understanding, then would this make both the task of rebuttal and the established truth if not rebutted, more evident?

For example;
It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent. If not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED.

In my opinion this then makes the statement stronger, their task more obvious and harder to ignore. All of this would bode well should any future dispute arise.

However; this is just opinion and not constructive criticism of your letter ... I thought you might find it useful to ponder. :)

[tracker]

Having been watching Pleasuredomes own foray into the arena of DVLA, i decided that i'd reclim my own right as to ownership of my motorbike.

I've penned a letter to the DVLA as an interim before i let them have my Notice of Intent and Claim of Ownership, that i've been working on, which i have posted elsewhere here abouts, though that is still a work in progress, because although PD's was pretty brilliant, i don't want mine to be a carbon copy - tho there is a lot to be said for tried and tested :rolleyes:

So in the mean time i thought i'd let them have this little teaser, to see what, if anythin, they have to say in respect of ownership of vehicles.

Please let me know what you think, constructive criticism is, again, much appreciated. So if you think it's bollix and a waste of time, that's ok :eek: and if you think it's bob on, even better :D

I wonder if in places i am labouring a point, or perhaps laying it all on a little too thick. I don't know if they'l take it seriously or not, or whether i'll get a half decent let alone a proper reply, but it will be entertaining to see how the DVLA react:

(also posted this on TPUC)

So, here's the letter, enjoy:

Lee: of the Freeman family
*** **** **
********
Nottingham NG** ***


DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BA

Dated this: **day of the month of May in the year of our Lord 2009

Request of Clarification and lawful understanding.

Dear Sirs,

It is in my interest to ascertain both the DVLA’s and the Secretary of State for Transports understanding in respect to unequivocal ownership of a transport conveyance used as a private carriage on the public roads, rights of way, highways and byways of England.

With this in mind I would appreciate it if you could attend to me in writing a full appraisal of the following points:

It is in my understanding that once a vehicle is registered with the DVLA, it is subsequently accounted for in the DVLA’s database where a record exists of the registered keeper and vehicle specifics. It is in my understanding that such a record is maintained in order that relevant checks may be carried out in order to convey joinder of statute law and acts of parliament with the registered keeper.

It is in my understanding that such joinder is ascertained in order to secure revenue collection under statute law by enforcement.

It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent.

It is in my understanding that any requisite claim that the registered keeper may have over the vehicle post registration is void in respect to ownership through such a contract.

It is in my understanding that although a human being of spiritual origin, a man or woman, has passed a motion to obtain a vehicle through lawful sale of goods, registration of the vehicle effects surrendered-ownership to the entity with which the vehicle is registered.

It is furthermore in my understanding that once a vehicle has been duly registered, a V5 ‘log book’ is passed to the ‘legal fiction’ affixed to the registration and affords that person the right of ‘registered keeper.’

It is in my understanding that a ‘registered keeper’ has no equanimity of ownership of the vehicle, as such is often emphasised with the apparent legal stance of removing vehicles for crushing when there is sufficient lack of compliance with the statute and acts of law imposed upon the legal fiction by the DVLA and Secretary of State for Transport.

If ownership of the vehicle was the sole concern of the human being who entered into a lawful account of sale of goods, then is it lawful that a third party may intervene and remove the aforementioned human beings property without the consent of his / her authority? And therefore has that authority been given through the act of registration?

It is my intention to understand the right of ownership of a vehicle registered with the DVLA and I would ask therefore for clarification of the following points:

1. Once a vehicle is registered, who is the owner of the vehicle?

2. Can you please clarify what a V5 document is, legally speaking?

3. Does the registration of a vehicle equate to a contract?

4. How can the state or corporation remove a vehicle for crushing / impounding unless the rights of ownership are given to that state or corporation by concent?

5. How can any corporation or any other member of society own an item that has been lawfully purchased in the first instance under sale of goods by a third party human being?

6. And furthermore: if it is a given fact that the human being who has purchased a vehicle and attends to its upkeep is purely the ‘registered keeper’ as evidenced through your own documentation: can you please clarify under full liability of perjury the explicit ownership of vehicles registered with the DVLA?

Thank you for your time and patience with this enquiry and I look forward to receiving a response from you soon.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

Lee: of the Freeman family

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Lee of the Freeman family, as commonly accepted under my inalienable right of Common Law.


Unless changes are called for, i'll be posting this registered delivery to the DVLA and jeff hoon toward the middle of the week - i have a few months before the tax runs out :cool:

Thanks

lee


the simple men ( like my self ) need more people like you .

:cool:

[malvern]

yozhik Hi ... Mr Pedantic here

Some minor points for you to choose from

1. In your address line, put the postcode in [ ]
2. I would address it to ONE name rather than a generic "Dear Sirs". You then have a specific receiver of your Notice and it can not be fobbed off as "we didn't get it", once it is sent registered or recorded delivery.
3. Make each understanding its own paragraph ... 3rd paragraph is 2 x understanding.
4. In point 4. of your letter spellcheck "consent".
5. General comment ... go through and remove any unnecessary "fluff"; make the statements, statements - not questions ... make the understandings, understandings - not vague or verbose generic ideologies.

From another travelling the Freeman path, I was introduced to the following sentence,
"If it is not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED."
As a suggestion; if this statement is placed at the end of each understanding, then would this make both the task of rebuttal and the established truth if not rebutted, more evident?

For example;
It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent. If not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED.
In my opinion this then makes the statement stronger, their task more obvious and harder to ignore. All of this would bode well should any future dispute arise.

However; this is just opinion and not constructive criticism of your letter ... I thought you might find it useful to ponder.



once again some great advice ......yozhik.

you will find that the DVLA will set you up with a gatekeeper who does not have a clue , so as yozhik say find out the name of the top man in your area and send it to him ....also do not be shocked that they send out unsigned computer gen letters .... so also set up your fees for dealing with return mail.




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[merlincove]

Great replies guys, and thank you, i'm glad that it has been recieved well.

the contrsructive pedanticism is great Yozhic and i will be including the point "If it is not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED."

Yes, that paragraph needs seperating, as there are 2 understandings in it, i did wonder that.

pedanticism aside, i have included my postcode, just didn't drop it down from the City so it will need entering into the line below :rolleyes:

i will attempt to get a name of a high dept head if not the governer / head honcho at the DVLA swansea.

it would read nice if it said Dear Head Honcho though, but i guess such a funny would be lost on them lol

EDIT, yes i am expecting a generic response, and at best a mail from dept heads stating statute etc, but what i am trying to do is build a Notice of Intent around and to include points raised :-) so hopefully this will go some way in outlining a response to their response, and the inc of "If it is not rebutted in reasonable time, it is AFFIRMED." does afford me / us a more firm foundation to build the NoI upon :-)

[pleasuredome]

great letter merlin. i'd drop the word vehicle from it though. as RJL said, only expect a standard non answer letter to this, but its good that the DVLA/department for transport starts receiving letters like this as they will be getting really pissed off about it.

[sindakit]

you should add in a time period for expected response so you know when to send off a second notice should you recieve no response

[finkthree]

Awesome letter merlin,

I will be quite proud of myself when Ive learned enough to be in a position to construct a letter as good as that. :)

(As always yozhik your knowledge inspires!... dont want to sound like a bunny boiler m8 :o but F**K Me you know your stuff!.. amazing)

Stay Safe.

[merlincove]

once again some great advice ......yozhik.

you will find that the DVLA will set you up with a gatekeeper who does not have a clue , so as yozhik say find out the name of the top man in your area and send it to him ....also do not be shocked that they send out unsigned computer gen letters .... so also set up your fees for dealing with return mail.




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers


Have just sent this the the dvla, and am working on my notice for clarification, touching it up, to send tommorow :-)

Dear Sirs

I write to you in request for information regarding an enquiry that I wish to make with the DVLA.

I am a flesh and blood human being with a blessed soul and as such I wish to address a mail of enquiry directly to another human self acting in the stead of the DVLA rather than the DVLA corporation in respect to attaining an open and individual line of converse. I feel that it is preferable to align with a person in any communication rather than a Corporation that has no personality, and with this in mind I would ask that you forward me the direct contact details in respect of DVLA Swansea Corporation head; id est, that is the direct name of the person who is head of the corporation / Corporation manager of the DVLA Swansea.

Please note that I do not at this time wish to enter into any communication with the DVLA Corporation, and attend to interact directly with a human being who has office and high standing within the DVLA corporation.

I look forward to hearing from the DVLA in this respect at its soonest convienience.

I would like to proffer my wishes of thanks to the human being attaining to the respects of the DVLA within this generic format who recieves this mail and pass on my wishes to that person for a pleasant day.

With due respect and honor to the person sitting in receipt

With thanks

Lee

That should get some who scratching their head, maybe.

:cool:

[brainfreeze]

Have just sent this the the dvla, and am working on my notice for clarification, touching it up, to send tommorow :-)

Dear Sirs

I write to you in request for information regarding an enquiry that I wish to make with the DVLA.

I am a flesh and blood human being with a blessed soul and as such I wish to address a mail of enquiry directly to another human self acting in the stead of the DVLA rather than the DVLA corporation in respect to attaining an open and individual line of converse. I feel that it is preferable to align with a person in any communication rather than a Corporation that has no personality, and with this in mind I would ask that you forward me the direct contact details in respect of DVLA Swansea Corporation head; id est, that is the direct name of the person who is head of the corporation / Corporation manager of the DVLA Swansea.

Please note that I do not at this time wish to enter into any communication with the DVLA Corporation, and intend to interact directly with a human being who has office and high standing within the DVLA corporation.

I look forward to hearing from the DVLA in this respect at its soonest convienience.

I would like to proffer my wishes of thanks to the human being attaining to the respects of the DVLA within this generic format who recieves this mail and pass on my wishes to that person for a pleasant day.

With due respect and honor to the person sitting in receipt

With thanks

Lee

That should get some who scratching their head, maybe.

:cool:

I just changed a word for you up there.

[merlincove]

Good point, brainfreeze, though it has gone now, but yeah, intend would have been better. I'd love to see the face of the person who recieves that mail when they open it hehe, i hope that it makes them smile, especially the last bit.

i mailed it to their generic email from the .gov site and await their respose.

Full and complete draft of letter as follows, with new bits and a bit more wordiness, to be sent to a named person, once i recieve a contact name, and mailing tommorow, recorded.

I'm quite enjoying this :D - and not even started properly yet.

Lee: of the Freeman family
*** **** **
********
Nottingham
NG** ***


DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BA

Dated this: 20th day of the month of May in the year of our Lord 2009.

Request of Clarification and lawful understanding.

Dear (Named recipient),

It is in my interest to ascertain both the DVLA’s and the Secretary of State for Transports understanding in respect to unequivocal ownership of a transport conveyance used as a private carriage on the public roads, rights of way, highways and byways of England.

With this in mind I would appreciate it if you could attend to me in writing within the next 30 (thirty) days a full appraisal of the following nine (9) points:

i. It is in my understanding that once a vehicle is registered with the DVLA, it is subsequently accounted for in the DVLA’s database where a record exists of the registered keeper and vehicle specifics. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

ii. It is in my understanding that such a record is maintained in order that relevant checks may be carried out in order to convey joinder between statute law, acts of parliament and the registered keeper. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

iii. It is in my understanding that such joinder is ascertained in order to secure revenue collection under statute law by enforcement. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

iv. It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

v. It is in my understanding that any requisite claim that the registered keeper may have over the vehicle post registration, in respect to sole and unequivocal ownership, is void through such a contract. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

vi. It is in my understanding that although a human being of spiritual origin, a man or woman, has passed a motion to obtain a vehicle through lawful transaction within sale of goods, registration of the vehicle effects surrendered-ownership to the entity with which the vehicle is registered. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

vii. It is furthermore in my understanding that once a vehicle has been duly registered, a V5 ‘log book’ is passed to the ‘legal fiction’ affixed to the registration and affords that person the right of ‘registered keeper.’ If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

viii. It is in my understanding that a ‘registered keeper’ has no equanimity of ownership of the registered vehicle, as such can be evidenced with the stance of legal and appointed bodies exercising claim by way of removing vehicles for crushing when there is sufficient lack of compliance with the statute and acts of law imposed upon the legal fiction by the DVLA and Secretary of State for Transport. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

ix. If ownership of the vehicle was the sole concern of the human being who entered into an account of sale of goods through lawful transaction, then is it lawful that a third party may intervene and remove the aforementioned human beings property without the consent of his / her authority? And therefore has an authority been given through the act of registration? If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

I seek clarification of the above nine (9) points through an accepted or denied understanding from both the DVLA and The Secretary of State for Transport and as stated please understand that if no rebuttal of these nine (9) points can be given within the time scale of 30 (thirty) days then such points are otherwise affirmed. Please note that accepted, denied or rebutted statements are made under full liability and will be further addressed after the response with a notice of understanding.

It is my intention to understand the right of ownership of a vehicle registered with the DVLA and I would ask therefore for clarification of the following points:

1. Once a vehicle is registered, who is the owner of the vehicle?

2. Can you please clarify what a V5 document is, legally speaking?

3. Does the registration of a vehicle equate to a contract?

4. How can the state or corporation remove a vehicle for crushing / impounding unless the rights of ownership are given to that state or corporation by consent?

5. How can any corporation or any other member of society own an item that has been lawfully purchased in the first instance through lawful transaction under sale of goods by a third party human being?

6. Your V5 document states that it is a given understanding that the human being who has purchased a vehicle and attends to its upkeep is purely the ‘registered keeper’ ~ can you please clarify, under full liability of perjury, the explicit ownership of vehicles registered with the DVLA?

Thank you for your time and patience with this enquiry and I look forward to receiving a response from you within the adequate time period of 30 day (thirty) days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

Lee: of the Freeman family

Copies sent to:
The Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Jeff Hoon.
MR. _____ _______ c/o DVLA Swansea.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Lee of the Freeman family, as commonly accepted under my inalienable right of Common Law.

:cool:

EDIT: have decided to work with the word vehicle for now, although a motor contrivance will find its way into my final notice, i felt it better to retain their terms in this initial post, they may have ownership of the vehicle, altho by the time of NoI, the vehicle will be a motorised somethin or other, contrivance is good - bacuse a vehicle has a log bokk and needs a tax disc and reg plates, a motorised contrivance / aid to mobility doesn't.

[Ian2day]

I reckon that the mail room of these organisations has a notice board full of these 'barmy letters'. Then at the end of the year collect them all together have a raffle. With whoever opened the most 'barmy letter' receiving the envelope containing all of the loose fiat currency, found inside unrecorded correspondance.

[merlincove]

'Barmy letters'???? :p

[girlgye]

Have just sent this the the dvla, and am working on my notice for clarification, touching it up, to send tommorow :-)

Dear Sirs

I write to you in request for information regarding an enquiry that I wish to make with the DVLA.

I am a flesh and blood human being with a blessed soul and as such I wish to address a mail of enquiry directly to another human self acting in the stead of the DVLA rather than the DVLA corporation in respect to attaining an open and individual line of converse. I feel that it is preferable to align with a person in any communication rather than a Corporation that has no personality, and with this in mind I would ask that you forward me the direct contact details in respect of DVLA Swansea Corporation head; id est, that is the direct name of the person who is head of the corporation / Corporation manager of the DVLA Swansea.

Please note that I do not at this time wish to enter into any communication with the DVLA Corporation, and attend to interact directly with a human being who has office and high standing within the DVLA corporation.

I look forward to hearing from the DVLA in this respect at its soonest convienience.

I would like to proffer my wishes of thanks to the human being attaining to the respects of the DVLA within this generic format who recieves this mail and pass on my wishes to that person for a pleasant day.

With due respect and honor to the person sitting in receipt

With thanks

Lee

That should get some who scratching their head, maybe.

:cool:

I like this, good letter.

However, my experience is this; they just send you a middle manager. Then when you start serving papers on middle manager. Middle manager has left the business. Another middle manager starts being the named person. The demands stay the same and the threats get bigger and bigger.
Any ideas?

[ex sheep]

Way to go merlincove,
best of luck mate, I am just watching, learning :)

[merlincove]

I like this, good letter.

However, my experience is this; they just send you a middle manager. Then when you start serving papers on middle manager. Middle manager has left the business. Another middle manager starts being the named person. The demands stay the same and the threats get bigger and bigger.
Any ideas?

Well the dvla have so far ignored my request for an individuals name. I sent a further email, much more dumbed down than the above one in the form of a request for a name, again to no response. Their web site says that they aim to respond within 3 working days, which will be around 12.00 pm on friday.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/leaflets/inf150.pdf

i discovered this page however: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/contactus/if_things_go_wrong.aspx

and the name of the chief exec is there: Noel Shanahan, Chief Executive. So i've done a little tarting up of the initial mail and sent it to him, geof hoon as well, and to the dvla corporation too as the CE's address has a different post code to dvla.

I addressed the letter To The Person Named,

and recorded delivery.

We will wait to see what happens, they have a quite adequate 30 days in which to respond.

i will take that time to work on the notice to dvla. And provided they respond in an expected manner, which i don't think they have many other options, i can send of the notice as soon as they reply - if they choose to reply :cool:

i'm not sure i understand girlgye, about the point you make about a threat getting bigger and bigger? A threat is only a threat if it has some weight behind it? I expect they will bluster and speak about this act and that act, i think it will be all bluster at the end of the day, however heavy they get. And if they want a judge to decide, then i can choose to accept their request or not, i'll take that step if they threaten it :cool:

[merlincove]

Way to go merlincove,
best of luck mate, I am just watching, learning :)

Thanks sheep, i'm still learning too :cool:

[majorlee]

what do you intend on doing about 3rd party insurance once you have de-registered?

best of luck

also if you send a NOTICE and they dont reply within the time are they in dishonour?

[coco]

you should add in a time period for expected response so you know when to send off a second notice should you recieve no response

Strongly agreed.

[merlincove]

i'm working on extending my third party liabilty cover that i have for my business to include my de-registered mode of transport, and pleasuredome has also spoke about this and works with National Insurance as an insurance premium, i believe. i'll be putting things into motion this week and will be speaking with a broker friend of mine over the next few days to hammer something out. i'll keep the thread posted with anythin i find out.

if they don't reply, yes i will write and tell them they are in disshonour of their own guidelines in the way of reply, as is listed on their site above. Geof Hoon has to reply as any mail to a minister requires a reply as ruled by their own station, and also this applies for gvt bodies, i think the time limit is 14 days.But if they don't reply, their rules state that they agree with everything i have said.

Using their rules of tyranny against them is the best way to beat them.

Beyond that unless they refute any of my understandings, then those understandings are affirmed and as such i will act upon them in my next mail. If they send a generic letter (which i am expecting, becxause i don't think they can argue any of my understandings) then a reply that does not confirm or deny those understandings confirms them in essence because of the tem yozhic said i should include, If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

If they do raise issues with my understandings, then they are actually questioning their own rulings. i don't think they will - i think it will be generic replies and passed on from one person to another.

[coco]

Sorry to ask a question that is probably common knowledge otherwise: Can someone provide a link to this pleasuredome? I looked around a bit and only found sites about gaming and movies, etc.

Thank you

[yozhik]

Sorry to ask a question that is probably common knowledge otherwise: Can someone provide a link to this pleasuredome? I looked around a bit and only found sites about gaming and movies, etc.

Thank you

Pleasuredome is a member of this forum.
Use the search function to find his posts.

[coco]

Pleasuredome is a member of this forum.
Use the search function to find his posts.

Ahh, feeling pretty stupid right now. :( I'll get me coat.

Thank you.

[yozhik]

Ahh, feeling pretty stupid right now. :( I'll get me coat.

Thank you.

Why feel stupid?
You asked a question and received an answer.
Seems like a smart thing to do to me.
"Stupid" would have been to remain silent and not be any closer to that which you were seeking. :)

[coco]

Why feel stupid?
You asked a question and received an answer.
Seems like a smart thing to do to me.
"Stupid" would have been to remain silent and not be any closer to that which you were seeking. :)

I thought pleasuredome was a website. But you're right, I should practice what I preach. I tell clients to ask and talk to me as no question is stupid.

Thanks again, Yozhik. :)

[merlincove]

Why feel stupid?
You asked a question and received an answer.
Seems like a smart thing to do to me.
"Stupid" would have been to remain silent and not be any closer to that which you were seeking. :)

Great post :-)

and so true too.

i think pleasuredome is a member of the tpuc.org as pleasuredome too, and if you go to youtube he is a member there with a few vids too. He gets about abit :cool:

[number_6]

i think the time limit is 14 days.But if they don't reply, their rules state that they agree with everything i have said.


Are you sure about this? I would like to see concrete evidence where it has been found that a government body that fails to respond to correspondence within fourteen days is deemed to have agreed to all content of such correspondence, or even if they never respond at all. In fact I would go further and would like to see proof that it applies to anyone.

[ex sheep]

Are you sure about this? I would like to see concrete evidence where it has been found that a government body that fails to respond to correspondence within fourteen days is deemed to have agreed to all content of such correspondence, or even if they never respond at all. In fact I would go further and would like to see proof that it applies to anyone.
He said he thinks the time limit is 14 days, what bit of that do you not understand, I take it your a law student :D

[bones]

Are you sure about this? I would like to see concrete evidence where it has been found that a government body that fails to respond to correspondence within fourteen days is deemed to have agreed to all content of such correspondence, or even if they never respond at all. In fact I would go further and would like to see proof that it applies to anyone.

are you a troll? no offence intended!!!

[merlincove]

Are you sure about this? I would like to see concrete evidence where it has been found that a government body that fails to respond to correspondence within fourteen days is deemed to have agreed to all content of such correspondence, or even if they never respond at all. In fact I would go further and would like to see proof that it applies to anyone.

hey number six

check out the following link.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/foi/

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides a right of access to information held by public authorities and sets out exemptions to that right of access. Any person or body who makes a request in writing to a public authority for access to recorded information must be informed whether the public authority holds that information and be supplied with it, subject to the application of various exemptions specified within the Act. The public authority must normally respond within 20 working days of the receipt of the request.

i was wrong when i said within 14 days, this act says it is 20 from any public authority, which i am guessing is MP's, tho not sure whether the corporation of the Ministry of Transport or the DVLA corporation have to adhere to that.

EDIT: the above link refers to the Freedom of information Act, and is only a referal for the specific point. You can trawl through the Act if you like, s'up to you, but the info you requested is here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

Yes we all know that it is an act, and these things are what we are trying to repel in the name of the Common Law of this land, buut it is still a tool that they are bound by and as such thjeir manacle is our freedom.

Peace.

[number_6]

are you a troll? no offence intended!!!

Not that I am aware.
hey number six

check out the following link.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/foi/

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides a right of access to information held by public authorities and sets out exemptions to that right of access. Any person or body who makes a request in writing to a public authority for access to recorded information must be informed whether the public authority holds that information and be supplied with it, subject to the application of various exemptions specified within the Act. The public authority must normally respond within 20 working days of the receipt of the request.

i was wrong when i said within 14 days, this act says it is 20 from any public authority, which i am guessing is MP's, tho not sure whether the corporation of the Ministry of Transport or the DVLA corporation have to adhere to that.

EDIT: the above link refers to the Freedom of information Act, and is only a referal for the specific point. You can trawl through the Act if you like, s'up to you, but the info you requested is here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

Yes we all know that it is an act, and these things are what we are trying to repel in the name of the Common Law of this land, buut it is still a tool that they are bound by and as such thjeir manacle is our freedom.

Peace.

Yes that's all very well etc. etc. But my specific question relates to your assertion that anybody not responding to a notice is deemed to have accepted the contents of that notice as correct. I cannot see anything that relates to it in the link you provided. If it were truly the case it would be possible to send notices to whoever you desire even the whole population claiming that they owe you money, and if they do not reply you would be successfull in recovering such sums. I could send the man down the road a notice claiming his house. Are you seriously suggesting if he doesn't respond in fourteen, twenty, days or even a year with a shrug of his shoulders he will hand the keys and title deeds over to me? It isn't going to happen. As I said before I would like to see concrete evidence that non response equals acceptance.

[number_6]

Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/CP/1862/J35.html

Or for a summary of the case:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=60

Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35 Court of Common Pleas

A nephew discussed buying a horse from his uncle. He offered to purchase the horse and said if I don't hear from you by the weekend I will consider him mine. The horse was then sold by mistake at auction. The auctioneer had been asked not to sell the horse but had forgotten. The uncle commenced proceedings against the auctioneer for conversion. The action depended upon whether a valid contract existed between the nephew and the uncle.

Held:

There was no contract. You can not have silence as acceptance.

[merlincove]

Because i said, Quote: If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

if they do not rebut by return then they are agreeing by Acquiescence.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

ACQUIESCENCE, contracts. The consent which is impliedly given by one or both parties, to a proposition, a clause, a condition, a judgment, or to any act whatever.

2. When a party is bound to elect between a paramount right and a testamentary disposition, his acquiescence in a state of things which indicates an election, when he was aware of his rights will be prima facie evidence of such election. Vide 2 Ves. Jr. 371; 12 Ves. 136 1 Ves. Jr. 335; 3 P. Wms. 315. 2 Rop. Leg. 439.

3. The acts of acquiescence which constitute an implied election, must be decided rather by the circumstances of each case than by any general principle. 1 Swanst. R. 382, note, and the numerous cases there cited.

4. Acquiescence in the acts of an agent, or one who has assumed that character, will, be equivalent to an express authority. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1309; Kent, Com. 478; Story on Eq. 255; 4 W. C. C. R. 559; 6 Miss. R. 193; 1 John. Cas. 110; 2 John. Cas. 424 Liv. on Ag. 45; Paley on, Ag. by Lloyd, 41 Pet. R. 69, 81; 12 John. R. 300; 3 Cowen's R. 281; 3 Pick. R. 495, 505; 4 Mason's R. 296. Acquiescence differs from assent. (q. v.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence

i think that point one above says: If they have the choice to respond given a fact and choose not to then they agree with and to that fact.

If you have a factual ownership of your neighbours house, or the whole country owes you a debt by dint of fact then yes you can raise that issue by mail and claim that money / house, although the fact will need to have some relevance. Your point, altho similie, was a little silly, really as you are not raising or questioning facts that are in the puiblic domain as such is what i am attempting to do.

If you ask someone, in this case a public body, to clarify a point of factual evidence then if they do not respond, within the time limit set out in the FOI act, then they have agreed by Acquiescence, it is how they do business.

They send you a letter saying 'oh, you owe the council £2000, pay up dude,' you have a number of choices. You can say, 'yeah, ok, heres the money,' which is your choice. You can say, 'thank you very much for your kind offer to contract me into debt, i don't give concent to this contract, stick your bill,' saying this is your choice too. You can ask 'why do i owe the council anything, please explain because i do not employ the councils services and therefore do not wish to pay.' Again a choice. And there are varying options within choosing to pay or not to pay. On the other hand if you say, 'aw fu(k it,' and throw their letter in a bin, you have agreed to their contract by Acquiescence, because you haven't said 'NO' you have agreed and as such they will utilise all the might of their organisation to make you pay.

This is their rule, and if they do not say 'NO, we are sorry to inform you that your understanding is wrong sir,' and state a relevant factual account of why it is wrong, then they have ageeed to your understanding. If i am right it is as pure and as simple as that.

the tactic is to use the same techniques to bind them that they are using to bind us.


Am i wrong?

Prove to me that i am wrong please #6, show me the evidence that i am wrong.

[number_6]

Once again on this forum for some reason we look to America.
I would suggest
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Contract.php

[merlincove]

America isn't a sovreign state, such as canada and the uk, they have a constitution which governs them, their rule is laid down in writting, ours isn't.

[number_6]

I assume that you are aware that the motivation behind Bouvier's work was to distinguish the difference between American law and English law?

[ex sheep]

I assume

You assume, you are making an ass yoom out of yourself.

[number_6]

You assume, you are making an ass yoom out of yourself.

Please explain, I'm all ears.

[ex sheep]

Please explain, I'm all ears.

Nah, just forget it, I'm letting go :)

[merlincove]

Letting go is good :cool:

Well as of friday i've not heard back from the dvla in my req for a managerial name: apparently they say on their site that it is their aim to respond to an enquiry within 3 working days. With that in mind, Wednesdays mail will recieve a reply by this coming Tues, as the bank hol weekend will effect the time. I'm wondering whether to send an email of complaint, followed by another on thursday (is a mailed them again with my req on thursday) - or whether to let it go :rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Ok so i managed to get a reply tho they said nothin that was too surprising.

but first i wrote of to the houses of paliament to ask them whether an mp, in this case the then rt hon Geof Hoon, transport minister (who has since thrown his dummy out and walked into the sunset) had any responsability to respond to questions and if so was there a time limit: # 6 nudged my curiosity to this one, so i thought i'd see if my thinking was right, it wasn't...their response is:

Dear Lee,

Thank you for your enquiry.

Correspondence from Members of Parliament:-
There is no statutory job description for Members of Parliament and they have no statutory duty to respond to correspondence. It is at the discretion of Members as to whether they wish to take on a particular case and how and when they respond to correspondence.

The Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) produced a generic job description in their 1996 report. It was reproduced again on p32 of Volume 2 of the 2001 Report:

URL: http://www.ome.uk.com/downloads/volume2.pdf

Members of Parliament must, however, adhere to the rules outlined in the Code of Conduct which is available on the parliament website www.parliament.uk. You can find information about the Code of Conduct and the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who oversees the Code at:

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/standards.cfm

Further information about the work of an MP and other related material can be found in our factsheet at the following link:

M1: You and Your MP

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/factsheets/m01.cfm

In addition, the House of Commons Library has produced a standard note titled: Members and Constituency Etiquette which can be accessed from:

URL: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02028.pdf

You may also be interested to know that the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee produced a report titled: Revitalising the chamber: the role of the backbencher (HC 337) which contained a section on the role of MPs. The direct link to the report can be found below:

URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/33706.htm

Correspondence from Ministers:-

The Cabinet Office has produced a publication called Minister's Correspondence with Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments which can be viewed from the following link:

URL: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/handling_members_correspondence.aspx

In the guidance document it states:

"The right of MPs to take up constituents' cases and other issues directly with Government is an important part of the democratic process and underlines the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. It is essential that MPs receive carefully considered and prompt responses to their enquiries. Every effort should be made to provide an MP with a substantive reply in good time.

A substantive reply is where the response answers all or most of the points or questions raised in any correspondence.

Departments must ensure that:

(i) all replies to letters from MPs are of the highest quality - accurate, clear and helpful .

(ii) every effort is made to reply promptly and in line with departments' own published standards for answering ministerial correspondence."

Finally, should you wish to contact the Cabinet Office directly you can do so at the following address:

Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS
Telephone: 020 7276 1234
Website: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Email: firstname.surname@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Debbie Cesvette

Which in all honesty surprised me as i thought, and expected, that an mp had a duty to correspond with meaningful queries from their constituents. Interesting response though, but well recieved and very polite.

The DVLA wrote back to me yeasterday, well within the 30 days i gave them, and the DVLA head honcho, Noel Shanahan, sent it down the ranks for team leader to address, who informed me that he was speaking on behalf of Geof Hoon. His reply to the questions in point is edited into the letter that i sent below, in black against the blue original letter, with a few notes in bold as my thought, brief at the mo :D



Good point, brainfreeze, though it has gone now, but yeah, intend would have been better. I'd love to see the face of the person who recieves that mail when they open it hehe, i hope that it makes them smile, especially the last bit.

i mailed it to their generic email from the .gov site and await their respose.

Full and complete draft of letter as follows, with new bits and a bit more wordiness, to be sent to a named person, once i recieve a contact name, and mailing tommorow, recorded.

I'm quite enjoying this :D - and not even started properly yet.

Lee: of the Freeman family
*** **** **
********
Nottingham
NG** ***


DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BA

Dated this: 20th day of the month of May in the year of our Lord 2009.

Request of Clarification and lawful understanding.

Dear (Named recipient),

It is in my interest to ascertain both the DVLA’s and the Secretary of State for Transports understanding in respect to unequivocal ownership of a transport conveyance used as a private carriage on the public roads, rights of way, highways and byways of England.

With this in mind I would appreciate it if you could attend to me in writing within the next 30 (thirty) days a full appraisal of the following nine (9) points:

i. It is in my understanding that once a vehicle is registered with the DVLA, it is subsequently accounted for in the DVLA’s database where a record exists of the registered keeper and vehicle specifics. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

ii. It is in my understanding that such a record is maintained in order that relevant checks may be carried out in order to convey joinder between statute law, acts of parliament and the registered keeper. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

iii. It is in my understanding that such joinder is ascertained in order to secure revenue collection under statute law by enforcement. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

iv. It is in my understanding that in registering a vehicle with the DVLA, the independent man or woman who affects such registration is duly entering into a contract with the DVLA and the Secretary of State for Transport and as such agrees to the appropriate rulings of both bodies in respect to consent. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED.

v. It is in my understanding that any requisite claim that the registered keeper may have over the vehicle post registration, in respect to sole and unequivocal ownership, is void through such a contract. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

vi. It is in my understanding that although a human being of spiritual origin, a man or woman, has passed a motion to obtain a vehicle through lawful transaction within sale of goods, registration of the vehicle effects surrendered-ownership to the entity with which the vehicle is registered. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

vii. It is furthermore in my understanding that once a vehicle has been duly registered, a V5 ‘log book’ is passed to the ‘legal fiction’ affixed to the registration and affords that person the right of ‘registered keeper.’ If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

viii. It is in my understanding that a ‘registered keeper’ has no equanimity of ownership of the registered vehicle, as such can be evidenced with the stance of legal and appointed bodies exercising claim by way of removing vehicles for crushing when there is sufficient lack of compliance with the statute and acts of law imposed upon the legal fiction by the DVLA and Secretary of State for Transport. If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

ix. If ownership of the vehicle was the sole concern of the human being who entered into an account of sale of goods through lawful transaction, then is it lawful that a third party may intervene and remove the aforementioned human beings property without the consent of his / her authority? And therefore has an authority been given through the act of registration? If such is not rebutted by response, then it is AFFIRMED

I seek clarification of the above nine (9) points through an accepted or denied understanding from both the DVLA and The Secretary of State for Transport and as stated please understand that if no rebuttal of these nine (9) points can be given within the time scale of 30 (thirty) days then such points are otherwise affirmed. Please note that accepted, denied or rebutted statements are made under full liability and will be further addressed after the response with a notice of understanding.

It is my intention to understand the right of ownership of a vehicle registered with the DVLA and I would ask therefore for clarification of the following points:

1. Once a vehicle is registered, who is the owner of the vehicle?

The register maintained by dvla records details of the vehicle and its registered keeper. the reg keeper is the person responsable for the vehicles use and licensing on the public roads, but is not necersarily the owner of the vehicle. DVLA is not concearned with maters of ownership and is not necersarily aware of who the owner is in any given case.

2. Can you please clarify what a V5 document is, legally speaking?

A vehicle registration certificate (v5c) is a document issued to the registered keeper as the person responsable for a vehicles day to day use to help in the vehicle registration and licensing processes.

3. Does the registration of a vehicle equate to a contract?

No the registration of a vehicle does not equate to a contract.

Now i like that answer as i wasn't expecting that!

4. How can the state or corporation remove a vehicle for crushing / impounding unless the rights of ownership are given to that state or corporation by consent?

the powers to clamp untaxed vehicles are contained in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and the Vehicle Escise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997.

5. How can any corporation or any other member of society own an item that has been lawfully purchased in the first instance through lawful transaction under sale of goods by a third party human being?

As explained, the DVLA does not own registered vehicles and is not concearned with ownership

Hm, if the dvla doesn't i wonder who does?

6. Your V5 document states that it is a given understanding that the human being who has purchased a vehicle and attends to its upkeep is purely the ‘registered keeper’ ~ can you please clarify, under full liability of perjury, the explicit ownership of vehicles registered with the DVLA?

The v5c does not make the statement you attribute to it. The power to clamp untaxed vehicles does not derive from ownership but from the legislation mentioned in my answer to Q4.

Whoops, wrist slapped there :eek: lol

Thank you for your time and patience with this enquiry and I look forward to receiving a response from you within the adequate time period of 30 day (thirty) days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

Lee: of the Freeman family

Copies sent to:
The Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Jeff Hoon.
MR. _____ _______ c/o DVLA Swansea.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Lee of the Freeman family, as commonly accepted under my inalienable right of Common Law.

.

So i will now be formatting my Notice of Understanding and intent, with the q's as above.....

peace all

[yozhik]

They have completely avoided the ownership question.
I smell a rat.

What they have said is that the DVLA is not concerned with ownership.
So who is?

Also, a speeding ticket (correct me if I am wrong), is issued to the owner, is it not?
Or is it the keeper?

If the owner is the keeper, why differentiate?
Why is the DVLA only interested in the keeper?
Why do they not deal with the owner?
At what point do we assume the title of keeper?
When do we give consent or agreement to this status?
If I buy a car, I do not want to be referred to as the keeper; I would like to have my position as owner, recorded.

Maybe this is the Achilles heel; the DVLA, by their own words, has stated they are not concerned with ownership.

So throwing off the shackles of "keeper" (or never taking it on board) and asserting the status of "owner" keeps this out of the DVLA jurisdiction or sphere of influence.

[number_6]

If the owner is the keeper, why differentiate?
Why is the DVLA only interested in the keeper?
Why do they not deal with the owner?


Because in many cases the keeper is not the owner. Such as lease cars, company cars etc. I keep banging on about this ownership stuff, but at no point do DVLA claim ownership of a vehicle registered with them. They really don't want your vehicle.
Try this:
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/leaflets/inf57.pdf

[bsmurph83]

They have completely avoided the ownership question.
I smell a rat.

What they have said is that the DVLA is not concerned with ownership.
So who is?

Also, a speeding ticket (correct me if I am wrong), is issued to the owner, is it not?
Or is it the keeper?

If the owner is the keeper, why differentiate?
Why is the DVLA only interested in the keeper?
Why do they not deal with the owner?
At what point do we assume the title of keeper?
When do we give consent or agreement to this status?
If I buy a car, I do not want to be referred to as the keeper; I would like to have my position as owner, recorded.

Maybe this is the Achilles heel; the DVLA, by their own words, has stated they are not concerned with ownership.

So throwing off the shackles of "keeper" (or never taking it on board) and asserting the status of "owner" keeps this out of the DVLA jurisdiction or sphere of influence.

as far as I'm aware, the minute you register the car with the state, it becomes a 'vehicle' and you become a sort of 'co-owner', or a sort of 'holder in trust'. once you register it and get the plates and a 'driver's license', you've tacitly consented to State ownership of the 'vehicle', you just get to 'rent' it out for your use (keep rego up to date, etc). hence, people have their cars taken from them for doing nothing wrong. they signed it over to the state without realising it... rego, license, plates; these all grant authority to the State. they are contracts, not fully disclosed contracts, but they see it as one none-the-less, from what I can tell...

[merlincove]

as far as I'm aware, the minute you register the car with the state, it becomes a 'vehicle' and you become a sort of 'co-owner', or a sort of 'holder in trust'. once you register it and get the plates and a 'driver's license', you've tacitly consented to State ownership of the 'vehicle', you just get to 'rent' it out for your use (keep rego up to date, etc). hence, people have their cars taken from them for doing nothing wrong. they signed it over to the state without realising it... rego, license, plates; these all grant authority to the State. they are contracts, not fully disclosed contracts, but they see it as one none-the-less, from what I can tell...

this is now my thinking bsmurph.

i asked if registering was entering into a contract and they said no there was no contract. But you still make a deal with them to abide by their rules and when you stop abiding then they are able under their acts / laws to take measure. If that isn't a contract i don't know whet is.

[sindakit]

Because in many cases the keeper is not the owner. Such as lease cars, company cars etc. I keep banging on about this ownership stuff, but at no point do DVLA claim ownership of a vehicle registered with them. They really don't want your vehicle.
Try this:
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/leaflets/inf57.pdf

Obviously the keeper doesn't have to be the registered owner but your example is a contraditcion to what you say. Is this example not similar to a human who bought the car and has recieved the V5 except for an extra party involved??

The viewpoint on this forum is, for the human, the V5 makes him keeper while the state/corporation is the owner of his car i.e DVLA. (2 parties: human+corp.)

For a lease car or company car, the human drives that car but is neither the owner nor the keeper as the rental company or company the human works for is the registered keeper (hence it being called a company car) yet the ownership still floats with the state/corp. i.e DVLA. (3 parties: human+company+corp.)

Is that not how it works since the rental company or the employer company are required to maintain the upkeep of the car: the definition of keeper, no!?

If said human gets a PCN or damages the car he decides to pay as he's agreed with the company (keeper) when he signed for the car to accept responsability for those when its under his care but he's never the keeper.

[number_6]

Is that not how it works since the rental company or the employer company are required to maintain the upkeep of the car: the definition of keeper, no!?


Not at all. The definition of the keeper, is the person who is normally in possession of the vehicle. In the case of a company car, the company is the legal owner, the company car driver is the keeper, as he keeps it at his address. It's that simple. In the case of a vehicle on finance. The finance company own the car, the borrower of the money is the keeper, as the vehicle sits in his drive.
It only takes a few minutes of searching the DVLA website to see that they admit that they are not the legal owner of any vehicle registered with them. But nobody here seems to want to recognise this fact, after all, why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy?

[number_6]

At least DVLA don't claim ownership of these:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/leaflets/v765x1.pdf

[merlincove]

Not at all. The definition of the keeper, is the person who is normally in possession of the vehicle. In the case of a company car, the company is the legal owner, the company car driver is the keeper, as he keeps it at his address. It's that simple. In the case of a vehicle on finance. The finance company own the car, the borrower of the money is the keeper, as the vehicle sits in his drive.
It only takes a few minutes of searching the DVLA website to see that they admit that they are not the legal owner of any vehicle registered with them. But nobody here seems to want to recognise this fact, after all, why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy?

it just seems logical that someone is the legal owner, and seing as it isn't the 'one' who bought the car, either company or 'person' then who does own it, that is all i was trying to find out.

i don't want to dig this into a conspiracy theory, but the fact remains unless one abides by vera, having signed the reg certificate i think such binds you to obey their rules, along with the drivbing licence application, then they have power of oterney upon a vehicle whether they own it or not, and that is wrong imo :cool:

[number_6]

it just seems logical that someone is the legal owner, and seing as it isn't the 'one' who bought the car, either company or 'person' then who does own it, that is all i was trying to find out.


But that is the whole point. The legal owner is the one who "bought" the car, i.e. paid the money, be it company or finance company. The keeper, although may have custody, may not have paid for it, thereforefore may not be the legal owner, but is the keeper.

[yozhik]

Problem with this logic is there will not be a "registered owner".

The owner will hold the "note" on the car, but will not be registered.
If the title holder registered as the owner; he/she would be handing interest into the car, to an additional party.

Any question re: "Who is the registered owner" is a self defeating question.

"Who holds title?" or "who (or what) holds the note of this car?", may be the more relevant questions.

However, just to be clear ... following the logic of the argument being suggested ... there will not be a "registered owner". It becomes a cyclic argument; as soon as the "true" owner registers his status as the true owner, he immediately surrenders his position as the true owner.

So, this leaves 2 options;

1. number_6 is correct and the whole notion of registration is a suburban myth, fuelled by peoples love of conspiracies ...

OR

2. the owner does not exist "on paper", or in a list or in a register. The owner is some background entity and master of stealth, who holds the original note of the vehicle - the title - which you will never see nor will it be admitted.

[merlincove]

But that is the whole point. The legal owner is the one who "bought" the car, i.e. paid the money, be it company or finance company. The keeper, although may have custody, may not have paid for it, thereforefore may not be the legal owner, but is the keeper.

Yeah, i know where you are coming from :D
maybe it would be nice if the dvla actualy called the owner the owner and made a distinction between the owner where the owner is not nec the designated keeper.

Won't matter soon mind as they are having their v5 and plates back :D

[miked]

Hello everyone

I find all this very interesting! Aswell as fighting off mortgage repossession and my council wanting to send me to prison I too have been looking at the whole car business!

For 6years I ran my own classic car restoration workshop until 12mths ago when I had some very profound realisations and packed the whole thing in! I am now driving around with no licence (its just run out!!) or insurance and soon with no tax disc.

I have been looking into this and this is my understanding:

The 'Log Book' or V5 is a created leagal doccument that evidences (certifies) registration of a vessel. On the front it says ' UK certificate of registration', try looking for one of these for your person instead of your birth certifiacte!

The Corporation UK has Certified registration to - DVLA as named on the front!

The term 'ownership' literally means to 'own a ship' as anything that carries value and product is classed as a vessel. Your corporate fiction name is the vessel YOU get transported around in on the sea of commerce.

The dvla has ownership of every registered vessel. It appoints the registered keeper as agent or capatain of that vessel with full right of title holding.Why? Because you paid for it and them gave it too them for free!! So they give you the right to sell the car and take the money, the dvla know as soon as the person you just sold it signs the log book they have just re-registered it back to the DVLA. That is why there is a bold legal notice at the bottom where you sign stating that both parties must sign!! Fuck me, its so obvious now!!

So how do you 'de-register'? Well, its my view that you cant. Simply because I see it as a vessel and if you are asking to 'de-register' you are in there jurisdiction and they will claim right of ownership everytime!

It is my believe that we have been lead astray, by ourselves and others. We believe we can 'own' something and have a right to it being intrinsically ours when infact no man or corpaoration can claim anything as 'theirs' we are trustess of the future and writters of the past and share everything equally, all at once!!;)

Ownership is in fact a commercial lien over the rights of a trustee or sovereign through a contract of transference.

The banks want us to put 'value' to evrything! All the things in our lives that are there because money we fear loosing, houses and cars kept under 'Lock and Key - Loch and Quay to stop the flow of current sea!

Sorry, getting carried away

Anyway, the root I am going down is that I will be notifying the DVLA that I am a spirit who is the possessor of a vehicle formely registered to DVLA but is now held in trust by me.

I will also be notifying all of the board at my local police authority that they no longer have my consent to act as police upon me and other named parties!

I have a lot of respect for Richard for what he has done, it has helpt with my understanding of my own life. keep up the good work!!

Feedback to this post would be appreciated!

Cheers

Mike

[merlincove]

nice insights mike - i like how you look at the world, it is refreshing.

Don't forget to send the dvla their cert back tho as the reg is actually theirs, as are the plates

richard has done a great job in treading out a path, it is up to us now to make that path through the jungle of red tape a motorway wide track that everyone can follow :cool:

[number_6]

Yeah, i know where you are coming from :D
maybe it would be nice if the dvla actualy called the owner the owner and made a distinction between the owner where the owner is not nec the designated keeper.

Won't matter soon mind as they are having their v5 and plates back :D

If I am not mistaken, the bottom line reason that DVLA will not allow a list of vehicle owners, is that if there is ever a dispute about true ownership of a vehicle, for instance, a man and wife getting divorced, they do not want to waste their time and money getting involved in Court cases, which in truth have nothing to do with them.

[girlgye]

Hello everyone

I find all this very interesting! Aswell as fighting off mortgage repossession and my council wanting to send me to prison I too have been looking at the whole car business!

For 6years I ran my own classic car restoration workshop until 12mths ago when I had some very profound realisations and packed the whole thing in! I am now driving around with no licence (its just run out!!) or insurance and soon with no tax disc.

I have been looking into this and this is my understanding:

The 'Log Book' or V5 is a created leagal doccument that evidences (certifies) registration of a vessel. On the front it says ' UK certificate of registration', try looking for one of these for your person instead of your birth certifiacte!

The Corporation UK has Certified registration to - DVLA as named on the front!

The term 'ownership' literally means to 'own a ship' as anything that carries value and product is classed as a vessel. Your corporate fiction name is the vessel YOU get transported around in on the sea of commerce.

The dvla has ownership of every registered vessel. It appoints the registered keeper as agent or capatain of that vessel with full right of title holding.Why? Because you paid for it and them gave it too them for free!! So they give you the right to sell the car and take the money, the dvla know as soon as the person you just sold it signs the log book they have just re-registered it back to the DVLA. That is why there is a bold legal notice at the bottom where you sign stating that both parties must sign!! Fuck me, its so obvious now!!

So how do you 'de-register'? Well, its my view that you cant. Simply because I see it as a vessel and if you are asking to 'de-register' you are in there jurisdiction and they will claim right of ownership everytime!

It is my believe that we have been lead astray, by ourselves and others. We believe we can 'own' something and have a right to it being intrinsically ours when infact no man or corpaoration can claim anything as 'theirs' we are trustess of the future and writters of the past and share everything equally, all at once!!;)

Ownership is in fact a commercial lien over the rights of a trustee or sovereign through a contract of transference.

The banks want us to put 'value' to evrything! All the things in our lives that are there because money we fear loosing, houses and cars kept under 'Lock and Key - Loch and Quay to stop the flow of current sea!

Sorry, getting carried away

Anyway, the root I am going down is that I will be notifying the DVLA that I am a spirit who is the possessor of a vehicle formely registered to DVLA but is now held in trust by me.

I will also be notifying all of the board at my local police authority that they no longer have my consent to act as police upon me and other named parties!

I have a lot of respect for Richard for what he has done, it has helpt with my understanding of my own life. keep up the good work!!

Feedback to this post would be appreciated!

Cheers

Mike


Yippee. Does this mean I don't have to labour over CoR to them then?