In 2024, by use of the FoIA (ref: FOIR11391), the Authority was asked to provide:
- The number of fines issued from 2020-2023 (1st Jan to 31st December), broken down by year, month and also reason – these being either incorrect name, address, or both, on both the V5C and driving licence
A seemingly innocuous request, possibly designed to confirm the DVLA was taking the matter seriously, an opportunity for the DVLA to send a deterrent message; non-compliance results in action i.e. prosecution and fine.
However, the DVLA elected to refuse the request explaining:
While the DVLA holds this information, it is being withheld under sections 31(1)(a) and
31(1)(d) of the FOIA. The information is considered to be exempt because its
disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and
impact negatively the DVLA’s ability to collect vehicle excise duty.
Factors for Disclosure
- To promote transparency.
- To demonstrate that the DVLA takes its enforcement responsibility for failing to
notify a change of name/address seriously.
Factors for Withholding
- To prevent the information in scope of the request leading vehicle keepers to
fail to comply with their obligations under The Road Vehicles (Registration and
Licensing) Regulations 2002. - Compliance with the above legislation is key to the DVLA’s successful collection
and enforcement of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).
It is a legal requirement for vehicle keepers to notify the DVLA of a change of name
and address.
It is also a legal requirement for a vehicle to be taxed and it is the responsibility of the
DVLA to collect car tax on behalf of HM Treasury. It is therefore imperative that the
keeper of a vehicle notifies the DVLA of a change of address in order to enforce the
payment of car tax. Disclosing the number of prosecutions for this offence would be
likely to prejudice compliance with the legislation, preventing the DVLA carrying out its
statutory functions to appropriately register vehicles and collect duty for the Exchequer.
The enforcement of offences relating to driving licences is a matter for the police,
therefore the information is not held by the DVLA.
If the DVLA were enforcing this aspect of registration, surely disclosure would more likely send a ‘compliance or else’ message?
Conversely, the inference many may gain from the above is ‘the DVLA do not want to say because it would embarrass the Authority and encourage such activity’
Given the number of issues associated with duplicate VRMs and a seeming inability to put an end to this dishonesty, how much longer before the DVLA’s database is so inaccurate, that its integrity is so questionable /unreliable, that no faith can be placed in it?
Time to come to the table with open hands – if there is a problem, end it. If not, tell the world, and demonstrate the DVLA takes enforcement seriously.
02/2025 – To follow … an abuse of the DVLA keeper register and the difficulty having the Authroity assist, act.