Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 3 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Vehicle registration
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by David 15 December 2010
contracts
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by mark-william:baker 23 May 2009
vehicles
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by Armen Landragin 11 January 2010
'Vehicle' Definition and Registration
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by R Jones 21 May 2010
Deregistration of oneself and ones vehicle.
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by Mr Young 16 March 2011
Excise Duty
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by R Austin 6 September 2011
Purpose of SORN
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by R Austin 6 September 2011
SORN Legislation
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by Stephen 13 May 2010
De-Registering
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by Damien Lander 4 September 2010
Legal Ownership
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by Terry Mardy 31 July 2011
Ownership of a Motorised Conveyance
Veronica Chapman made this Freedom of Information request to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
The request was refused by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
From: Veronica Chapman
3 February 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act I request an answer to the
following question:
If I purchase a car (for instance), and register it with
yourselves, do I retain OWNERship of the vehicle, or does the
ownership pass to Governing Authorities, such that I am no longer
the OWNER, but become merely the KEEPER?
Yours faithfully,
Veronica Chapman
From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
4 February 2009
Dear Ms Chapman,
Thank you for your request made under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
Questions regarding 'keepership' and 'ownership' are dealt with on a
daily basis and are DVLA's routine business. I have forwarded your
question to our Customer Enquiry Group who will respond to you shortly
under 'business as usual'.
Yours faithfully,
David Morgan
FOI Team
show quoted sections
February 2009 12:07 >>>
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act I request an answer to the
following question:
If I purchase a car (for instance), and register it with
yourselves, do I retain OWNERship of the vehicle, or does the
ownership pass to Governing Authorities, such that I am no longer
the OWNER, but become merely the KEEPER?
Yours faithfully,
Veronica Chapman
show quoted sections
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
11 February 2009
Thank you for your e-mail.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining, the Department of Transport is
required to record the details of the registered keeper of all motor
vehicles.
The registered keeper should be the person who normally possesses the
vehicle and is responsible for its use on public roads. The keeper is the
person whom the police and other law enforcement agencies normally wish to
contact about the vehicle***s use on public roads. The keeper need not
necessarily be the legal owner of the vehicle.
The vehicle register does not attempt to record ownership and DVLA is not
concerned with issues of ownership. Possession of a V5C Registration
Certificate is not proof of ownership.
The document records the details of the person who has told us that they
are the keeper of the vehicle. If we have reason to doubt the validity of
any application for a Registration Certificate we make enquiries before we
issue it.
It is the bill of sale, receipt, higher purchase papers etc. which you
hold for the vehicle which confirm legal ownership.
At no time does The Department of Transport become the owner of any
vehicle.
I trust my reply has been of some assistance.
Regards
Debra Thornton
[1]www.direct.gov.uk/motoring
References
Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/motoring
From: Veronica Chapman
12 February 2009
Dear Ms. Thornton,
Thank you for your response.
I will look into the difference between 'registering' and
'recording', and may request further clarifications.
Yours sincerely,
Veronica Chapman
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
13 February 2009
THIS IS A SYSTEM GENERATED AUTO REPLY - Please read it as it may apply to
you.
Thank you for your e-mail.
We will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within 3 working days.
Alternatively, for help, advice and online services you can visit the
website at
[1]www.direct.gov.uk/motoring where you can also download many of our
forms.
Please Note: If you do not appear to have received a reply within 3 days,
it would be advisable to check any 'Junk Mail' or SPAM filters which may
be installed on your system, prior to any further contact. Our reply may
have been erroneously blocked by such software.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/motoring
From: Veronica Chapman
1 March 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under Common Law (i.e. the law-of-the-land) it is unlawful to take
someone's property without authorisation that stems from the
verdict of a court.
How, therefore, is it possible to crush someone's car, without such
authorisation - bearing in mind that Common Law always trumps
Statute Law (the latter being nothing more than mere 'Company
Policy')?
How can this be explained, in law, except by the Owner being the
'Company' (in the form of some Government Agency), such that it's
own property is being scrapped?
Yours sincerely,
Veronica Chapman
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
3 March 2009
THIS IS A SYSTEM GENERATED AUTO REPLY - Please read it as it may apply to
you.
Thank you for your e-mail.
We will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within 3 working days.
Alternatively, for help, advice and online services you can visit the
website at
[1]www.direct.gov.uk/motoring where you can also download many of our
forms.
Please Note: If you do not appear to have received a reply within 3 days,
it would be advisable to check any 'Junk Mail' or SPAM filters which may
be installed on your system, prior to any further contact. Our reply may
have been erroneously blocked by such software.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/motoring
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
4 March 2009
Thank you for your email.
Your enquiry has been passed to the relevant department.
Regards
Mr I Harris
[1]www.direct.gov.uk/motoring
[THREAD ID:1-10XBUU]
show quoted sections
From: Tina Higgins
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
13 March 2009
Dear Ms Chapman
Please see attached reply to your letter of 1 March to the DVLA.
Regards
Tina Higgins
Tina Higgins
Policy Casework and Advice
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
SWANSEA
SA6 7JL
Tel: 01792 786727 (GTN 1213)
Fax 01792 384565
E-mail: [email address]
show quoted sections
From: Veronica Chapman
13 March 2009
Dear Tina Higgins,
Thank you for your reply dealt with under 'customer relations' but,
unfortunately, it does not answer any of the questions I raised.
Or, indeed, even remotely address them.
This can be seen by re-reading my question, and the accompanying
annotation.
Your answer continually references Statutes which are NOT the
law-of-the-land, and also something or someone, called "the
keeper".
My question related to the law-of-the-land, which you seem to have
avoided like the plague, and the original question was that of
"ownership", and NOT "keepership".
By what right do you take away someone's Common Law property
(something THEY OWN, not you), without the verdict of a Court of
Law (as the law-of-the-land says MUST happen), and crush it?
Quote me the Common Law that allows that? If you can't then your
Agency is in BREACH OF THE LAW-OF-THE-LAND, and existence and
observation of Statutes does not exonerate said Agency. Simply
because, if a Statute does violates the law-of-the-land, that that
Statute is null & void. (That's the LAW. And perfectly reasonable,
and Common Sense, and quite right too!)
(Especially as, I'm told, vehicles are now taken and crushed for
having a "For Sale" notice displayed within them. Taking away and
destroying some else's property is totally unlawful, and - when
first challenged correctly - will cause you all considerable
problems in terms of reparations)
Yours sincerely,
Veronica Chapman
From: Tina Higgins
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
25 March 2009
Dear Ms Chapman
Please see attached reply to your enquiry of 13 March to the DVLA.
Regards
Tina Higgins
Policy Casework and Advice
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
SWANSEA
SA6 7JL
Tel: 01792 786727 (GTN 1213)
Fax 01792 384565
E-mail: [email address]
show quoted sections
13/03/2009 15:33 >>>
Dear Tina Higgins,
Thank you for your reply dealt with under 'customer relations'
but,
unfortunately, it does not answer any of the questions I raised.
Or, indeed, even remotely address them.
This can be seen by re-reading my question, and the accompanying
annotation.
Your answer continually references Statutes which are NOT the
law-of-the-land, and also something or someone, called "the
keeper".
My question related to the law-of-the-land, which you seem to
have
avoided like the plague, and the original question was that of
"ownership", and NOT "keepership".
By what right do you take away someone's Common Law property
(something THEY OWN, not you), without the verdict of a Court of
Law (as the law-of-the-land says MUST happen), and crush it?
Quote me the Common Law that allows that? If you can't then your
Agency is in BREACH OF THE LAW-OF-THE-LAND, and existence and
observation of Statutes does not exonerate said Agency. Simply
because, if a Statute does violates the law-of-the-land, that
that
Statute is null & void. (That's the LAW. And perfectly
reasonable,
and Common Sense, and quite right too!)
(Especially as, I'm told, vehicles are now taken and crushed for
having a "For Sale" notice displayed within them. Taking away and
destroying some else's property is totally unlawful, and - when
first challenged correctly - will cause you all considerable
problems in terms of reparations)
Yours sincerely,
Veronica Chapman
show quoted sections
From: Veronica Chapman
29 March 2009
Dear Tina Higgins,
Please quote the appropriate Common Law that empowers the DVLA to
take the actions you referred to in your response.
Common Law is the law-of-the-land. The Statutes you quote are the
law-of-the-sea, and do not apply on dry land, without the consent
of any aggrieved party.
Only Common Law applies without consent. Which Common Law provides
the DVLA with the empowerment you quote?
Under Common Law the Statute you quote is null & void, and
application of it (as it stands) is a breach of Common Law. The
actions taken by the DVLA, without Common Law backing, actually
constitute very serious crimes, in point of fact.
Yours sincerely,
Veronica: of the Chapman family (as commonly called)
From: Tina Higgins
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
9 April 2009
Dear Ms Chapman
Please see attached reply to your letter of 29 March to DVLA.
Regards
Tina Higgins
Policy Casework and Advice
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA
SWANSEA
SA6 7JL
Tel: 01792 786727 (GTN 1213)
Fax 01792 384565
E-mail: [email address]
show quoted sections
29/03/2009 09:24 >>>
Dear Tina Higgins,
Please quote the appropriate Common Law that empowers the DVLA to
take the actions you referred to in your response.
Common Law is the law-of-the-land. The Statutes you quote are the
law-of-the-sea, and do not apply on dry land, without the consent
of any aggrieved party.
Only Common Law applies without consent. Which Common Law
provides
the DVLA with the empowerment you quote?
Under Common Law the Statute you quote is null & void, and
application of it (as it stands) is a breach of Common Law. The
actions taken by the DVLA, without Common Law backing, actually
constitute very serious crimes, in point of fact.
Yours sincerely,
Veronica: of the Chapman family (as commonly called)
show quoted sections
Veronica Chapman left an annotation ( 9 April 2009)
The final reply contains nothing more than the usual unsubstantiated assertion that relies on the law-of-waters applied on dry land. No Common Law was quoted to support this assertion, because there is no Common Law to support the assertion.
The pace of the use of Common Law is gathering daily. From now on, therefore, there will be an increasing number of incidents where the DVLA’s assertion will fail. Simply because Common Law will be used by many people to show them that the DVLA have to abide by Common Law (above all else). And the DVLA cannot claim that they were never warned.
mark-william:baker left an annotation (29 April 2009)
statutes and acts under statute are of admiralty as you say Veronica and yes common law does exist and has done for a great many years and has been built upon for hundreds of years they don't wish to acknowledge the fact that admiralty law isn't inferior to the law of the land shame on them and shame on us for falling for their trickery
Keith left an annotation (14 May 2009)
Vitrually all statutes appear to be nothing more than bind and fine instruments. Live your life this way or loose your property ... nice!
One of those "police" programs was on the TV last night. A car was stopped and it turned out that the owner had outstanding "fines" and "charges" totaling £4500!!!! The owner was told to either pay up NOW or his car would be taken from him. The distressed owner offered (involunterily) to pay them £1000 if he could go to a cash point. Two police cars and god knows how many officers followed him to the bank.
LEGAL PLUNDER AT IT'S FINEST!
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Veronica Chapman left an annotation ( 2 March 2009)
Any Statute Law (Act of Parliament) that attempts to supersede the tenets of Common Law is void, in law. Because Common Law is the law-of-the-land, and supreme.
Statute Law is merely the law-of-the-sea, inapplicable on land, and subservient to Common Law in all cases. Historically much has been written about this, in particular by Sir Edward Coke, and Lysander Spooner.
Common Law is based on those 'traditions & customs' of our land. First specifically written down in the Magna Carta, 1215.
It sets the scene for peaceful co-existence. In essence Common Law says that the peace shall not be breached, and that no harm, injury or loss to any other individual is acceptable behaviour.
And that says it all.
Under Common Law a Human being has the Natural Right to 'travel in a conveyance of their choice'. This Natural, Basic, Inalienable, Right is unrestricted, except for the necessity of peaceful co-existence, above.
Common Law also says one has the Natural Right to one's own property, unless a Court of Law (including a Jury of one's peers) decides against this Right, in a specific instance.
Consequently, under the law-of-the-land, any Statute that attempts to modify these basic tenets is void. And engenders no dishonour whatsoever if ignored.
'Registration' transfers superior Ownership to whoever accepts the registration. Thus the property in question has a superior Owner who can - under the law - direct it to be destroyed. Whoever thought they were the Owner, actually becomes merely the Keeper.
'Licencing' is 'asking for permission'. Nothing can be licenced unless it is fundamentally lawful anyway. Consequently if controlling an automobile on the Public Highway is capable of being licenced, then it must be fundamentally lawful. If it is fundamentally lawful, then there is no need to ask permission to do it. 'Asking for permission' is the act of a child. Adults, acting in full responsibility for their actions (as per Common Law) do not need to 'ask permission'.
Consequent to all of this the DEMAND of 'registration' of automobiles and other vehicles is an unlawful act. 'That it is somehow necessary' is a DECEPTION.
The DEMAND that 'licencing' is necessary is a similar unlawful DECEPTION.
The penalties for these kinds of massive unlawful deceptions, perpetrated over an entire population, and for such a great length of time, must be terms of imprisonment.
It is hoped that, as the truth of this situation gradually becomes more widely know (as it surely will), the population of the United Kingdom will have mercy on the perpetrators.
I will vote for the mercy to be extended, but with condition. And the condition is that it stops immediately. And the reason for that is because, they can no longer claim they 'didn't know'. Publicly they have now been told.
Link to this