Dear DVLA

I have received your letter rejecting my application for registration of my BMW R80R. I did not expect a duplicate form to have entries on the back, hence that part was not filled in. Clearly someone, somewhere in your organisation, has Machiavellian tendencies and enjoys producing forms designed specifically to confuse and confound. However, as requested, I have now done this. And, you might want to ask where I obtained the necessary information with which to complete it… yup, that’s right, the V5 that was produced by your database.

As to the rest – I have notified HMRC via the online system as you have requested. This will, doubtless, prove a puzzle for them as I am declaring a UK registered machine, not an import. This bike was registered in the UK and taken to France but never imported into the French system; hence there is no French documentation, only the UK V5, which I have already forwarded to you. For this reason, it does not need a certificate of conformity, nor does it need an export certificate nor does it need any purchase documentation as none such exists. It is a UK registered machine and the seller gave me the original V5, which as I have said, I forwarded to you. All of the information you are asking for, you have, and it resides on your database. And, because I’m a helpful type, I enclose another copy of the V5 showing that this bike is a UK registered machine with a UK registration number along with the relevant information you need – such as date of first registration – in the UK.

As I understand, having spoken to a couple of your colleagues, this bike is showing as dormant on your system, and therefore needs to be registered again – hence the confusing form and the request for £55. Interestingly, you are now telling me that this £55 is not required as this is not a new registration, merely the VED due. Well, yes, I told you that and it would help if you could make up your collective minds about what is needed.

Yet, despite being dormant, the MoT tester was able to access the relevant information, so, too, was the Post Office when I taxed it and my insurer when I insured it. Hence I can advise you that your database is working precisely as it should, so well done. Unfortunately there appears to be one organisation that is having difficulty with this and that is the DVLA. And, on the matter of tax – no, I did not include this because I have already paid it on the 4^th of February immediately after insuring it and putting it through an MoT test, as your colleagues both noticed when I telephoned the other week to discuss this and to explain that, no, this is not an import, it is merely a UK registered machine that needs a new V5.

Despite this machine having been in France undergoing a rebuild this past four years, it is not an import. It is a UK machine and has a UK V5. That you require me to re-register it is bureaucracy that is entirely unnecessary and frustrating, as your database recognises it and outside agencies are accessing it perfectly well. Having gone through this process in the past, I am well aware that it is not difficult.  Having gone through this process going the other way into France, I have to say, you are giving the French a run for their money when it comes to unnecessary, pettifogging bureaucracy for the sake of it.  Although, to be fair to you, they took six months of fannying about before I got the vehicle registered and you have only taken a  matter of weeks so far, so you’ve a way to go yet. Keep it up, you’ll get there, I’m sure.

All I need is a new V5 in my name as the registered keeper. Please just do this little thing for me. It’s what I pay taxes for, after all.

*This is the unedited version. The final draft was a little more toned down.