DROS down for anybody 6:20PM Tuesday evening

[kemasa]

I have never seen them say that a second printout is required, nor that a second thumbprint is required.

What is required is marking the DROS with the date/time of delivery, which a second printout really does not accomplish just because it has the delivery date and time on it.

[ugimports]

Others in this thread (or maybe it was a different) claim they have been told they must do the 2nd printout + get a 2nd thumbprint. I and others have argued it isn't supported in the PC, but it appears the "catch all" of how 28255 is written seems to indicate they can dictate what qualifies as notifying the department. As obsurd as it sounds they can say "the 2nd printout is required to notify us" even though the printout / thumbprint / whatever is not actually notifying them. Or am I reading too deeply into what 28255 suggests?

I'm more than happy to argue with them, but don't think I have the ammo I need yet to do so adequately.

[kemasa]

Every time someone has made a claim that the DOJ says that a second thumbprint is required, there is nothing ever given to back that up. No actual reference to anything the CA DOJ has put out. Not snapshot of an online discussion with the CA DOJ. Nothing. If there is some reference somewhere I would like to see it.

[ugimports]

Every time someone has made a claim that the DOJ says that a second thumbprint is required, there is nothing ever given to back that up. No actual reference to anything the CA DOJ has put out. Not snapshot of an online discussion with the CA DOJ. Nothing. If there is some reference somewhere I would like to see it.

Where in PC 28255 does it say that they have to document that they require a thumbprint? Can't they say they told you verbally about it since that would be:

the dealer shall notify the Department of Justice of that fact in a
manner and within a time period specified by the department

bolded section.. I don't see a legal definition where "specified by the department" means it has to be in writing.. conceivably they can tell you on the phone and you'd be forced to do it from that point forward, correct?

[kemasa]

The CA PC states that you have to get a thumbprint, but that is at the start.

Yes, they could verbally tell people, but then how do they prove that they did specify it? They have not told me. What do they say about getting information on the phone? It is not official, so they can't just pick and choose whether it is official or not.

[ugimports]

The CA PC states that you have to get a thumbprint, but that is at the start.

Yes, they could verbally tell people, but then how do they prove that they did specify it? They have not told me. What do they say about getting information on the phone? It is not official, so they can't just pick and choose whether it is official or not.

Understood about thumbprint at start also about the call being unofficial. What I'm saying is for those that claim they were told the 2nd thumbprint is required they don't really have an excuse if the call as documented by DOJ. I haven't been told this either so will continue to not do it.

I'm sure the DOJ could use the excuse of "It's on the form, why didn't you get it?" which is the same reasoning folks have started to collect it. When you print the 2nd form there's a blank. Now while I'll probably find out the "officialness" of it during my next DOJ Audit I'm in the same boat as you and will not do the extra crap processes until it's better spelled out.