Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Failure to notify change of keeper - court summons


moozer
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4828 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all. I need help with this issue. I sold a car in June and sent the V5 document a week or so later. July comes and I receive a letter from the DVLA stating that I am the registered owner of xxx registration mark - this was alien to me as the reg mark stated was not of the car I sold. I contacted DVLA to ask what this was all about. I gave them the reg mark of the car I sold and they confirmed that the car in question was correct and that a problem had arisen due to the new owner applying to get her personalised plate reegistered for that car. I thought nothing more of it. A few weeks later I received another letter from the DVLA asking me to pay a fine for not notifying them of change of ownership of the car. I tried to contact the DVLA to enquire if they had received my documents. They promptly told me to deal with the Preston office (the prosecutor). Contacting the Preston office was a huge problem and when I eventually spoke with someone they told me to pay up or go to court and wouldn't listen further.

 

So, earlier this week I got a court summons.

 

I don't know what to do. Do I respond directly in writing to the prosecutor with a "not guilty" plea? I sent the V5 as required but still haven't received confirmation that they have received it.

 

Where do I stand?

 

Please help - court is 20th October

 

Moozer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some more reading on here. You'll find you can build a defense in regard to there not being a legal requirement to contact the DVLA as they request. Your statement of truth stating you posted of the V5 in accordance with their requirements should be a position they can not refute.

 

Also, write to your MP! writetothem com will help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I write to the prosecutor and detail this? Would they consider ending proceedings against me? I really don't want/can't afford to go to court. I'm a teacher trainee just starting my training on the 18th October. Not looking good if I have to go to court 2 days into it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent an email to my MP through writetothem dot com but have yet to receive a reply. What else should I do? Do I need to reply to the summons by post and mark it as a not guilty plea with a covering letter? If so, should I mention that I have contacted my MP and quote the Interpretation Act section 7 (post)?

 

Any help here greatly appreciated guys. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent an email to my MP through writetothem dot com but have yet to receive a reply. What else should I do? Do I need to reply to the summons by post and mark it as a not guilty plea with a covering letter? If so, should I mention that I have contacted my MP and quote the Interpretation Act section 7 (post)?

 

Any help here greatly appreciated guys. Thank you.

 

The writetothem can take a while, but there are usually all kinds of KPI's that means you will get a reply and they will have to meet a deadline date.

 

Many on here caution against declaring your defence in a letter. If you simply state you met your legal obligation and leave it at that, you can then pull that out in court. It won't be in your interest to provide them with the statutes in order to respond, prior to your presentation of defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have drafted a letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in respect of the allegation that I, xxx, am accused of failing to notify change of keeper on the vehicle xx(previously registered to myself as yy).

I would like to clarify that I have fulfilled my legal obligations as the seller of the above vehicle by forwarding the relevant V5 document to the DVLA in Swansea by first class post on the 14th June 2010. The vehicle in question was sold at 21:40 hours on the 13th June 2010.

Upon receiving a letter from your office on 30th July I contacted your office to discuss the matter and was met with an operator whom would not discuss this issue and I was left feeling rather hurt. I contacted the DVLA in Swansea to enquire about their receipt of the V5 documents and again was unable to discuss matters as the details were now in the hands of your office in Preston.

I am very concerned that this issue has gone as far as court action (scheduled for 20th October) and wish for you to contact me to discuss this.

Yours Faithfully

Any thoughts? Will this solicit a prompt response at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have gone with an additional "Seeking a resolution in court over this matter is your right, but should you persist then I should notify you that I have every intention of defending this matter and seeking to recover my costs."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Seeking a resolution in court over this matter is your right, but should you persist then I should notify you that I have every intention of defending this matter and seeking to recover my costs."

Would this not be the same as sending in the form stating "not guilty" though? I'm going to send this letter tonight, so just need to clarify - do I need to sign the form and send that with my letter or just the letter?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this not be the same as sending in the form stating "not guilty" though? I'm going to send this letter tonight, so just need to clarify - do I need to sign the form and send that with my letter or just the letter?

Thanks.

 

If you're not going to attend court to offer a defence I'd think it would be difficult to win. Personally I'd take the time to attend. There are certain thing you can claim for even though it is small claims, travel, postage and maybe lost earnings. I'm no expert though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Result, though it should never have got that far in the first place.

 

 

DVLA are notorious for losing post, and then sending out fines saying you never sent it!!!

 

The defence to this which was alluded to earlier is the Intepretation Act, essentialy if you posted it then it is deemed delivered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Moozer, Great news! :)

Ive been reading on here for while, I have a very similar if not the same case going on, in my case the V5 was sent of in July 2009, the day after I sold the vehicle. I actually kept a copy of the logbook, for records purposes.

Same as you when I received the FTN notice I rang my enforcement office (Birmingham), quoted the Interpretation Act and the no Legal requirement to case but they weren't budging.

I sent back the form, by recorded delivery stating that I was not the keeper of the vehicle on the date of the alleged offence because it had been sold to "xxxxx " on xxx and that I had sent the v5, via first class post, as required by law.

They have duly come back to me, with a standard letter "ACKPRO" which states “After careful consideration, it has been decided that this case will be settled by prosecution and the case is now being prepared for court. You will receive a summons in due course."

 

I need to check with the experts on here, but I think it may be very helpful if I could quote your encounter should they decide to take it further as this would show that difference enforcement offices are not working to the same process.

 

Did you sign the letter and did you add the additional quote from Zoomboy

"Seeking a resolution in court over this matter is your right, but should you persist then I should notify you that I have every intention of defending this matter and seeking to recover my costs."

 

Regards

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...