Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

DVLA : Important info-new rules from 2011 for insuring vehicles that are off road.


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3112 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

From 1st.January 20011,if there is no record on the MID (Motor Insurance Database) showing a vehicle is insured,which has not been declared as off road by a Sorn,the registered keeper will recieve a warning letter advising of a fine,prosecution,or clamping.

 

All vehicles that are not registered by SORN -even if they are not being used are included.

 

Vehicles that are Sorn registered remain unaffected,and there remains no requirements to insure the vehicle.

 

More details;

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl

Edited by MARTIN3030

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression it was from 1st.January 2011.

Maybe they will tell on the MID website.

I got wind of it with a notice included in my renewal forms this week.

Presumably its being sent out now with all of these.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicles without a SORN have seen enforcement action taken for being unlicenced-so I think they will be using that database-but maybe they will all be configured together to give them recourse for enforcement action more speedily.

They already have most angles covered.

Maybe this is being introduced for those whose vehicles DO have Tax and MOT but have not been declared Sorned.

Its a pain for those who may have temporarily taken their car off the road for example because needs work or parts and cancelled their insurance pending that being sorted.

This means now that they will have to Sorn the car whilst awaiting that or else keep insurance in force.

For a motorist who is paying £50-£100 a month for insurance its a blow.

MID say that unisured drivers cost the UK more than £500 million a year.500 vehicles are seized every day.

300,000 offenders are convicted for uninsured driving every year.

But the new rules do not distinguish between a motorist whose car is genuinly off road uninsured to someone driving up the road while uninsured.

Surely the ANR the Police are using already can identify those real offenders.

Looks like another potential backdoor earner for the Government.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if that is the reason for the delay implementing it, plus the differences between the requirements of the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 in respect of vehicle licences, and Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of insurance.

Currently a vehicle that is not on a public road can be SORN under V.E.R.A.1994, but if that location is a road or other public place under R.T.A.1998, insurance is required.

 

We've just renewed our insurance and nothing in the paperwork about it, I would think there would be some information/advertising from the government if it was happening so soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It seems that the DVLA will be in charge of Continuous Insurance Enforcement with all th problems that will bring.

 

I wonder how they will cope with a neighbour's land rover. He uses it intermittently for "Mud Plugging" and only insures it for those occasions. For the rest of the year he allows me and several others to use it on our own "RTA only" insurance (You bend it you mend it).

The present wording of the law cannot cope with that just as it cannot cope with hire cars that are only insured during the hire period and lease hire cars where the registered keeper has the responsibility to insure but is not the owner and therefore does not give a damn if the car gets crushed. The latter have special provisions made for them but what will happen to the owners of classice and vintage cars that are only insured for the dutation of the events and where the car is tax exempt. It is a cock-up waiting to happen and the DVLA will no doubt take full advantage in the issuing of penalty charges.

The continuous registration debacle was supposed to bring in £30,000,000 a year but actually costs the taxpayer £18,000,000.

When your insurance ends mid month are your prohibitted from using the car for the first half because it must be SORN'D for the whole month or are you allowed to use it up to the last day of the insurance and only SORN it at the begining of the next month?

There are too many pitfalls that will be used to make the motorist pay more.

I am waiting to see who is the first to post about geting "fined " for no insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another minefield.....you buy a new car, park up the old one in your drive which still has tax and test left.

Cancel that insurance and transfer to your new vehicle while you try to sell the old one 'taxed and tested'.

Under these rules you are now liable unless you sorn and send back the tax disc.

No refunds for part months but the new buyer must tax it from the beginning of the month so potentially the government get 2 months tax for the single month.

Yet more money grabbing ........how they can keep banging on about honesty when they pull tricks like this beggars belief.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the problems, the proposed s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988 introduces the offence of keeping a motor vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements, as against using a motor vehicle - s.143:

 

s.144A (1) If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

 

It then has sections on how a vehicle meets those requirements, but again, except in sub section 5, does not mention 'use', only 'vehicle'.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

In this years accounts for the year 2009-2010 the DVLA admit that the Vehicle register is only 97.1% accurate ( 96.7 previous year) which means that there are about 1.25 million vehicles whose record is inaccurate. That probably accounts for the majority of the so-called uninsured vehicles on the road. the rest are hardly going to be put off.

 

A young lad buys a very cheap car for cash with ten months MOT and tax then gets someone with a declared interest to insure it RTA only for a few pounds and lo and behold it passes all roadside checks. Only the lad driving is not insured. and already banned so TWOCing is not a problem to him but the insurance companies are loosing out.

 

For this when my insurance on the camper van runs out on the 27th June and i don't use it again untill September. My choice is simple, either I cease to use it for the last three weeks and SORN it or re-insure. either way I lose out. I would normally leave it taxed and only insure for the next outing.

 

The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank and the DVLA are waiting to pounce with the proposed £1000 penalty charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Can't see this is legal even. What if the vehicle is under foreign insurance? It is still insured and quite legal. If someone else has insurance to drive it then again the vehicle is covered by the minimum legal requirements. I see this as a big con and will not stop the problems that should be addressed. Just another tax on the public for cash strapped government.

 

Basic third party insurance and road tax could be on fuel. That way if you buy fuel you have road tax (VED) and third party cover. If people want fully comp then they have the option to pay for this. Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

 

I'd rather just see them all lying in the road filling the pot holes, much more useful then. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link mm.

There was some confusion as to when it was actually starting.

Even the media is confused-I heard one radio station reporting it was from April 1st.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agreed.

Especially in consideration of those enthusiastic traffic wardens.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agreed.

Especially in consideration of those enthusiastic traffic wardens.

 

Well for a traffic warden (or similar) to see it, then that would suggest the car is being used on the road without valid insurance, which I fully support. The ones I am concerned with, is the many people who chose to take their car off the road, and do not for one moment consider the need to keep it insured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I was thinking about those who maybe live on council estates and are not using the car for one reason or another.

I know someone who has one parked outside his place and is waiting for insurance claim after someone ran into side.Tax is still ok but he has cancelled insurance since its not being driven.

I informed him yesterday of the new rules and he didnt believe me.

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

 

Hence, we always come back full circle to the question; what the hell is the new rule for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I was thinking about those who maybe live on council estates and are not using the car for one reason or another.

I know someone who has one parked outside his place and is waiting for insurance claim after someone ran into side.Tax is still ok but he has cancelled insurance since its not being driven.

I informed him yesterday of the new rules and he didnt believe me.

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

 

 

if its parked on a council estate, its still on the public highway so would need ins, even before this rule

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

money grabbing rule.

I have read the act am I right in thinking that you will get a fixed penalty for not having insurance or will you also get points etc?

 

If it was your car Tommy I think prob yes you would get both,

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

money grabbing rule.

I have read the act am I right in thinking that you will get a fixed penalty for not having insurance or will you also get points etc?

 

Fixed penalty only (no points unless you're caught using it - same as now) but re-read the relevant part of the Act again. Carefully, and think "SORN fpn cos DVLA lost the form / Interpretation Act". Only, you don't need to think "Interpretation Act" because they've actually repeated the relevant part of that Act into the new legislation! Of course, sending cash through the post unregistered isn't normally recommended........ ;)

 

Pretty unenforceable IMHO. At least the first time you're caught - note that they only "may" offer an FPN in lieu of prosecution, so making a habit of having bundles of tenners lost might not go down well.

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Old man has an old Landie, that he takes of the road and SORNS, it is on private property, not that the SORN notice askes you where you are keeping your vehicle, it is now insured under a multicar policy, however we do not think that it is fair that the DVLA only reimburse you a portion of the tax disc that you surrender, nor the fact that you have to do so, so many days before the end of the month to get even the whole of the next month taken into account, can't they work out daily or weekly rates at the DVLA, don't they own calculators, forgetting the fact that there is one on every desktop in the land!!??

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3112 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...