Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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 : Debt Recovery Notice - unlicensed vehicle


angel81uk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4821 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

Ok, are you sitting down with your chosen beverage to hand as this could be a long and interesting one!

 

In April 2009 a DVLA "Clamping Partner" towed and impounded my car. The reason? They claimed it was being kept on a public road whilst declared SORN. The reality? It was parked in my privately owned parking space outside my privately owned residence. Cue a long, drawn out argument with the clamping partner, me saying it was parked on private land and here's my proof, them saying we don't care we say its a public road. The DVLA removed themselves from the argument saying they don't get involved in disputes regarding public/private land and if the clamping partner took the car then they did so correctly as they know the rules.

 

At this stage I was planning on scrapping the car anyway so there was no way I was going to pay them to release it. If they wanted to hold on to it and eventually crush it they're welcome to, it saves me the effort.

 

Fast forward 7 months to November 2009 and I get a phone call from the Clamping Partner saying they were releasing my car without charge and after a bit of an argument they agreed to return it to the location it was towed from (my privately owned parking space). No apology, no nothing, I guess they realised the error of their ways and wanted to use the space in the pound for a vehicle that someone was willing to pay to release.

 

Well the vehicle was never returned to me. As far as I was aware the clamping partner couldn't be bothered to bring it back to me. That's not what the DVLA records say though. More on that in a moment.

 

Fast forward another 13 months to the present day and I've received a Debt Recovery Notice from a debt collection agency on behalf of the DVLA. They are wanting an £80 out of court settlement as I am the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle (unlicensed since April 2010). Well yes, I suppose that is factually correct, I am still the registered keeper and it isn't licensed.

 

This is where we go back to the DVLA records of the seizure and subsequent release of my car. After a few phone calls I have found out that the records state that the vehicle was indeed returned to me in Nov 09 and apparently include photographic evidence of the return along with a note to say they left me a voicemail informing me of it's return. The car was never returned to me, the road I live on or a reasonable distance from it. The voicemail doesn't exist either. The DVLA records then apparently go on to say that the car was seized and returned a second time under the same circumstances, however this time there is no record mentioning them trying to inform me of the situation. I haven't seen my car since the day it was taken back in April 2009. The records say it was returned to me but it wasn't and no one can tell me where the vehicle is. It has to all intents and purposes disappeared.

 

So I'm left with a debt recovery notice for being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. Great. How on earth was I supposed to license a vehicle that has gone missing?! I can't make a factually correct SORN declaration as I cannot declare that the vehicle will be kept off public roads. I can't tax it as I don't know where it is to get it MOT'd etc. I can't de-register as the registered keeper and I haven't sold, transferred to the motor trade or exported the vehicle. I couldn't even report it as stolen because as far as the Police are concerned the DVLA seized it rather than stole it.

 

It's a complete catch 22. The debt recovery notice is correct, I am the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. But only because I had no way of not being the registered keeper or licensing the vehicle. Even if I pay the £80 the situation still won't be resolved as the car will still be unlicensed.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I should approach this one? :???:

 

There is one part of the debt recovery notice that particularly amused me though. They state that if I do not pay the out of court settlement immediately legal action may commence and they might clamp or impound the vehicle. :lol: They'll have to find it first!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As this one is still ongoing I wonder if anyone has any advice?

 

I've ended up having to pay the fine as it had been passed from a debt collection agency to a solicitor and legal action was about to start. I hope to claim this back somehow but if I have to take the hit for now then so be it.

 

The problem is the vehicle still isn't declared SORN. I've spoken to the DVLA again (I'm awaiting a response to a letter I wrote to them last month) who agree that I would be making a false declaration if I filled out a SORN application whilst not knowing where the vehicle is. They recommended I speak to the police again.

 

On phoning the police I spoke to a very helpful officer who had been through a similar situation himself (has received complaints re his SORN car parked in a private bay which people think is a road). He spoke to his sergeant and they agreed to report my car as stolen. Situation solved I thought!

 

Then this morning I get a call from another officer who was looking into the case. She takes the same line that was originally taken in April 2009. As it was the DVLA who took the vehicle it hasn't been stolen. Unless I can get the DVLA to write to the police stating when they returned the vehicle and the location it was returned to then it can't be reported as stolen.

 

So I'm still stuck in the situation where the car isn't declared SORN or taxed and isn't listed as stolen so I'm still open to any fines the DVLA care to throw at me.

 

Any suggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If the DVLA say you owe them money, then you can either accept an out of court settlement or go to the magistrates court. The magistrates might accept your story especially if you have a record of any early correspondence to the DVLA at the time when your last tax disc or SORN ran out.

 

If you didn't contact DVLA then you could find you end up with a bigger fine from the court than the out of court settlement you have been offered.

 

To protect yourself for the future, as you are not the keeper of the car, I suggest you write to DVLA explaining where the car is and who you think is the keeper, ideally using the tear off slip on the registered keeper certificate. Keep copies and produce these to DVLA and a court if necessary for any bills that would run up after the date of the letter.

 

Do make sure you reply to any letters from DVLA or a magistrates court though or you can be found guilty in your absence (that's what happens to most people).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...