Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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 4813 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...