Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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 4819 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...