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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Caught for keeping vehicle with no insurance **PAID FINE TO DVLA COURT CANCELLED**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2231 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

Hello,

 

I received a court summons for January from dvla.

They sent me a letter back in November for having no insurance and I responded.

 

 

Pleaded guilty but put a note on there saying that the car had been off the road since last November/December as the injectors and the steering rack had gone.

It still had tax and mot

 

Under the single justice procedure they have decided that I am to be taken to magistrates court for trial "owing to the reasons given".

 

The charge is

 

On 24/06/16 at "town", you were the person in whose name a vehicle, namely Motor Vehicle "registration number", was registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 when it did not meet the insurance requirements of section 144A of the Road Taffic Act 1988.

 

Contrary to section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

 

This car has not moved since November 2015.

I drove my partners car for a few months and then got a new car myself.

My old car into have a SORN (yes stupid I know).

 

Anyone know what sort of penalty I'm likely to get.

I am supposed to be working on the day of the trial but it gives no option of not attending court. Certainly don't want a warrant out for me or anything like that!!

Edited by xxxxhelpxxxx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it the car was stored on a public highway then?

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

It wasnt insured so the charge is valid. Thats why SORN exists.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes the chicken and the egg sorry.

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

depends on circumstances tbh. normally a fine, and/or points.

 

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

A level 3 fine + any costs etc. - No points.

 

I agree.

 

Level 3 (maximum £1,000) is what statute says it is, but statute also allows for points and or disqualification (but unlikely here).

However, the statute then gets interpreted, via the Magistrates Court sentencing guidelines (p.130 applies here)

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Final-MCSG-July-2016-1.pdf

 

There are advantages for the OP attending court (both in terms of the court looking more favourably on people who attend, plead guilty and express remorse, as well as the mitigation of this being more "failed to make a SORN" than "failed to have insurance and used the car", which the OP can bring to the court's attention more easily if they attend.

Noting that the car wasn't driven at all will reduce the culpability, and pleading guilty will reduce the fine (usually by a third).

 

Band C has a starting point of 150% of "relevant weekly income" (p. 148), so with a 1/3 reduction : 100% of "relevant weekly income" (with a maximum of £1,000, if the OP earns takes home more than £1,000 per week!).

If the OP is on benefits, expect £120. If the OP doesn't complete a means form, expect £440 (but in court they might then ask you why you haven't completed the means form if pleading guilty ....)

The court isn't bound to use these exact figures, but the guidelines are there to give some degree of consistency across courts and across benches within the same court.

 

Add to that any costs order made, and any victim surcharge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Level 3 (maximum £1,000) is what statute says it is, but statute also allows for points and or disqualification (but unlikely here).

 

That would be the penalty for using a vehicle with no insurance - s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988,

 

The penalty for s.144A is different - sch.2, Part 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended by s.22, Road Safety Act 2006.

Level 3 fine only, no points or disqualification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If found guilty. Yes. It's declarable

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your licence becomes endorsed as a result then yes you will have to declare any endorsements so as not to invalidate cover. Most insurers ask fir a copy of your licence nowadays and bet your bottom dollar any endorsements will be on an insurance database.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your licence becomes endorsed as a result then yes you will have to declare any endorsements so as not to invalidate cover. Most insurers ask fir a copy of your licence nowadays and bet your bottom dollar any endorsements will be on an insurance database.

 

It is not an endorseable offence, it could depend what the insurance company ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience when it comes to insurance, always best to disclose and let them decide if its relevant or not. Better than non disclosure and potential cancellation of policy.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I called DVLA yesterday.

 

 

I realised I hadn't sent back the statement of earnings and that may be why I have to go to court.

 

spoke to them and they said that,

as it hadn't gone to court yet

I could pay the £100 fixed penalty fine

and the case would be cancelled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey well done

I think that's a sensible outcome.

 

 

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

  • 1 year later...

Still do not understand why your case was cancelled - I am in a situation where my car is SORN'd but I am not insured.

 

Occasionally the car leaves the garage unit and placed outside my home so I can maintain and clean up that area.

 

Usually takes me a total of 2-3 days when really changing between the seasons.

 

Am I risking a fine if I have no insurance? How is that even checked...?

 

I visited the main site and found no answers, but did manage to get the main number which is the government contact.

Not prepared to sit on the phone so I figured I could get an answer here on the message board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not you are risking a fine depends on a few factors...

 

If the car is SORN, then you do not need to have the vehicle insured.

Although the best advice would be to still maintain a policy of insurance 'fire & theft only'.

 

However. You go on to say that the vehicle is sometimes placed outside your home.

 

1. How does it get there?

2. Define "outside my home". Is this on the road, or on a driveway?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...