Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

How do I unregister my car?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4052 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

does anyone know of a way to unregister a car with the DVLA without claiming to have scraped it?

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Export it or scrap it. The whole idea of continuous registration is that a car can't be "lost" from the database as long as it exists in the UK.

:!: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

if i return the reg document declaring it scrapped, is there an obligation to actually scrap it or can it be claimed as salvage?

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you declare scrapped they will never issue another registration document for it, so you can never put it back on the road.

 

Overseas posting by any chance? ;)

Edited by Spunkymonkey
speeling again

:!: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

If you "self scrap" they will require proof that it has been scrapped or dismantled. You'll have to ask them what the minimum actions required would then have to be done to satisfy them. One famous story was a guy who sent them a video of the car being crushed by a tank.

 

You may want to keep the bits of the car for future projects, so it is understandable that you may not want to destroy the vehicle.

 

Exporting the vehicle is the only other way I know.

 

When you report a car stolen, the DVLA get notified, and they (should) ammend the vehicles register to remove your responsibility to it. But it remains on the register. You can and should - protect yourself by writing to DVLA to have them "remove your interest" in a vehicle that has been stolen. Which makes me wonder if you can legally "remove your interest" in a vehicle not stolen but remains in your possession, I suppose you theoretically can, but it would probably leave you open to prosecution under VERA for keeping an unregistered vehicle.

 

There is something in law about a vehicle without gear box or with engine in such a state that no prospect of vehicle being made mobile (and no intention of owner to put it back on the road) is no longer a motor vehicle.

Smart v Allan 1962

 

Which could help you.

Edited by Wig
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you "self scrap" they will require proof that it has been scrapped or dismantled. You'll have to ask them what the minimum actions required would then have to be done to satisfy them. One famous story was a guy who sent them a video of the car being crushed by a tank.

 

You may want to keep the bits of the car for future projects, so it is understandable that you may not want to destroy the vehicle.

 

Exporting the vehicle is the only other way I know.

 

When you report a car stolen, the DVLA get notified, and they (should) ammend the vehicles register to remove your responsibility to it. But it remains on the register. You can and should - protect yourself by writing to DVLA to have them "remove your interest" in a vehicle that has been stolen. Which makes me wonder if you can legally "remove your interest" in a vehicle not stolen but remains in your possession, I suppose you theoretically can, but it would probably leave you open to prosecution under VERA for keeping an unregistered vehicle.

 

There is something in law about a vehicle without gear box or with engine in such a state that no prospect of vehicle being made mobile (and no intention of owner to put it back on the road) is no longer a motor vehicle.

 

Which could help you.

 

what im trying to do is remove their interest from my car without trying to create an estoppel.

 

when you register anything, you hand over what ever it is to another party. this is why if your car is found on the road without licence duty then the dvla can tow it away and scrap it. in reality dvla own your car with your consent.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're trying to do what in the USA some people theoretically think, that because they are constitutionally allowed the right to free travel, that right overrides the laws that require them to register their motor vehicles.

 

We in the UK have the same laws requiring all motor vehicles (which are not exempt) to be registered. We don't have a constitution to give us the same theoretical hopes that they have in the USA. I'll bet you won't actually find any Americans who go through with this idea.

 

Unless you remove the engine and have an intention to never use the vehicle on the road again, you will not be allowed to unregister the vehicle.

 

Just out of interest

There are vehicles that are exempt from continuous registration, vehicles which have been stored off road - untaxed, prior to the SORN laws coming into effect (something like 1995) are exempt from SORN regs & fines, unless they subsequently become taxed - or voluntarily SORN'd again, then they have to from that point on be subject to SORN regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute law applies to PERSONS.

 

Statute laws regarding 'motor vehicles' applies to 'motor vehicles'.

 

The questions that you need to know the answers to according to law are:

 

1. who or what is a PERSON?

 

2. What is a 'motor vehicle'?

 

if i describe 'cherries' as round red fruits, does that mean all round red fruits are 'cherries'?

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is trying to unregister his car so that he thinks then he wont have to tax it to run it on a road.

 

I suspect he has been taking lessons in law and thinks he has found a loophole to exploit

 

 

Thanks for that flyingdoc. A none starter I guess then! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont THINKi wont have to pay 'vehicle licence duty', i KNOW i wont have to.

 

there are foreigners who have been here in england for years who have driven their cars without ever registering them, who have to pay no vehicle licence duty.

 

the dvla says that after 6 months they MUST register their car with them. in legalese, the word 'must' is equivilant to the word 'may', and there is no obligation to do anything in which you 'must' make application for.

 

every englishman has a lawful right to travel freely on the queen's highways. you have the right to own and use a private conveyance on the roads as long as you are not acting in commerce.

 

a driver is someone who acts in commerce; a vehicle is a conveyance used in commerce; a passenger is someone who pays. anyone acting in commerce has to register their vehicle and pay duty on it and apply for a licence to drive the vehicle.

 

did you claim to be acting in commerce? by making an application for vehicle registration, driver's licence etc, just like i did, you did claim that.

 

hence the reason why i want to unregister because i am not acting in commerce.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that flyingdoc. A none starter I guess then! :D

 

thats a cracker. it must be the way you tell them :D

 

seriously though, if YOU believe it to be a non starter, then so be it for YOU.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that....

 

and interestingly the Northamptonshir police are cracking down on just the drivers you are talking about - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues-media/175739-checks-target-foreign-vehicles.html

 

however I would be interested to know what statutes you are relying upon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that....

 

and interestingly the Northamptonshir police are cracking down on just the drivers you are talking about - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues-media/175739-checks-target-foreign-vehicles.html

 

however I would be interested to know what statutes you are relying upon

 

Officers can seize vehicles if they have been in the UK for longer than six months and are not registered with the DVLA, Pc David Lee said.

"After that period it must be taxed, insured and go through an MOT if it is older than three years," he said.

 

officers who seize privately owned cars are acting unlawfully. what they will try to do is get the owners to consent to statute law, which if the owners do, will mean they will have to go down the route of registration, licences etc. if the owners fail to consent, the police will have no choice but to give the cars back.

 

if they ever tried to take my private car, i'd sue them. but i would inform the police and the dvla from the start what the status of my car is and myself in regard to it, so that there would be no problems.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the polices power to seize vehicles at roadside are in contravention of the human rights act - right to a fair trial, and would love to see someone take this on.

As a law student i would be very interested in your arguement for your point of view - what statutes are you demending on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the polices power to seize vehicles at roadside are in contravention of the human rights act - right to a fair trial, and would love to see someone take this on.

As a law student i would be very interested in your arguement for your point of view - what statutes are you demending on?

 

the police can seize vehicles because the vehicles were registered. the dvla have rights to that vehicle because of registration, and the owner gave the dvla those rights by applying and subbmiting volunterily, although the owner believing he was obligated to do so at the time on the basis of hearsay or someone in 'authority' saying that he 'must'.

 

i'm not using any statute, i'm using the common law. statute law overides common only when you consent to it, in other words its a contract, which is the reason why the police will ask you if you 'understand'. so i have to be particular about if and when i use statutes.

 

edited to add: everything the policeman said was true in the quote. imo, this article is being used as propaganda to intimidate people into applying for vehicle registration. the police could seize a private car, but they will know they are running a huge risk in doing so.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I have to say that is complete an utter rubbish. Statute law is just that - its law and it applies to you whether you consent or not.

 

a statute is a legisaltive rule of society which is empowered by law.

 

a society is a group of people joined together by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.

 

do you belong to 'society'? do you know the name of that 'society'? were you obligated to join that 'society'? are you free to leave that 'society'?

 

statutes act on the PERSON. a PERSON is a legal fiction, a coporate entity. do you believe yourself to be a PERSON or a Human? do you have an obligation to act on behalf of the PERSON?

 

why does the policman ask you 'do you understand?'. why does he need evidence of the PERSON?

 

why does the customs officer ask for your permission to search through your luggage at the airport, to take swobs, to smash items if they believe it to be concealing drugs? if it was the law and mandatory there would be no reason to ask.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I was misunderstanding - I thought we were talking about reality not exostentialism.

 

A Person is not a legal fiction - there is a tried and tested definition of what is termed a Legal or Natural Person (legal person may be a company) and statutes apply to them whether or not they consider themselves to be part of the society.

 

I am all for challenging the system, for fighting for and championing the ever diminishing bundle of rights that the individual has, but pardon me for saying that your mantra actually makes no sense, and is of no real value in such a forum as this.

 

You cannot challenge the system from without as you appear to be attempting. How, for instance, are you going to get a court to uphold your claim- when part of your claim is that the very statutes that the court relies on for its authority are fictions.

 

whilst these debates are interesting and entertaining, most people come here for hard, factual and reliable advice. not philosophy.

 

oh an by the way - by CHOOSING to live in the UK you are CHOOSING to be part of the society and therefore bound by the laws of the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I was misunderstanding - I thought we were talking about reality not exostentialism.

 

interesting that i keep witnessing this exostentialism in reality because they keep asking for my consent.

 

A Person is not a legal fiction - there is a tried and tested definition of what is termed a Legal or Natural Person (legal person may be a company) and statutes apply to them whether or not they consider themselves to be part of the society.
a PERSON is not a Human, its not anything that exits except on paper. thats fiction.

 

but pardon me for saying that your mantra actually makes no sense, and is of no real value in such a forum as this.
pardon me, but was it not you who took the thread off topic by asking me WHY i was doing this?

 

How, for instance, are you going to get a court to uphold your claim- when part of your claim is that the very statutes that the court relies on for its authority are fictions.
the statute needs to be consented to. if there is no consent how can it possibly be enforced? the court's authority doesnt come from statute, it comes from common law and the soveriegn.

 

oh an by the way - by CHOOSING to live in the UK you are CHOOSING to be part of the society and therefore bound by the laws of the country.
ANYONE choosing to live in the England comes under the law and customs of england as sworn to by the soveriegn... anything else, they contract to. statutes are not laws, that are really coporation rules empowered by law through consent. its starts off as a BILL and then becomes a statutory INSTRUMENT. its commerce!

 

whilst these debates are interesting and entertaining, most people come here for hard, factual and reliable advice. not philosophy.
again, you took the thread off topic asking me why. and if it were all so easliy rubbished as nonsense why havent you answered any of the questions i raised on consent? do you believe those in 'authority' ask you out politeness? lol imo, the reason why you dont address this is because you cant. you have belief system to defend and you prefer to keep that intact than realise gravity of what it all means. thats your philosophy, and good luck to you with it.

 

you cannot beat a system in which you empower it by your consent.

"... all legal obligations arose from FREE CHOICE - which, if it was not expressed, must then be implied"

 

P.S. Atiyah, Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

A police officer asks if a person understands because courts have accepted that the wording of the caution is understood by most people, but also accepts that there may be some who need to have the meaning explained in a different way, therefor they are asked 'do you understand'.

 

In the case of the customs officers, they can have the authority to search, but asking is just being polite and it is a lot easier to do things with consent . If the person refuses they can search anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its starts off as a BILL and then becomes a statutory INSTRUMENT.

 

it starts of as a bill and becomes an act of parliament... and acts of parliament are laws and laws are enforceable with or without your consent.

 

Yes there are times when authorities ask for, and require consent, but there are, equally times when consent is not required or asked and no amount of protestation that you do not consent will prevent that law being enforced upon you.

 

statutes are not laws,

 

plain and simple - but 100% wrong....

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4052 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...