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

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 2251 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...