Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

Council Clamp/Fine AND DVLA fine for untaxed car on public Highway - is that right?


adrian2017
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2402 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

Help please!

 

This is my first post ever on web and I do so because I really need help.

 

I received a huge fine from dvla £407 for commiting a offence by keeping a unlicensed vehicle on the road.

I am shocked because I don't have the money ,

 

I am also going through an Individual Voluntary Agreement setting at the moment ,

wife due to give birth to our second child in 2 weeks

and never worked due to depression ,

never claimed any penny whatsoever either.

I am the only one providing for the Family.

 

I had this car Sorn and parked at the back of the flat in the car park.

I live in a cul de sac and have a car park at front of flat too.

 

Whilst still MOTed I insured it for one day and went to renew my Mot 1 week before it expired

on return parked it at the front of the flat in the car park.

 

While I was abroad my wife called me and told me the car was clamped .

 

It was clamped by the Council and they were demanding £100 fine for unclamping it if it was taxed .

I taxed it and argued for the fine as I was convinced Sorn was covering that part of the car park too ,

but after reading the internet I found it as public road.

This had happened on 1st of July 2017.

 

Now I am receiving this fine as dvla writes that the offence stands s29 .

They saying they have received a report about the above offence.

 

I can understand if someone does this in a repetitive way , or intentionally

but for one mistake to act like this and demand money or else ..,

 

I was completely unaware of the front car park not being looked at as private and I tryied to elxplain it all but got told off by the council people.

 

Is there a way around this please?

Anyone had been thrugh this before?

Any advise will be much appreciate it!

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For DVLA purposes, a public road is (in England & Wales) 'a road repairable at public expense'. You need to establish the status of the land where your car was parked - part of a 'public road' or not. In the case of Clarke v Kato and Cutter vEagle Star (1988), the house of Lords decision was that a 'car park' is not a 'road'.

There have been cases of mistakes by the DVLA contractors clamping vehicles that were not on a public road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As this has been to Magistrates and you have a fine registered, don't delay taking action too long or you will have bailiffs at the door.

 

If you never had a court summons, you might be able to complete a statutory declaration at court and get it reopened where the issue of the land can be raised.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been to Magistrates already ? I thought this had to be sent to me first from Dvla and then if not paid it goes to Court. A bit confused now . They are stating what part of the offence this is but no words of the Magistrates . I only just received it today in the post and I have till 10th of Sept to pay

 

The £100 fine was paid towards the Council , who clamped my car .

I paid it same day .

 

today I received the dvla fine as this was a offence commited at the time regardless of the Council fine.

 

In other words it looks like the Council informed Dvla of the offence and now Dvla want their share so to speak.

 

But four houndred pounds for parking my car in front of my flat looks like robbery to me and with all the circumstances it couldn've come at a better time .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would want to know how DVLA apply that level of fine without oversight of Magistrates.

Surely people do have right to challenge in a court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I can almost read the hate of that person writing this fine.

How had it calculated this ?

Was he even aware that the car was SORN don't think the Council told them this , or was it the Council ?

or they just come up as automated emails?

 

The car was SORN and from the letter it don't seem to reflect this but only unlicensed usage of the car .

You do not get the chance to explain or appeal and I don't think this is fair

 

I tried uploading a photo of the letter but it doesn't work .

This £407 fine its an out of court settlement offer , to avoid court action.

 

I am asked to send the letter back with a cheque or postal order or pay by phone.

 

It is also sent unsigned by a sicere Enforcement Officer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that you cannot afford this penalty amount, then you don't have much choice but to let DVLA take it to court if they want to, where you can defend and if you end up with a fine, you can ask for your financial position to be taken into account. If necessary you can pay a fine over a relevant period making it affordable.

 

You should find out about registration of the land where the carpark is to find out if it is maintained at public expense.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused because i have seen comments by others on other threads that carparks can be treated as public highways.

Was the offence of being unlicenced committed while parked in this carpark or when it was detected on ANPR cameras on the day of the MOT ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are usually Road Traffic Act 1988 matters, where the definition in some sections is 'a road, or other public place', which can include car parks.

 

The OP''s offence - s. 29, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - can only be committed on a 'public road'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.

 

I just wonder whether someone with necessary powers has obtained ANPR camera data and from this they have evidence of the car being driven on a public road while apparently SORN. Perhaps this was at a time the car was not booked in for an MOT.

 

If this is possible, then the OP might ask DVLA for evidence of where and when they believe the offence was committed.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual problem is that an 'over enthusiastic' DVLA contractor clamps a vehicle which is not actually on a public road, and informs the DVLA of the alleged offence, they then start action for the offence relying on that information.

Once they are shown that the vehicle was not on a public road, they discontinue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all so very much for all answers ,

 

This car as well as other cars I had were never ever driven outside law of any sorts.

It wasn't Dvla who clamped the car but the Council .

 

This was driven to and from the nearby Mot station and that was it.

I have never ever thought for 1second that I would get in trouble for parking it where I normaly park .

 

It was parked there before while sorn and other vehicles too.

Thats because I did not know .

 

That cul de sac looks very much a private road to me .

I am sure many people don't know about this.

There are no cameras either .

 

I don't know how they could possibly know about this car and don't know if they coincidently clamped it while I was abroad

 

Might it be that people at Halfords where the mot was done informed Council ?

What would they gain from this?

 

I think the ultimate solution as you say is to go to court and get a chance to explain what happened.

 

 

I don't have money anyway but it is just so upseting because I know I didn't do anything wrong and it frustrates me when I pay taxes and Council Tax etc and they are using and looking constantly to use the law for their benefits worst than banks almost like mafia ,

they twist and bend rules to their benefit and they are so filled with greed.

 

 

I mean another houndred pounds fine from dvla would probably upset anyone but will possibly pay it but four houndred ?

for what?

 

 

how will they use the money to prevent this from happening again?

they won't I am sure is just their greed because they have the law and they can play with people's lifes

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to establish the status of the land where the car was parked] - public road or not - is it a road repairable expense - the local council usually have maps of roads they are responsible for.

 

A SORN vehicle being driven for a an obligatory MOT test is an exempt vehicle as far as licensing is concerned, so it would be of no interest to Halfords.

Link to post
Share on other sites

poss give us the postcode and we can look on google earth?

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

Thank you very much ! Will do that or try to contact the council tomorrow and ask them if that road is repairable expense and then come back here and continue .

Its so great people like yourselfs are so helpful I do same on any field I can help and won't hesitate on this website either

Many thanks again

Have good evening

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean:

 

 

the car park in the middle here?

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

that's a public road then not a car park.

 

 

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

Thank you dx!

 

I see so that is just outside my flat and not allowed to park there while SORN

I get that but giving the circumstances and the fact that I honestly didn't know and not had similar fines before in my life , will I stand a chance in Court?

 

They're asking for another 400 pounds like I knew the vehicle is not licensed but drove it anyway and ignored the law where clearly isn't the case , it was just a mistake.

 

Will I stand a chance over a phone conversation with probably one of the manageres at Dvla ,

explaining what happened and ask for a reduction say 200 pound , will they care ?

 

Many thanks to you all!

 

Apreciate all answers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

pointless IMHO.

if you weren't parked in the carpark by which I mean where the predominantly 6 white cars and the blue/red cars are

[and even then I think you'll find that's council maintained anyway]

 

but were parked by the white van?

that's a public road

the fact that you'd got away with parking a sorn'd car there is lucky to date.

 

so post 11 applies

 

what date are the DVLA saying the offence occurred ?

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

The DVLA Penalty is likely to include the cost of the Stat Penalty for having a SORNed vehicle on a Public road + the cost of road tax since last obtained. A private supermarket car park is not nec 'Private land' if not desgnated as such & to which the general public has access. IMO.

Did you drive on a Public Road to reach the car park, which pres did not contain an MOT Test Centre, whilst the vehicle was effectively SORNed?

Could have been a worse outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you

So much to learn , very expensive though .

If that's the case then I guess I was lucky , stupidly assumed that it is a residential car park

Thank you very much for all your inputs , learned from them.

Hope work colleague will help with the money , humiliating but if its the law and I was in the wrong then it is what it is.

Regards

Adrian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...