Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Untaxed vehicle


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2195 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

I got a letter from the dvla that says they have photographic evidence of my car on the road (6/9/2017) and if I did not pay an out of court settlement of £361 by 29/9/2017 they would send it to court to get it.

 

I haven’t taxed it since March and I have taken a few months off work to do some home projects, but I got busted the other day going into town, as above.

 

They say that even if I tax it then the penalty of £361 still stands and I have to pay it to them.

 

Can they do this?

 

Also I just went online to get it taxed and it says that I have not paid since Nov 2016,

I am sure I taxed it in Spetember 2016 and it ran out in Feb/beginning March 2017…

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Late Licensing Penalty is treated as a civil matter.

 

Using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is a criminal offence, if the out of court settlement offer is not paid, it is a matter for a court case in magistrates' court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Yes.

PUBLIC being the operative word. Law is funny around this point but the SORN doesnt allow it to be just left in a car park.

is this something they can do to me even though my license is revoked? being in a public car park not on the road
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

PUBLIC being the operative word. Law is funny around this point but the SORN doesnt allow it to be just left in a car park.

 

A SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used or kept on a 'public road' - a road repairable at public expense. A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato and others, House of Lords 1989

Link to post
Share on other sites

A SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used or kept on a 'public road' - a road repairable at public expense. A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato and others, House of Lords 1989

 

Yes and no. The marked spaces in a car park are not subject to the RTA. The roadways are. So a vehicle in the roadway even within a car park must have everything that it needs (VEL, insurance, MOT etc).

 

But assuming that the vehicle was parked in a space, as it normally would be when parked in a car park, then the 'public car park' is a bit of a red herring.

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

Yes and no. The marked spaces in a car park are not subject to the RTA. The roadways are. So a vehicle in the roadway even within a car park must have everything that it needs (VEL, insurance, MOT etc).

 

But assuming that the vehicle was parked in a space, as it normally would be when parked in a car park, then the 'public car park' is a bit of a red herring.

 

A public car park would be a 'public place' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and so that act would apply.

For vehicle licensing and SORN purposes, it would need to be considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A public car park would be a 'public place' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and so that act would apply.

For vehicle licensing and SORN purposes, it would need to be considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

 

Ahh yes, you are correct. My mistake. Although it's probably not helped by the fact that legislation plays 'mix & match' with what it defines as a road. :lol:

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

There was a case of a chap who got lost following his satnav and drove up a farm track and got stuck. When he called for help he got doen for driving without due care ad attention. This begs the question as to why the law applies on private land and also WHAT other road users?

 

If the law is misapplied the yu can bet your bottom dollar it will be misapplied in the circumstances outlined here. The original case law regarding display of tax discs was in Cheam Library car park and the judge said that it didnt matter how the vehicle got there it was only how it was when the CEO ticketed it that was important so there is some protection from the law but the OP will soon have his car removed and also get a further series of bills for the priviledge

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the farm track was considered to be 'a road or other public place' within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988, then a charge of careless driving is possible - s.3 of that act.

 

If Cheam library car park was not considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise Act 1994, the judge was correct that there was no a requirement to display a vehicle licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP has not been here since sept 2017

 

thread now closed due to newbie bumping since then

 

start a new thread

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2195 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...