Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

Tony P

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tony P

  1. Not so. You said DVLA told you this? If so, the person is either inefficient or trying to trick you into paying unnecessary Road Tax. https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification says - "You need to make a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) when you take a vehicle ‘off the road’ and you want to stop taxing and insuring it. Your vehicle is off the road if you don’t keep or use it on a public road, for example if it’s in a garage, on a drive or on private land." Nothing about it being YOUR garage, drive or private land.
  2. Could it be the garage was not acting for insurers but speculatively on their own account: making the offer directly to the OP as part of their own repair, resale or salvage activities? I appreciate their offer was not initially acceptable to the OP but if it was the garage's own offer "in present condition", a factor worth considering is there would nothing on the OP's insurance claims record, thereby saving claim related increases in premiums, loss of NCD, etc for some years to come.
  3. So the former g/f (in whose name it was registered if I follow correctly) gets a refund of prepaid Road Tax. I'm glad it's sorted for your Daughter in Law. But remind her she now owes tax for June.
  4. There are some of these now on secondary roads through small towns in France. Great system - it ensures your fastest progress through the town is to be within the limit. Also, the light hold traffic in both ways for 30 seconds or so, during which you can feel the wrath of other drivers who are held up because of your speed. Would never work in Britain - it doesn't generate cash, it only saves lives !
  5. Probably - for someone who is of that size. I've not had the opportunity to find out because the size was not right for length. Which is something the Company could not let me determine in their store. The only way was to pay to be able to take them away to try on properly.
  6. Passing through UK for a ski holiday, I tried on some ski pants in a High Street sports clothing and footwear chain store. The size was "Medium". They fitted me well in street shoes except for length (Ski boots require a different length than you can determine in street shoes, having elasticated inner, and protected outer, bottoms). I could not check for exact suitable length as they didn't have ski boots in their ski or footwear sections in the store I paid for them with a UK Credit Card and took them back to where I was staying, to try on again with a pair of ski boots, fully expecting to get my money back if they were unsuitable. They turned out to still be an incorrect length for me, so were unsuitable (I am not an unusual size or shape). Within hours I took them back the store but they refused a refund offering only a Credit Note to exchange for other goods. I live nearly 2,000 miles away, outside the EU, in a country where this shop has no stores (the nearest is still a days drive away and involves a long border crossing). This is not practical just to see if they have something I might like - and fits! Speaking with them I got no response other than disinterestedly being shown to one of many pieces of paper 'sellotaped' to a sales counter. Emailing Customer Services (sic) also got nowhere. How can I proceed? 1. Do I have to keep the pants (or an unpractical and unwanted Credit Note) despite not being fit for purpose for me, all because the store didn't have proper/full facilities to trying for size? 2. Can I make it the Bank/Credit Card's problem? 3. Have I just learned the hard way not to trust UK High Street chain stores and shop elsewhere where they have proper size checking facilities prior to paying to take them out of the shop? TIA
  7. Imp. Maybe I can help with your "problem". We all assume you mean 'sсаm' ;-)
  8. Simon Tse (then Chief Executive of DVLA) said to the Commons Transport Select Committee in 2011 that they were looking at the possibility of ‘selling’ previously issued registrations. See the transcript (also interesting for other matters), particularly the final paragraph under Q21- https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/uc1611-i/uc161101.htm I am not aware that has come into effect and assuming it hasn’t, DVLA cannot issue (sell) a number that had previously been issued. If or until it does come into effect, other than by ‘normal’ transfer, the exception is previously issued numbers can only be used again once the subject vehicle has been positively identified by documentation and/or certification by recognised Marque Owners Clubs, such as following a restoration.
  9. The OP knows she is in a bad position and probably realises from various posts above it is potentially worse. It is time to be constructive. To ameliorate her potential problems she needs to deal directly with the other Driver and his claim sooner than through his insurers or claims handler. This is to prevent escalation to the police and her own "insurer". If she can successfully reach agreement with the other Driver over his damaged car (and pay it) her only lasting problem would be declaring her past accident on applying for insurance, when she is able to. But that is for the future. The other driver did not provide his details following an accident. This could be a useful little bit of leverage, but not a strong threat as it could be potentially shooting herself in the foot should everything come out in the open. She needs to contact him directly. She now has a name for him. Does the letter show his car registration number? If not, she should request his address etc from whomsoever sent her the letter she has received, stating that he did not provide it at the time. Do this by letter to have a record and demonstrate the matter is not being ignored. On another topic. I assume she is no longer driving her car while banned, so her present "insurance" has no value (other than possibly for 'fire or theft' from private property). This can be cancelled forthwith along with the Road Tax, and at least receive a return of remaining premium and tax.
  10. Looking at the Google Streetview from several angles and positions along all three roads, the following points cross my mind to be considered - - from where the police car was (presumably at the front of one of its 3 lanes at its white line), the OP's white line cannot even be seen in the photos, despite Google cameras operating from vehicle roofs giving a higher viewpoint than someone sitting in a car, as borne out by other camera positions e.g. almost level with the upright 40 sign leaving Broadway - the OP's white line is between 2 and 3 car lengths before the beginning of the junction itself where his road meets the edge of the nearside lane of the nearside carriageway of the other road. - the OP would have passed both sets of traffic lights controlling his direction before even reaching the nearside lane of the nearside carriageway where there were no road markings nor repeater traffic lights controlling him. Similarly there is nothing either on the centre of the dual carriageway or on the far side. This may suggest the actual junction from his direction are not controlled by the OP's traffic lights. - the OP's white line is followed by markings for pedestrians. After those there are no further markings other than those clarifying the two lanes. - in view of the above three points, AND in view of the fence and pavement surfacing arrangements on the OP's immediate nearside and 'his' central reservation, it could be interpreted by a driver that the OP's lights are to control vehicle for pedestrians, and not to control the otherwise unmarked junction further ahead, after both his sets of traffic lights. - the speed limit in the OP's direction changed from 30mph to 40mph very shortly before the road lane markings for his traffic lights. So his speed should have been quite slow and taken him some time from crossing the white line to emerging further ahead into the first carriageway - and longer still to reach the second carriageway in front of the police car. - if the Officer said his lights were green, how long for and was he moving or preparing to move following a change to green when he claims he saw the OP cross his own white line? The light timings including their 'dwell' and synchronisation could be highly important. Traffic Orders and specifications should also be obtained, studied and compared with what is there. An interesting case, albeit highly unfortunate and frustrating for the OP.
  11. Very many years ago (before The Beatles were known) I read a report in a national paper of a motorist as adamant as the OP he similarly had not crossed on a red light at a complex junction. After receiving the Summons, he returned there and spent a long time watching the lights After several sequences he saw 'his' light was momentarily amber simultaneously as another was green. This repeated itself after several more sequences. He spent a long time trying to take photographs showing the two on at the same moment. With one such successful photograph, the Court accepted his Not Guilty plea.. I'm not saying this could still happen with modern traffic light controls and better sensors than the pneumatic rubber strips in the road - but worth going to check.
  12. I had similar ticket a few years ago on another part of the M25. As part of challenging it I spent time researching the Regulations etc - - Each overhead sign only control the lane immediately below it - not an adjacent lane, although they usually are all the same. - The photograph contained information showing the speed set on the sign above the camera gantry. - It also showed how long, in minutes and seconds, that speed limit had been switched on (presumably so as not to catch someone approaching as it lowered). Post 5563b will be the gantry's "address" and marked on the left side support. That will help you identify the exact location and satisfy yourselves as to the sign's visibility approaching at expected speed (the basis of my challenge - I was on the nearside lane on a left bend and the overhead sign was obscured by road signs for much of the approach distance). But you can't stop to check it out - keep moving! Not relevant but if you are wondering - the Magistrates eventually rejected my challenge after about 20 minutes deliberation in another room. They understood my points demonstrated with my own photographs taken from several passes in an open car, but in finding me guilty agreed my total penalty and points to be exactly the same as the Fixed Penalty. (No Speed Awareness Courses then)
  13. It can be any MOT place, not necessarily the nearest. As long as it is pre-booked and you are reasonably en-route. However you must go there directly. Breaking the journey and stopping off on the way there is not permitted.
  14. You were trying to use them as a 'free' office or workplace facility for the cost (and time) of a cup of coffee?
  15. The number digits on both of the car's plates appear partially obscured in the photos but the upper loop of the 6 is clearly open. But there can be little confusion between a blue Volvo estate car and a white BMW - even if the model type was not recognized as a motorcycle. However, would not the DVLA KADOE contract information state "Motorcycle" or "Taxation Class - Bicycle"? According to the accompanying explanatory 'PR' letter from Tesco the same vehicle overstayed two days earlier (nearer 5 than 4 hours this second time) but "as a valued customer we overlooked this first occasion". London area.
  16. I check the mail for a friend who as been out of the country for some months, as is his motorcycle. He has recently been issued with a Charge Notice by Highview Parking at a Tesco. It states his vehicle is a white BMW with an 08 registration. These details and the Model stated are correct for his motorcycle. The Charge Notice gives photos of a car, an estate car, a dark blue Volvo, with an 06 registration - all other digits are the same. Clearly a "Robo" Charge for which no one at Highview has even bothered to look at their 'evidence' in their eagerness to gather cash and alienate Tesco from their potential customers, having obtained DVLA data without justification or proper reason. How best to deal with this for maximum discomfort for Highview/Tesco - and DVLA?
  17. Although some digits within a VIN number refer to more general vehicle type and specification, a full VIN number is unique to one specific vehicle. There can be no two the same - otherwise Registration authorities would not accept or use VIN numbers as an identifier. That being the case it seems the fault is not with the OP's Son or the Dealer but with VW themselves. VW, and only VW, created the vehicle, production records and VIN number. So either - - VW production records were incorrect and did not match the vehicle they produced, or - VW cocked up the order, or - the VIN number was incorrectly transmitted between the Dealer to VW. Assuming it was not the last, VW's 'smokescreen' response of a "special order" is irrelevant and just an attempt to squirm out of it. VW appear to be the cause of the error and the consequences falls on them. Just as the Son doesn't want to sour his relationship with the Dealer, the Dealer depends on VW for his livelihood. However, if it comes to a legal fight, the Son legal relationship was with the Dealer and the Dealer's legal relationship was with VW. I think the OP's Son and the Dealer should conduct a combined approach to/against VW accordingly to obtain the correct specification part at no further cost. If VW can no longer supply this they should admit their error and seek some satisfactory resolution with the OP's Son (via the Dealer).
  18. Tony P

    DVLA car traders

    Raykay's extract from the Act didn't say "your" premises - but "business premises". Could a supermarket car park be considered to be "business premises"? But then again, although privately owned and maintained, a supermarket car park, having public access, introduces other legislation. (just musing)
  19. You assume Courts are so infallible, but what about trained, specialist firearms police officers? They shot and killed Harrry Stanley because they couldn't tell the difference between a gun or a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag. Things happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley
  20. Let's look at the implication of claiming this to be one continuous speeding incident. Long distance road works on motorways generally have limits of 50mph. Assuming both Police forces were following the unofficial guideline of limit+10%+2mph, means the speed would have averaged, as a very minimum, 58mph. 58 mph for 20 minutes would cover a distance of 19.3 miles. Offering a defense that confesses to have been speeding continuously for more than 19 miles would be hardly likely to sway Magistrates toward giving the benefit of doubt over any procedural irregularity.
  21. It was, and maybe still is, the case that DVLA do sometimes reissue an original number to a vehicle with a restriction that the number is non-transferable from that vehicle. This happened where a restored vehicle did not have full 'official' paperwork to claim the original number. In such circumstances DVLA agreed to the reissue of the original number, subject to the non-transfer limitation, based on supporting documentation from recognized Owners Clubs or similar archive sources.
  22. 20th March 21st March Is that abroad from Switzerland where he went back to? and Truest words I've read on this thread! Your cousin appears to have taken your car without the Owners knowledge or consent (theft) - therefore driven it uninsured - driven without a proper full licence holder in the car (him or another sitting alongside) - and when stopped by the Police for whatever reason, lied to them by giving false identity details to deliberately deceive them. And now he has done a disappearing act from where he disappeared to. I would suggest you owe him no favours. I would go straight to the Police with your proof of your own whereabouts on the time/date in question and what you know or were told about the incident, including giving your cousin's identity details as fully as you know. Afterall he thought nothing of giving yours when caught doing wrong. But be prepared not to be believed. At best, that may leave you with the matter of you having kept your own car on the road (depending on where you had parked it when you went away) with a dangerous tyre.
  23. "on a provisional"... "moved back to Switzerland" If it was a Swiss provisional licence (if there be such a thing), he would not be allowed to drive in UK - only Full foreign Licences are permitted. If it was a UK provisional licence, being no longer Resident in UK he probably should have surrendered it to DVLA. "What a tangled we weave when ......."
  24. How did "it dawn on" the OP the cousin used the car that day over 4 months ago when he was out of the country? Did he own up then or now when challenged by the OP? How did the cousin get over a docs/identity verification/check? After stopping the Cousin (one must wonder why) did the Police then let the Cousin drive the car away with such a serious defect or make him change the wheel ? Anyway, putting aside my skepticism about what I've read here, there seems little loyalty among the family if the Cousin avoided his responsibilities when stopped and immediately gave the OP's details at the roadside. In such circumstances I would certainly not seek to protect the cousin by taking his points and adding to my future insurance cost consequences. Side matters for the Cousin to consider - was he driving without owners consent? - was he insured? - was he aware of the defect? I don't know that being in Switzerland puts him beyond active interest by the UK Police.
  • Create New...