Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by woad

  1. You might garner a little more sympathy had you not also added the following "Either your just a DVLA troll, a grumpy the 'laws the law' robot or an imbecile. Probably all three." And all of the above is nothing more than a strawman to distract from the FACT that YOU drove an untaxed vehicle on the public highway after buying it, and then left it - untaxed - on the highway. YOU are the author of your own misfortune, no one else. DVLA fine people for having untaxed vehicles on the road, its called 'enforcement'; without enforcement, no would pay the tax. Don't get me wrong, I think we are taxed too heavily in this country, and VED is an insidious tax that doesn't directly benefit the motorists who pay it. DVLA troll? Yeah ok, why on earth would DVLA be 'trolling' these forums. Tell me, why do you assume that someone who has a contrary opinion to yours must work for DVLA? A grumpy robot? See above An imbecile. Ah yes, lets resort to ad-hominen attacks. An imbecile because I disagree with you. Well, I'm not the one with a £200+ fine, a clamped car, and a ruined Xmas.
  2. Great news. At least you have a happy ending to an unfortunate saga.
  3. Hardly punitive, arbitrary and disproportionate. You knew that you would be going on holiday, you knew that you had to insure, MOT, and tax a car, and yet you still went ahead and bought it knowing you had less than 36hrs to complete this. You know that it is an offence to drive an untaxed vehicle on the public highway. It makes no difference that your working day appears to be about 12hrs long, you have a lunch break, no? As for lawyers' fees, well, *we* pay them via our taxes...
  4. Congrats on winning. Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, return the car to them until they have paid you. The car is legally yours until payment has been received. They have, afaik, no legal right to inspect the car - this appears to be a flimsy excuse to find faults in an attempt to say "hey, its damaged". Take multiple photos AND a walk-around video of the car exterior and interior, as close as possible, so if there is any attempt later to say "it was scratched/damaged" you can prove the condition of the vehicle when it left you. If they turn up on Sunday without CASH, then do NOT release the vehicle to them. If they choose to turn up, sans payment, that is their fault, not yours. Do NOT release the car. If they choose to make a long journey, tough, that was their decision. Let them threaten and bluster all they want. I'd also advice that if they do arrive, record a video, especially if they do not have cash. Cash, cash, cash. A cheque can be cancelled, a Bankers Draft needs to be drawn against cleared funds. PayPal Transaction is subject to charges and can be reversed. PayPal Gift is also not advisable. Unless they send a cheque and it clears before they arrive, it's cash all the way. And dont hand them the keys until you have counted it. As an aside, be prepared to have to return to Court in 14 days for a warrant of execution to obtain the sum in judgement.
  5. The use of a .yahoo email address suggest something else; your son might have been targeted as a "mule". It is a simple [problem] in which monies obtained from a target are deposited with a third -innocent and unwitting - individual. This person is fed a story that (s)he will be handling monies on bahlf of another, and will receive a commission/cut for doing so. And quite often that's the case, until ActionFraud/Police come knocking. But as everyone else has said, it is imperative that your son does not touch a penny, does NOT delete any emails, and tries to return the funds ASAP.
  6. Did they say this (as in 'verbally', ie on the phone), or put it in writing? PSD are an internal investigations department, investigating police officers and not members of the public. If it was a verbal comment then there is nothing you can do as you cannot prove they said it. (Though, why oh why would you be talking to them - have NO verbal contact with them until mediation - and do that through a third party - or court). If it in writing, then contact the IPCC as it is essentially a threat, albeit a harmless one.
  7. I think this encapsulates your problem; a misplaced sense of entitlement.
  8. Oh yes, and unless you do watch live TV - or now, use iPlayer - without a licence, don't sweat it.
  9. In March this year (and September last year), it was your car; in your words "i paid my road tax", and "set up direct debits from my bank account", and it was from your bank account the direct debits failed. So when did you transfer ownership of - or sell - the car to the car club? Did the 'club' ever tax the vehicle? And, if the vehicle was clamped yesterday morning, why did you buy it (or transfer ownership) yesterday afternoon, knowing it was clamped?
  10. In your first post, you said "I paid my road tax via the DDicon scheme at my local post office back in September and set up the monthly payments via my bank. I have not authorised my bank to stop payments but the DVLA have stopped requesting payments and are now claiming that my car is not taxed." Yesterday you posted "Car clamped this morning no tax. Bank saying DD is still active and is showing that on on-line banking. I set up DD for 6th of each month but bank are saying DVLA claimed on 2nd and 6th of month. DVLA are saying that they have cancelled DD because two attempts to claim DD were sent back by the bank, insufficient funds." Is it the same vehicle? (just a yes or no!) If NOT, then when did you buy the car, and when did you tax it?
  11. The date of a direct debit is usually set by the company, not necessarily on the 1st of the month - in my own case, not one DD comes out on the first, and in 30+ years I can't recall any that has done so. Although DVLA's website says that they setup the payment for the first working day of each month. edit: multiquote failed. Yes Callum, they made two attempts to collect payment, on the 2nd and on the 6th. Two attempts, in accordance with their policy. https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-direct-debit/setting-up "If there isn’t enough money in your bank account DVLA will try to collect the Direct Debit again within 4 working days of the payment date if there wasn’t enough money in your bank account. They will cancel the Direct Debit if there still isn’t enough money - they’ll tell you they’ve done this. You won’t be able to pay the Direct Debit from a different account."
  12. In what way is this relevant? Is the same car that you taxed in September last year?
  13. It's increasingly obvious that the OP fails to take any responsibillity for his (in)actions in life, and immediately resorts to blaming others when the consequences of his actions "bite him in the ass". For those unaware, he has a separate thread concerning car tax. In his first post he accuses the DVLA of "breaching the direct debit scheme" by not collecting the monthly payment for his car tax. The second accuses them of incompetence, and in usual Callum logic somehow contorts a negative (the bank not confirming he had cancelled the DD) into proof of their incompetence. It's only later - after a 6 month period - he reveals that the DD was unpaid due to insufficient funds in his account. No 'breach of the DD scheme", no incompetence on the part of the DVLA, just Calum failing to manage his life. As of last night, it appears that the car he owned and taxed last September, is apparently registered to a car club, and it is the club that has not taxed it... I think. I think the OP has an attitude to life of "but it's not my fault" when consequences plainly are. Any attempt at tackling core issues head on are deflected with "it's irrelevant" or just plain ignored. Mods, I suggest this thread is closed. Unless Callum provides the remainder of the defence, as has been asked on over a dozen occasions, no one can provide any advice as the full facts have not been disclosed, and I doubt ever will be. FWIW, given a comment about "knowing a handwriting expert" and the continual reference to a fabricated contract, it would not surprise me to read the final line in the defence "a contract was signed on the xx yyyy and we will produce a copy at hearing". Quite apart, such advice is rejected, often in a hostile manner, and then his story changes. Any attempts at assistance fall on deaf ears, unless it is advice that he wants to hear.
  14. Callum, you need to start accepting responsibility for your actions - or lack of - in life, rather than immediately blaming others. Your first post in this thread accuses the DVLA of 'breaching' the DIrect Debit code, the second accuses them of incompetency, resulting in your car being untaxed. The real reason? YOU had insufficient funds in your account, resulting in the debit being unpaid. It's hard to see how you could not have noticed this, given that a) the bank would have informed you of the unpaid DD, and associated charge. b) you have online banking and would have seen it. Regardless, it is YOUR responsibility to manage your bank account. Even when it is explained to you, that attempts to collect payment have failed, your reaction is "DVLA are having none of it". Well, what position do you expect them to take? They made two attempts to collect a direct debit pay,net, both of which failed because YOU failed to have sufficient money in your account. How is that their fault, and what did you expect them to say? Also, when you seek help you need to be upfront and disclose ALL relevant information, not drip feed it; what on earth has a club got to do with the car that YOU taxed in September 2015?
  15. Pure speculation: Callum will not post the remainder of the defence because it claims the solicitor did inform him that his PI appeal did not hold water Callum will not post the 'other correspondence' referred to because is demonstrates the solicitor informed him of the above. This is not meant derisively, but one starts to draw conclusions from the lack of pertinent information. Hard not to when the OP argues and belittles the people he is asking for advice.
  16. Earlier in the thread you mention several items of correspondence from the solicitor, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim&p=4924732&viewfull=1#post4924732 "I have gone through all the emails received and two there are two that stand out. The first one states we await legal aid before we can continue with your case, and on the refusal of legal aid, we do not do conditional fee agreements for this type of work!!!! as has been suggested by Legal Aid to us." Despite asking several times, you have yet to reveal the contents of the second that 'stood out'. Please Callum, you can only be helped if you provide the information asked - regardless of whether you think it is relevant or not, it all has to be taken into account. Just like the complate defence that the solicitor filed, which are still waiting for (paragraphs 15 onwards). Whilst letters can be considered "compelling", emails complete with the full email header can be more so, as they demonstrate the date and time of sending. Please, post up the remainder of the defence, and other relevant emails.
  17. Perhaps it's in the second letter Calum referred to, but never actually posted the details of, sometime around the 16th July in this thread.
  18. Callum, do you realise that this is an internet self-help forum, and NOT THE COURT! Neither are we the solicitor. The only person with a "mindset in denial" is YOU. Regardless of what you are told, backed up with the necessary links to legislature and Court process, you deny everything you are fold and accuse us of "defending" the solicitor/courts, "hiding" behind the law/procedure. It is YOU who is in denial. To the point where it has to be asked - "what are you doing here?" You came here asking for help, which BazzaS and Ganymede (chiefly, among others) have given in bucketloads. Yet you reject everything they tell you, and are convinved you know better. So, why are you asking? If you are so sure of your legal prowess, why not just file your appeal instead of posting on here?
  19. Right, so what you really mean is that the solicitor has NOT fabricated a contract, rather, they are/were claiming a contract exists/existed, a position which you deny. This is subtly different, and a red herring - especially when you mentioned handwriting analysis. I really think you ought to read what you have typed, before you press the "reply" button, and think" do I need all these words - what should I remove". So, there is no fabricated - or forged - contract (this does not rule out there is a contractual basis for the solicitor, or even a 'contract' per se that you have not yet told us about). Now, once again. Rather than type dozens of words that leave us struggling to work out what you mean, can you please just post the rest of the solicitors defence, Callum, e.g. everything from 14. onwards.
  20. Well if the answer is "no" (they have not produced a contract), why do you keep saying that the solicitor had fabricated a contract?
  21. No, YOU are making the allegations, NOT the solicitor. The claimant (or prosecution, in a criminal case) make allegations. The defendant's defence is NOT an allegation, it is a defence, and IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROVED! It is up to YOU, the claimant, to disprove the defence, NOT the solicitor to prove his defence. What evidence? YOU have to provide the evidence, not the defence. They are perfectly able to enter evidence that proves their defence, but they do bot HAVE to provide anything unless they so wish. Furthermore, they are under NO obligation to represent you - or anyone else - in a PI claim. So what if they advertise they do PI work, it matters not. Unless YOU can produce a contract that states they will undertake the PI claim on your behalf, then you have no case. They can simply say "we were unwilling to undertake such work" Evidence which YOU have to provide to prove your claim, not evidence that the other side has to produce to prove their innocence. So conflating what "we" and the solicitor wish to believe. We can only go on what you tell us as facts (as opposed to your opinion or [mis]understanding of law. So conflating "us" with the solicitor. In the cold light of day, unless you can provide proof of your claim, then the defendant is innocent. I'll ask again: has the solicitor now - or in the past - produced a contract with your (supposed) signature on it? Please just say "yes" or "no " to this question. Believe me, it helps when you post "yes" or "no" because those are simple, clear answers which are much more helpful than your paragraph-length answers which are usually vague and confusing. As you earlier said,you cannot write as well as others, we understand that so please just provide simple answers for the moment!
  22. Calum, when will you understand that we are NOT on the solicitors side. When will you understand that the solicitor does not have to prove innocence, you have to prove guilt. Telling you this, or asking for details, or telling you that you have a slim/non-existent chance is NOT siding with the solicitor, it is advising you. It has not "struck a nerve", it is simply incredulity that your 'evidence' is, well, not very much.
  23. Stop wittering on whether the other side's defence is viable. Whilst you might not think it is, it is immaterial. It is whether the Court finds it viable. Cam I suggest that when you type, you stop and re-read- You are running one point into another before finishing the first. Just re-read the above sentence, it make no sense. Don't mix up 'fact' and/or theory with you opinion - for example, you didnt need to write "which for the record was a load of old nonsense", it is irrelevant, simple opinion, and just confuses the point. ANYONE can make ANY defence they want. It is up to the Court (or a Jury) to determine if it is viable. It is NOT up to the the prosecution/claimant/you. We have only your word that there is no contract. We don't know if the missing part of the defence ends "the claimant signed a document on the agreeing for us to proceed", or "we agreed to work with £500 of legal help, further costs to be recovered from the Council". You are confusing "being in a position to deny and make applications" with "a complete defence of having documented authorisation". No, because generally it is not a case of the claimant relying on an absent contract to prove "I haven't been charged for work they should not have done". This can essentially sum up the weakness of your imagined case "So Mr Callum, you wish me to make a finding in your favour because the other party did work for you, for which you were not charged and did not pay for, which resulted in your house being repaired"... WOOAAH "or as in this case fabricating one"... are you now saying that the solicitors have produced a contract, and it is allegedly signed by you??? Callum, please post the solicitor's defence in its entirety.
  24. Then please, please, please read and re-read, aloud perhaps, exactly what you have typed before pressing the "post reply" button. As I said earlier, everyone's English grammar skills are different, no one is expected to be a genius. But it would help if you removed some of the commas, stuck to shorter and more precise sentences, and stopped trying to roll several points into one sentence. Perhaps use bullet points? Callum, regardless of grammar skills, this is a perfect example of where you are hindering rather than help us help you. Vauban asked three simple questions. Yet instead of answering them, you reply with a question. Question A could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Question B with a figure of "xx days". Question C with a simple statement that started with "on the basis that...." and then listed a few brief points. Any further questions from you could have been left until the end of your reply. Also, you say that the solicitor "fabricated " a contract. Are you saying that they have produced a contract?
  25. No, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty, it is not up to the defendant to prove that they are innocent. For example, lets assume you are a solicitor. I could not take you to Court with a simple allegation that you represented me without a contract in place, and rely on a guilty verdict simply because you were unable to provide "proof" that a contract was in place; first of all, I would have to demonstrate that the work was actually undertaken, and undertaken on my behalf. If I then tried to claim that you had acted fraudulently in claiming your costs from a third party (the supposed defendant in the case I allegedly employed you for), I firstly face the issue that I am effectively striking out my first allegation (that no contract was in place), but also face an issue whether I have the standing to bring a fraud case, because I was not defrauded. If a court found that my earlier claim was invalid because you could demonstrate that a contract was in place, then the second allegation fails automatically; you were acting under instruction and claimed costs from the defendant. You started a sentence with "if" but didn't finish it. "if he is told to produce evidence, " there should be a "then...." instead, you wander off into an opinion of CPR. If someone is instructed, what? Quite apart, if you are refering to Notice to Admit Facts, this is NOT a defendant being TOLD to produce anything, it is simply a form that allows each party to agree facts that are not in dispute; it is NOT an 'order' to produce evidence! It is not a theory, it is the fundamental principle of UK Law; the presumption of innocence. EVERY Court case starts from the basis that the defendant is innocent of the allegation, and considers evidence. Heck, even disputing a speeding ticket starts with the presumption of innocence, but the Police are generally able to provide a preponderance of evidence to prove guilt... (and yes, I am aware that there is bad legislation that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, these are not relevant) It is up to you to demonstrate that the DP Act has been broken What knowledge? Who has this "knowledge"? "Knowledge" is not evidence. To be honest, this sentence as written is meaningless; how is a solicitor breaching professional standards by failing to prove innocence? Unless there was a prior court verdict or censure from the SRA regarding some professional "abuse", or demonstration of such in court, this is not "knowledge", let alone evidence. At best it is your opinion, however well- or ill- founded. But you haven't provided any [i[evidence[/i] you are stating that the solicitor breached the DPA and referring to "knowledge" of not proving their innocence of something. This is not evidence. You might want to re-read that. There is either evidence that suggests some is guilty, or there is no evidence in which case they are innocent QED! Making a 'profit' is not a crime. It has to be proven that the solicitor acted without basis. For example, if a solicitor one day submitted a claim to the council that his client broke the heel of her shoe and her ankle tripping on a loose paving stone, the claim being for £1540 made up of £40 for the broken shoe and £1500 legal costs. The council pays. It is later discovered that the claimant never existed. Then the solicitor has acted fraudulently, and the Council should take the appropriate action. Now, let us consider that the claimant did exist, and had instructed the solicitor to proceed, but later discovers that she could have claimed for the injuries suffered. Has the solicitor acted fraudulently? No. Has the solicitor acted negligently in not claiming for injury - debatable; did he advise her that she had a claim? If no, then arguably he did not meet the professional standard required. If yes, did she instruct him to make a claim? If yes, then again it is arguable he did not meet the professional standard required. However, if she did not instruct him to claim then no, he met the standard. Now, lets assume that the solicitor and claimant never signed an agreement (contract). The matter then is whether the solicitor had a basis to represent the client, given she continued to instruct him and at no point said "hey, why are you continuing to work on this after our initial meeting? Who will pay for all this? Where is the agreement to proceed, detailing costs, etc?" Until that matter is decided, it cannot be established whether the solicitors subsequent claim recovering costs from the Council was legitimate or not. And the claimant cannot claim fraud, as she was not defrauded by the solicitor; she has no standing for a fraud action. If you fail to act in accordance with CPR, it is not "hiding and defending" by the other side, it is you not following the relevant procedure. No, but an accusation of fraud is not automatic guilt of fraud. First of all, it has to be established if it was fraud!
  • Create New...