Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About nehpets

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. As I've said on a number of occasions, talking through your defence with party who is taking you to court isn't always a wise course of action!
  2. Very nice work Bill. All the best, N.
  3. Sounds like another case of a Debt Collection Agent acting well beyond what's allowed. One trick to take the 'sting' out of an aggressive DCA is to ask for the name of the person who you are talking to. They'll most likely hang up especially if they have already show any kind of aggression since they will not want you naming them in any potential complaint. Also ask for the name and address of their regulator. The DCA cannot offer legal advice on what represents a 'valid defence'. All they need to know is that you are contesting the DVLA's penalty - this should mean that they pass the mat
  4. You haven't answered the question! Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? Which section of the V5 did you send to the DVLA?
  5. Basically you need to be 100% certain of the dates involved. Was the car still taxed when you scrapped the car? If so then you would appear to be in the clear. It could be that the DVLA are claiming a period of non tax (or SORN) between the date that the tax expired and the date that you informed them that the vehicle had been scrapped. It seems odd that the DVLA have acknowledged the scrapping of the car but then sent a LLP.
  6. That letter from the DCA appears to be illegal. They keep saying that you "must pay" but that isn't technically true since there is no judgement against you and, as a result, there are several other avenues available to you besides paying them. Of course they don't make mention of these other avenues because they know that this may result in them not getting paid! The threats made regarding clamping are completely untrue and I would suggest that they have no legal right to clamp the vehicle at this stage of proceedings - this appears to be a fairly clear breach of industry guidelines.
  7. If it was me then I'd be claiming for the entire fee (£169) as there is a clear breach on contract on the part of the driving school or instructor. You'd need to look carefully at who your contract was with as this is very important in terms of the law. To whom was the money actually paid and what was written on the receipt? When you buy goods or services you are allowed to have a reasonable expectation as to the quality that you are expecting. In this case it is clear that the level of service has not met even the most basic standard. The fact that he has taken you for a number of l
  8. It sounds very much like the court have found against you in your absence. You should establish with the court exactly what has occured thus far and then work from there. If what you say is true, and you can show that you updated the DVLA records correctly, then you should be able to get things overturned.
  9. Sorry, been away sunning myself for a couple of weeks! Number6, you need to fight fire with when you get a Judge like the one you got! Remember that he said that he would only be looking at the actual wording contained in the Act itself? Well, the act itself doesn't mention the DVLA. Instead it talks about the 'Secretary Of State'. So far as I am aware, the Secretary of State (For Transport) is an actual person and not an organisation. On that basis you could give any Judge a fairly serious problem if they persevered with their stance on what the term ‘deliver’ act
  10. But in my case the DVLA informed a Debt Collection Agent that I owed them £80. The implication being that a judgement on the matter had already been reached when that was not the case since I had refused to accept the LLP. Under your interpretation 'the cart is before the horse' in so much as the debt occurs before the court hearing. Therefore the DVLA's position in court is one where they are seeking what amounts to, in legal terms, as ratification. This almost makes it seem like you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise and allows the DVLA to take the higher legal ground based purel
  11. Sorry, been away for a few days. This is certainly an interesting debate. I respect your views but, in my opinion, you seem reliant on the fact that the DVLA have the judicial power to find someone ‘guilty’ for the offence of ‘not procuring a vehicle licence’ (ie neither taxing or SORNing a vehicle at the correct time) or words to that effect. In my particular case they sent me an LLP a couple of months after the previous SORN had run out. I’d sent the new SORN declaration by post around three weeks before the old SORN was due to run out. They still issued me with a LLP even though
  12. But my point is being missed. It doesn't really matter whether it is Magistrates Court or County Court, your rights remain the same (ie those afforded under 'English Bill of Rights'.) What does it say on the Summons Document with regard to the allegation against you? It's generally 'failure to ensure Continuous Registration'? As opposed to 'Failure to pay a Late Licensing Penalty'. In other words, they're not taking you to court to 'recover a debt' as you are implying? Instead they're taking people to court to answer the allegation which lead to the LLP being dished out in the first place
  13. If you read through the various threads then you'll see that most of the cases reported go to a Magistrates Court (at least in the first instance). This shows that the case against the motorist is unproven at that specific moment in time. I don't think that a Magistrate can force you to pay the LLP, all he can do is find you guilty of not ensuring CR. The Magistrate will then issue you with a fine. Due legal process has now occured and this fine is now technically a debt. Under the Code of English Law you have the right to appear in court without the financial burden (aka the penalty / fine )
  14. Stan, Your best bet would be to start your own thread where you can outline the individual aspects of your case so that others can pick up on things and offer advice. I've had personal dealings with Inter Credit International (ICI) and I also found them to be very rude. All they seemed interested in was processing my payment. When I said that I wouldn't be paying them they turned quite hostile. However, once I raised issues regarding their processes (I asked how they had double checked that the alleged debt existed) their stance changed a little. I specified to them that I di
  15. I don't disgaree that the LLP is a civil debt but only when you (the accused) accept the terms of the out-of-court settlement contained within the LLP notice. This is the aspect that the DVLA / DCA's try so hard to disguise. Until acceptance has occured the LLP is purely an offer of out-of-court settlement. At that point no debt exists. It's no different to the situation contained within a Fixed Penalty Notice which the police might dish out for speeding, again a FPN is an 'offer' of out-of-court settlement for the alleged offence. You may accept, reject or ignore the 'offer' as you see fit.
  • Create New...