Jump to content

bookmanwales

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bookmanwales

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Having read a lot of the posts on here it is no surprise that the DVLA get away with so much incompetence and cause such a huge amount of injustice. A good proportion of replies to those looking for help are very pro DVLA or "its your own fault you deserve it" and "The law is the law" The reason we have a justice system at all is so that the law is applied fairly, evenly and without bias. The key word here is FAIRLY. There is nothing FAIR about a public body who claim INFALLIBITY and use all the might of the government to punish people without trial. Aaaah people will say you can choo
  2. Of course the dvla never get anything wrong do they hahahaha. Had youread my posts fully you would also have seen the part" I KNOW I COULD BE DONE UNDER SECTION 43A" so I have done something wrong !!!! I even admitted I did something wrong. I SAY AGAIN THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH THE WRONG OFFENSE. However you did not read my post right in the first place or you would have seen the part where I said I had 2 vehicles 1 vehicle exempt 1 vehicle already taxed normally. In the very first post at the top. The one that started the thread. The matter is now closed as far a
  3. You only have to see how a private company who keep and charge for personal information are treated. Some months ago (forgive me for not being specific) but those who are interested may remember an employment agency kept details of construction workers and handed these details to potential employers of the construction workers. A lot of these details were wrong (anything ring a bell there lol ) and the firm was fined several thousand pounds for breach of the data act. So how come the information commissioner is taking such a lenient line with the dvla... Government fundraising wouldn't have
  4. My apologies I obviously misread the section..
  5. that underlined sentence was supposed to men WOULD have become a normal tax class. As I keep saying the other car I had was taxed as normal. The second car only had tax class changed when previous vehicle was scrapped hence the visit to Post office !!!!! Well fortunately I have come across the idiots before I subscribe here. The government get away with all this because idiots like you do their dirty work for them. I hope that one day Mr Perfect you fall foul of a law you don't like ... don't mind me while I laugh
  6. Prawns 25. Exactly I had an exempt vehicle not displaying a valid tax disc. At least someone appears to be reading the post properly. I am aware that I can be charged with not displaying!! I am also aware as my previous post says that chapter 43A as amended in the finance act 1997 also makes it an offense to have an exempt vehicle untaxed. However the fine structure and reclaim of back tax are different altogether. by charging me under chapter 29/30 they have gotten me a higher fine ? and received back tax which would otherwise not have been due ?
  7. I never said I changed the new car to nil tax. Read the post again. I said I had 1 car as an exempt vehicle and 1 car taxed as normal I.E NOT EXEMPT !!! TAX PAID AS NORMAL with real money £205 for the year.
  8. Zamzara. Is it okay for a road user to have a "misunderstanding" with regard to their road tax. The answer is no there are no misunderstandings you either have it or you don't that is "the law" as the dvla will tell anyone who falls foul of it, on holiday, in hospital, or otherwise unable to tax your car through circumstances that can happen to anyone. Those who pursue the law rigorously should know the law and have it applied to them equally, not ignore the bits that don't suit their particular point of view. My question is a point of law, not whether it is unfair or misunderstood. The hum
  9. Mean and green you obviously aren't reading my posts right or you are working for DVLA I had one vehicle as exempt and one taxed as normal.There was no refund of road tax claimed. You are clearly trying to make out that I am trying to somehow avoid paying road tax. I was under the impression these forums were to help and advise people not let idiots like you make out that everyone is a tax dodger. The issue is not whether or not my car was scrapped or taxed ..but whether or not you can be charged with wrong offense By the way I have held an exemption certificate since 1993 and only ever
  10. I kmow I can only have one vehicle exempt at any time. At the time of the alleged offense I had only the 1 vehicle exempt. another vehicle I had was taxed as a normal car and not registered for exemption.
  11. "THE" vehicle remains exempt as long as I own it and "DON'T" have another vehicle registered as exempt. How does this imply I would have several cars untaxed ?. The exemption certificate applies to whichever vehicle I get taxed using that certificate. I have the certificate and have read it front to back several times over and know what it covers. If it was taxed in disabled class it had to be registered as an exempt vehicle as you cannot get disabled or nil tax for plg vehicle. I was not suggesting nor have I ever used this as an excuse to drive an untaxed vehicle. When I taxed the nex
  12. The vehicle was registered and taxed as disabled and disc had disabled written on it by post office but previous disc had nil on it. Not sure if there is a distinction or not. DVLA Website says disabled vehicle is classed as exempt anyway, as does 1994 act in section on definitions. The vehicle remains exempt as long as it is in my name and I don't have another vehicle registered as exempt which I didn't, not until later anyway. These stars get off their offenses pretty regularly on "Technicalities" and you don't hear of them being re-charged later on. Therefore there must be some kin
  13. Vehicle Licence Act 1994 Section 4 Chapter 53 titled burden of proof states that for any offense committed under section 29/30 etc the burden of proof is down to the alleged offender. Article 6 of the human rights act para 2 says "Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law". How can the DVLA ignore this article on human rights and get away with it ? The government doesn't ignore human rights laws with regard to asylum seekers, paedophiles, terrorists and other criminals how are they able to allow the DVLA to ignore it as a
  14. I have an exemption certificate and it is specifically NOT an offense under section 29/30 as follows "Any vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) kept or used on a pubic road without a valid licence is committing an offense". This is why section 43a was added to make the noose tighter. The penalties under section 43a are also lower than under section 29 and no reclaim of non-payment is specified as no payment was required in first place. Under English law double jeopardy still exists and was only repealed for very serious and specific cases. Therefore the DVLA should not be allowed to un
  15. Hi all, have enjoyed reading all the posts so decided to see if anyone can help on this. I was charged and convicted under section 29/30 of the vehicle licensing act 1994 with keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road. I am in receipt of mobility allowance and receive free tax and hence my vehicle is classed as exempt. I was waiting for the scrapman to collect this vehicle and in the meantime used another vehicle (already taxed) in the meantime. Section 29/30 of the act specifically excludes exempt vehicles from commiting this offence. A later insertion section 43A corrects this omission i
×
×
  • Create New...