Hi all, I've just looked at a 2006 Honda Civic that I really like and want to buy. Having done an HPI check on it, I got the dreaded "discrepancy" which looks like the below: Data currently held on the National Mileage Register (NMR) indicates that there may be a mileage discrepancy on this vehicle. Mileages as recorded by the National Mileage Register Date recorded Recorded by Mileage Reading 13-Apr-2007 Franchised Dealer 12,654 30-Nov-2007 Trade Association 22,274 25-Jan-2008 Franchised Dealer 24,857 06-Oct-2008 Franchised Dealer 37,400 20-Jan-2009 Trade Association 41,650 13-Jul-2009 DVLA 134,000 27-Aug-2009 BVRLA 49,288 Does this look like a typical DVLA typo, or is it reasonable that a car could have done nearly 100,000 miles in six months? I love this car and dearly want to buy it, but I'm concerned about this. For what it's worth, the car has a full service history and only two owners (including the current one). It was bought from a dealer in November 2009, but doesn't appear to have had it's mileage updated since before then. Would the MOT have had that done? Looking for reassurance - if this can be fixed with service records etc I will still buy it, if not I will walk away. For what it's worth, the car doesn't drive as though it's done 134,000 miles plus, if that means anything at all!

Please don't pay them. This letter has had it's intended effect, and it's made you worry and wobble on the whole issue. This forum provides the flip side to the coin - hundreds of posts and testimonies that these people are chancers and will go away.I've had lots of letters telling me how I'm going to end up in court, how I shouldn't ignore the problem, etc etc. I stuck to my guns and they've never bothered me since. Hold tight!

I suppose they're at least a little more believable than ukcps/Rooney/Manchester ukcps/Drogba/London What a hilarious last few posts, watching with interest.

I have four invoices from CT for not displaying my permit in our underground car park, the earliest dating back to September of 2009. I've received threatening letters but every time they've given up. Hope this helps.

I guess it all depends on where you draw your own line in the proverial moral sand. I don't view people with children as deserving any special dispensation, it appears you (and indeed others) do. I think there is certainly a lot more mutual understanding that can arise out of this particular scenario than that of lazy arseholes parking in disabled spaces, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm not disabled and I don't have children, so it's not something that affects me personally. But as someone said above, one is a choice and the other is not. I will park further away if you physically cannot, but that is rarely the case just because you have a child in tow (anecdotal isolated incidents aside).

Meh, I disagree. Just because little Johnny throws a tantrum when he has to walk an extra twenty feet to the store doesn't mean you deserve to park any closer than me.

Point taken, PPC just being scumbags in this case. I stand by what I said for situations where there is an alternative

This isn't directed at you crem as I don't know your personal circumstances, it's more of a general rant using the royal "you". Were these bays actually being used by disabled people? I must admit as I much as I hate the [causing problems] PPC's, people who park in disabled bays because "I was only going to be five minutes" and "they weren't being used" really **** me off too. It ceases to be about whether or not blue badges are enforceable in private car parks etc, and just becomes about basic human courtesy and respect. If you're not disabled, leave the disabled spaces for those that are and can benefit from them. Otherwise you're just a bit of a ******.

Don't worry about Central Ticketing. They "patrol" our underground parking garage and I've received four tickets from them since we moved in in September 2009. For three of them (the fourth was quite recent so I'm awaiting some junk) so far I've received their standard begging letters, then Roxburghe Debt Collectors standard template, and then a couple from Graham White. On each occasion they've given up and it's now been roughly 3 months since they've bothered. Ignoring them DOES WORK.

What happened here in the end?

Is it a private ticket, or a council-issued one? What name does the ticket/letters give?

I just went to their site and entered some fake "PCN" details - it's come up with a £25 charge!!

They gave up on my previous tickets a long while ago, Mr Sobell eventually stopped writing and all was quiet. My permit fell off my window a few days ago and i got a fresh ticket from my best friend, Mr OP0000252 (in reality a scruffy-looking chap in a s****y blue uniform), so I look forward to ignoring another lot of junk.

Your logic is askew, surely if that were your reasoning you'd have parked in one of the many spaces far away from the OAP bus and entirely avoid the prospect of being hit. I'm simply playing devil's advocate, as I said I don't agree with you being charged for it, I just think it's very inconsiderate whether the car park is empty or not. If it fills up while you're in there you're denying another person a parking space because you simply didn't want to bother parking correctly in the first place, and that's why it grinds my gears. I'd dispense with the ad hominems if you really seek to justify it.

I agree that it's unfair to charge you for parking outside a bay, but what about the many other parking spaces dotted around? Sorry to sound like an old git (I'm 26), but it really grinds my gears when people park like that.

In this case it is sadly necessary.

Apologies for the cross posting, just remembered that I'd seen it posted in this forum a few times. Can someone remind me under what authority/legistlation/guideline I can request that a DCA return a debt to the original creditor as it is in dispute? Any help much appreciated!

Sure. Part of the contract states that they will endeavour to rebook the cancelled slot. I had a colleague phone and ask if the dates I had cancelled were available, and was told they weren't. When I confronted the hotel about this, they denied it (and my colleague didn't record it, which I'd asked him to). I also took photos of the venue on the day in question and it was littered with glasses and general debris. When questioned on this they said they just "hadn't cleared up from the night before". I suspect them of using the venue on the day I had booked. I was a tad naive at the time and feeling like I had no other option, began to pay the DCA at the aforementioned £100 a month. I still don't feel I owe them anything because of their general lying, and so I stopped paying them recently. It's taken them 6 months to even notice.

It's a large chain, one of the most well-known in the country. I'm going to tell the DCA (Cope's) to refer the debt back to the hotel, and I remember reading on the parking/traffic forums that there was some kind of legistlation/practice by which they were required to do so if told to, I just can't remember what that was!

Actually I cancelled the booking, and they've been chasing me for two years for amount prescribed in the T's and C's that they say they're entitled to as a result of a cancellation. I've actually already paid about half of the total amount at a rate of £100 a month, but I stopped paying as I don't feel they were entitled to the money (there's a long story behind this that this paragraph can't hope to cover), and now roughly 6 months after I last paid they've demanded the money in one lump sum.

I should clarify, this is a "debt" based on a contract (a cancelled booking made at a hotel) and has no associated CCA. Apologies if this belongs in a different forum.

Hi guys, Just wondering if any of you could remind me under what provision I can instruct a debt collection agency to return a "debt" to the original "debtor" as it is under dispute? I've tried searching but can't find anything definitive! Thanks for your help.

Incidentally, I received a reply by mail a few weeks back from CT asking me to provide evidence of my permit and/or tenancy agreement, as a result of my original misguided appeal. It seemed to have delayed the Roxburghe/GW letters as the trail of junk I received from them prior to this was all pertaining to the additional two tickets they gave me. Needless to say that when I wasn't forthcoming with my permit/agreement (because why should I be?), the Roxburgh/GW letters relating to that original ticket followed. Given that I got all these tickets around October of last year, I'm not losing any sleep that they're taking me to court over them.

Update time. A few weeks ago I received a letter from CT themselves asking for a copy of my permit or tenancy agreement (because I misguidedly attempted to appeal the first ticket). For the other two I've had the standard Roxburghe letters, and just recently received the Graham White ones. Hoping I'm towards the end of the minor annoyances of these clowns now.