zoomboy
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by zoomboy
-
£295 is the standard "charge" for music. £500 for pornography, or so it would seem.
-
But as blashey has already admitted guilt the argument over the cost of damages would likely have needed to involve a legal professional, which would far outweigh the cost of making their agreement at £200. I agree the actual damages would likely have been in single figures, but to argue it in court whilst paying by the hour would have been more costly. Until someone gets the whole matter into court to force an argument of the reliability of the methods employed and the calculation of quantum damages there will be no easy way just to argue the quantum damages from a position you are already at a loss at.
-
That is a very good point and one worth pursuing.
-
I agree. But given that he/she admitted guilt there wasn't much hope for a better outcome - in my opinion. It was all a question of how much. Glad you got it sorted blashey. Now at least you can sleep without that on your mind. Just a shame you never managed to get to the good advice before making an admission.
-
Well I got another response from them today. Post marked the 22nd. This was just a simple note to say that no separate response would be sent from their offices as it was being referred to my MP. So at least they're in touch at higher levels. I thought it only fair to forward my MP the correspondance from last week where they effectively left me with only one day to respond. I also ensured I brought to his attention the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7 and the Ministry of Justice's own Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 Part 4 (as in force on 5 April 2010), Section 4.4. Whilst I understand this is not a criminal case, if the MoJ believe first class post is suited to the serving of legal documents, then surely the DVLA should not expect a greater service for a lesser claim? http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fin/docs/crim-pr-2010-part4.pdf http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1978InterpretationAct.shtml
-
Just respond to their second letter with no more information than the template. Simply restate your denial and respond such that you will treat any such further correspondance without evidence to support their claim as harrasment. Don't write too much. Just stick to your denial. Then as I 've said before simply file and ignore further letters.
-
That too, is my understanding. To not respond could be damaging in the long run. A simple reply and deny sent recorded, followed by a second reply and deny with a statement about harrasment sees it closed. After two responses you don't need to play letter ping pong anymore. Simply file and ignore anything else. I say file because you can then build a case for harrasment if they are not providing any further evidence to support their claim.
-
There's a wealth of information on here if you look. All the advice you could need is searchable. I myself am going through the same rigmarole. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?279729-Continuous-Licensing-Malarky
-
That would be extremely difficult to prove. I know it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but your are up against the probability - would it have been likely the keeper would have made such an arrangement? Is it realistic to expect someone else to tax the vehicle? How would they get the necessary documentation to do so? In all probability they couldn't. So I would expect the registered keepers responsibility would have been to ensure it was taxed prior to being used on the road and giving permission to be used.
-
You can probably still pay the fine without it even getting to court... if they respond to you promptly.
-
Yes, I think honesty is always the best policy. But in the case of the DVLA it seems honesty is rewarded with punishment, not understanding. I hope it works out for you.
-
Hmm, not sure it was advice, but maybe I was a little terse. I guess all I mean is you probably have your work cut out trying to explain why you didn't follow their rules. It's bad enough when you do!
-
Good luck with that! I'm sure that they'll have fun with the admission that you didn't follow the required process if you failed to submit the V5. The fun I'm having even when I did have the V5 and sent it off as required is bad enough. I would imagine once you admit your failure to follow in their process they'll leave you no way out other than to pay up.
-
After checking the envelope it also shows the post mark clearly as the 18.10.10. So that's what they consider a fair process. I'll get my letter off in the post tomorrow morning, 1st class - with a proof of "sending". Because since all this fiasco I've now discovered if you do your postage online with Royal Mail by printing a label. You can take it to the post office and they will stamp a receipt, which you print at the time of the label, to prove you have posted it. All for the price of a 1st class stamp.
-
Thanks for that. I'll give it a read when I calm down a bit! I just got home to find a letter from the DVLA. They want me to provide them with a copy of the Certificate of Destruction and confirm it was part of the Gov't Scrappage scheme. So it arrived today (20th) and they have said "No further action will be taken until the 22/10/2010 to enable you to reply." (Letter dated 14th) Well how am I supposed to get the certificate of destruction? That would be what the party who destroyed it (the Trader) would have as I no longer owned it when it was destroyed. I also quote from my first letter "the vehicle was sold under a trade scrapage scheme" So I'm a little annoyed again right now. I shall chill for a while before I compose my response.
-
Disqualified from driving by the DVLA questions needing answers please?
zoomboy replied to thesquashedgoblin's topic in DVLA
Interesting that they see your act of informing your MP as a threat. It's not like you threatned to send your dad round to beat them up! They have no complaints process so what else can you do? Go for it let your MP know, maybe the more of us that do something above them will force a change for others... it's nice to at least hope. It's easy enough to write to your MP, you can do it online at writetothem.com - it works. I've done so 3 times this year. Ultimatley your MP can send a complaint to public sector ombudsman, which you can't do without the help of your MP. -
It couldn't add a thing, and they're not interested in pursuing any of it at all. That would cost them money. All they want from you is cash. They don't even want to go to court - they just want cash. If you roll over easy and pay they smile all the way to the bank. Put up a bit of a fight and they'll bluff and bluster, but ultimatley do nothing. I'm sure they'll keep your record open as they have a 6 year period they can follow up in. So if something changes in their favour then they can use that to go back to revisit everyone. I would think unless your LoD stated something that they would be embarassed about publicly or places them at risk of treatening someone unfairly, eg. harrassing a "public or influential figure" or disability or extenuating personal circumstances, they'll be keeping you on file. But there's no way ACS could accept even a forensic examination of your router and/or PC as evidence to support your innocence, it would be merely to confirm your guilt. As I said they'll argue that you have more than one PC, or it's not the original hard drive, or you have used tools to wipe the data - none of that demonstrates innocence.
-
Why would ACS even want to do that? It's not in their interest - they believe they have enough evidence, let them run with it. If you feel you can attempt to have your PC's hard drive as evidence they'll probably smile at your expense as they say "So that's the only PC in your house and is the only one you've ever owned and you can of course prove that too?" It's easy enough to destroy the evidence was ever on your machine. What they are stating is that at a given date and time your connection was used to upload the work. Not that it was ever on your machine. That said, how can you even begin to prove that at the time and date specified it wasn't on your machine? The answer is simple. Offer no evidence to support your innocence. The more you play their game, the more likely it is that you offer yourself as an expert and demonstrate a more plausible argument for them that you could have been responsible. It is for them to offer evidence to prove your guilt. Only offer counter arguments to questions they ask, not to ones they don't. * My 2c - opinion only, not necessarily based on expertise or knowledge. From a wiser source than I. beinghtreatened template letter.
-
Well done!
-
Got a letter from Bob today. Clock is ticking with responses trying to meet Gov't key performance indicators. Working in local Gov't I'm familiar with the "target" mentality and the goals they must meet.
-
Personally, I wouldn't go baiting them unnessecarily. I'd save that until they actually pursue you further. You don't want to get caught out making an erroneous statement. So short sweet and to the point.
-
I believe it was taken down as it wasn't in the best interests of those it listed. As damning as it was to ACS it was seen as more detrimental to those on it.
-
And that's perfectly understandable. But I believe you have been given good advice, based on your admission. Putting on the blinkers and hoping someone else tells you something you want to hear isn't in your best interests. You have admitted guilt. Now you must pay, it's now just a question of how much.
-
Ahh, I see. In which case the DVLA will probably be within the law as they'll be handing out data which could be obtained publicly from the electoral register. There are rules about what data can be passed on so it's unlikely to contain your date of birth or things like that. They would also be very foolish to do anything in breach of the guidelines set by the ICO - they have powers to fine lax organisations up to £500k and rumour has it they are looking for an example to be set. I'm hoping that the example is ACS:LAW, but I'll settle for the DVLA if that's the case
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS