Could you testify you have never been in trouble before with the 'authority' that is the DVLA ?

and swear in court on it ?

You might suggest that hiring the venue, the beak, their attire and any entourage that is necessary to attend, plus the paperwork that got you there in the first place might be a waste of taxpayers money, if £80 is all you are asked to chuck in the pot at the end of it.

Be polite though.

no , no other vehicles. havent had a car since i sold the one in question .

What about previous years on the same vehicle then ?

Difficult without answers.

Had the original tax expired in May or April ?

How much is the tax for six months for this vehicle ?

How much would the tax have been for 12 months ?

Did you agree on six months tax upon purchase ?

Are there any other vehicles that you own that have been corrrectly updated using any of the available systems for renewing ?

If so it would be worth printing these details off for the court that confirm you normally have no issue and this is a 'one off' incident.

Look at it this way. . If you go over the limit, and you know you are over the limit, (which means you are driving that fast delibrately), then simply expect a letter to appear on your doormat in a week or so's time.

 

All i can say, and i know its a little offtopic, is thank god you didnt hit a kid or elderly person. I know you are remorseful, but please remember that the speed limits are there for a reason, and not to inconvienience you. The road next to my street has a 30 mph speed camera on it. People regularly speed past it and it has even been set on fire and vandalised multiple times.

 

I cant tell you how unbelievable this is. Especially when in the last 10 years, 4 people have been knocked over and seriously injured by speeding motorists there, and 3 people have died.

Around here, the 20mph zones appear to have been painted by hand on the road. Are the ones the o/p passed through completely legitimate?

It can take four weeks or more, so make sure you have some tax left on whatever vehicle(s) you own that might need it.

I

I suspect the taxi driver wanted to use it as a parking space, making him in the wrong, not you! Remember these guys are at work - it's unlikely he'll do anything other than shout from the safety of his car.

I think not

I had one cut me up yesterday when picking up a quick fare, levaing me stranded within a yellow box junction. When I got him out of his cage of safety a few seconds later with some continuous use of the horn, he played the 'stay away !' card with his hands a few cms from my face, for any camera in the vicinity to see, believing that I might be seen as somehow in the wrong should it go to court.

I'm just over 1.6m high and weigh 54kgs, but I would have loved to have taken out a finger or two with my previous self-defence backing, but I backed off and took the plate number and number plate detail, the helmet camera taking the rest of the incident from start to finish.

What an utter idiot. Problem is, they are growing in number, is there a website that allows downloads of such incidents ?

Thanks

Who set the 2005 cut-off, and is this nothing more than damage limitation ?

I have received a letter this morning from CPP direct (with a unique Reference number and policy number) suggesting I 'may' have used their services, and that I need do nothing now.

The foot of the letter gives a number of possible reasons why they have written, all to do with card protection, followed by a 'scheme of arrangement' over potential compensation payout.

Should I heed their advice to do nothing, or start trawling back through a decade of old card applications, many of which will have been thrown out during two house moves, or deemed more useful to start the wood-stove on cold evenings ?

They might be trying to take you for more than just a year then.

Don't forget, the DVLA, staff and the software behind the vehicle licensing system is flawless.

As this is a yellow box violation, should't this be in the Local Authority section of the forum ?

Thanks. The only thing I can think of is they have never issued me with any reminders or demands that I should licence the vehicle. I get these for my old landrover. I always tax that on line. I don't understand why it took two years and the only reason this came to light was the car was clamped in my husband's work car park. Surely, if a car is MOT'd. and insured, but not SORN'd they should have flagged it up on the system and written to me? Or is that to obvious and simple?

Have you had the car on the road for over two years without anyone noticing the lack of a tax disc ?

Easy way out is to pay for 63%of the cost of the part and they cover the remaining 27% including the labour. You will though benefit from an additional 27% of the expected life of the part should you keep the car for a further 100K miles.

There's 10% missing.

I'm glad it passed, but if my daughter gets stopped today she would most likely be fined to two dodgy tryes which weren't even put down as advisories. The car is spending tomorrow with my mechanic to get most of the issue rectified, but if an MOT is supposed to state the your car is roadworthy at the time of the MOT, Kwik-Fit has totally failed in this.

You could always ask your daughter not to drive the car until the - almost - defective parts have been replaced.

Yes, I understand that. But why is tax payers money going to pursue people who have not even avoided paying tax? It seems totally out of proportion to the 'crime'.

You could use that reasoning during your appearance to reduce the fine, but it cannot be used to halt the prosecution process now it has commenced.

Can you think of any other time during ownership of the car when the DVLA have screwed up ? Scrutinise the V5© carefully to see if there are any errors within the text. This might give you some leverage to barter with them on dropping the case since you have not been issued with correct proof of ownership.

If it helps (anyone else), my neighbour had a similar problem with a scooter that he bought in France, for use in this country (it is not one that reaches these shores as the manufacturer does not believe there is a viable market as yet for this particular model).

The chassis number did not come up under any search in order to gain the correct documentation for insurance, despite him having a full written receipt of purchase from the previous owner, plus the handbook, specification journal and advertising blurb from the Dutch importer. But our local bike dealer was able to get a commission notice, re-register it for about sixty pounds, and he now rides it on a Q-plate.

Glad you haven't had problems - maybe if you're used to it, its not a problem. I haven't used it before - It was ground level one, middle exit - a new Renault Clio. In any case, there are many that have scraped their bumpers so it can't be that easy .....

What are the dimensions of the Clio you have damaged ?

You have a dual fuel car that does not run off LPG?

Where do I get one ?

Ask (really nicely) for any images that might have been taken at the time of the offence. Just so you can check the car really is yours, and not one of those cloned number plate jobbies)

It`s certainly not good value at twice the price for the same service. Also 900 drivers NOT happy with being forced to use a test centre miles from their homes and/or repair place.

 

I guess they can just monopolise the situation as usual and charge double and get away with it. No more shopping around for the best deal.

Is there something in the rules preventing the drivers from taking the vehicles to another local authority test centre, and one that might be closer ?

You could check your own itemised phone bills, and from that work out when, and for how long you were in conversation with them. With the dates, you can then figure out if you were renewing, cancelling or engaging in conversation on another matter entirely.

Is it possibly an enhanced MOT, taking into account other aspects of a vehicle for hire / reward such as the rear door locks, fire extinguisher, bale of hay, etc.

Its not an offence though is it? An offence is a criminal act with a fine or jail term laid out in the statute for committing the offence. Failing to certify a cctv device for parking enforcement is not cited as a criminal offence in any statute?

Its no different from issuing a PCN whilst not in uniform, its not an offence nobody can be prosecuted it just invalidates the PCN if challenged.

Criminal maybe the wrong word, councils have the power to evade justice, by virtue of time limits set out in legislation, outside of which the motorist is unable to obtain a due refund.

If it was the other way round, I'm sure the authorites would have no hesitation sending in the legal vultures, and throw taxpayers money at clawing back the funds.

They obviously either appealed on the wrong grounds or the adjudicator ruled against them. No funds have been taken illegally the Council is entitled to issue a PCN to any vehicle it believes is in contravention, its up to the owner to dispute this claim using the appeals process.

Look at it this way...

That would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with the appeals process and the adjudication if a crime (and what the council have done IS as crime), if there is no recourse because of the time it takes for information to come to light.