Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Neighbours car not taxed???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5849 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My neighbour has not bothered to tax his car since end of November, it is just parked in the street - how come he's not been in bother - it is definatly not SORNED, I thought DVLA were hot on this nowdays?

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My neighbour has not bothered to tax his car since end of November, it is just parked in the street - how come he's not been in bother - it is definatly not SORNED, I thought DVLA were hot on this nowdays?

 

How can you be sure he is not in bother? Perhaps he has had letters from the DVLA "fining" him. Surely you wouldn't be aware if he had.

 

Possibly the car is not registered to his name and address. Possibly he has taxed the car but not bothered to display the disc. Have you checked on the DVLA website to check if the car is SORNed or not? If it really bothers you, you can report a vehicle anonymously that appears unlicensed that is being kept on the road on the DVLA website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago neighbours of mine fell on hard times and could not afford to get their car through its MOT - and were therefore not able to tax it. As soon as the traffic wardens found out they made a daily trip past the house (quite often out of uniform, presumably on their way home) to put yet another ticket on the car. The windscreen was absolutely covered in them. I don't know what happened in the end.

 

These days if you have not bought your tax or declared SORN within I think 14 days you get an automatic fine from the DVLA of £60.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to report anyone, just wondered why he was apparently getting away with it being parked for weeks on a public road :) I thought the DVLA removed vehicles if they weren't taxed....

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poppy,

 

Check the website of your local borough/district/unitary council and see if you can anonymously report such vehicles as these. It has to be parked on the public highway (which includes the verge).

 

If the vehicle is being driven on the public highway you can anonymously report it on the DVLA website.

 

Report it,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't report it.

 

It just smells a little like Germany in the early 40's to me.

 

If it were doing me no harm, I'd just ignore it.

 

...and as for the DVLA being 'hot' - just have a read of a few threads here - you'll soon realise that they are about as competent as most other big businesses.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your neighbour is not driving the car and does not have a driveway to park the car on I wouldn't say anything.

 

He might not have the money to Tax it or it may need an MOT that he cannot afford at the moment.

 

Not everyone has off road parking and I feel for them when the DVLA fine them for having an un taxed car on the public highway even though they're not driving it.

 

I know it's the law but still a bit of discretion now and again would be nice. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comment was that the vehicle had been parked up. Unless there is a mobile ANPR in a Traffic car it will not get picked up and unless the mobile ANPR has a live link it will have a downloaded database, which comes directly from DVLA, this will be about 3 months out of date.

Most forces run operations in conjunction with a DVLA agent and will pick the vehicle up after 2 months

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you're not, just to have a legitimate interest in the vehicle.

 

By ticking the box you are agreeing to the following;

 

"I confirm that the vehicle detailed above is registered, owned or insured by either my employer or myself and is regularly driven by me. I understand it is an offence to wrongfully obtain information of this nature without reasonable cause and if I fail to provide true reasons for acquiring information I may be committing an offence of unlawfully obtaining data contrary to section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1988. I declare that the information provided will not be used for any purposes unrelated to this enquiry. I agree to the terms of use as stated on this web site."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its up to the user. I am happy to continue to use that site (and vehiclelicence.gov.uk) for whatever purposes I need.

 

Its a long time since my law school days, but I believe the penalty for a DPA breech (and I assume you mean DPA98) is just a fine, so I'm happy.

 

To qualify my earlier post....

 

If you want a quick and easy way to get the answer to your question then click the link. If you want to be "holier than thou" then do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Well its up to the user. I am happy to continue to use that site (and vehiclelicence.gov.uk) for whatever purposes I need.

 

Its a long time since my law school days, but I believe the penalty for a Data Protection Act breech (and I assume you mean DPA98) is just a fine, so I'm happy.

 

To qualify my earlier post....

 

If you want a quick and easy way to get the answer to your question then click the link. If you want to be "holier than thou" then do not.

 

 

So I'm to understand advisee that you are perfectly happy to do precisely what many DCA's do & that is to break the law by invading the privacy of another citizen without permission

 

My advice to the OP leave it. If your neighbour are doing you no harm why make trouble for them

 

As Dave says a bit to much like a fascist state for my liking, grassing on neighbours who are doing you no harm......not nice not nice at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had one of my lovely neigbours contact the police about my car un taxed on the road within 24hrs hrs it was picked up.i had to get it out of a recovery yard cost £117 POUNDS.

i took the tax out to change it on to the new disabled car my wife just received. i wish my neigbour had Some bottle to come to me and ask why my car was untaxed but no with in a hour of me taking it out h/she phone the police elvis came out END,LIFE,VECHILES,------ SERVICE.And picked it up.

 

COST US A WEEKS INCOME SUPPORT

 

if you watch on the television they don`t need to come round they have you on the computer and send you paper work for the £80. pound fine(your`re neigbour won`t have that either)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.

 

As well as spying on us to the 9th degree this government & their cronies in local government, much like the commies & the fascists did, want us to all to be snitches & report on our neighbours, friends & even family

 

They are turning, or have turned, this country into a nasty place to live.

 

We can't even trust the bloody bin man because he/she might be rifling through our rubbish in case we are throwing out the 'wrong' rubbish on the 'wrong' day

 

Many ridicule those who like me who say bring back the old days well I'm afraid for those who don't recall the 'old days' let me tell you they wouldn't have dared to try this. There where too many still alive who had fought a war against such practises & they would have had their guts for garters

 

Where the hell is Guy Fawkes when you need him

Link to post
Share on other sites

I perhaps should point out that I had no intention of 'grassing' on anyone - I've just seen all the DVLA ads on the tv and wondered if they were telling porkies :D

Poppynurse :)

 

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I perhaps should point out that I had no intention of 'grassing' on anyone - I've just seen all the DVLA ads on the tv and wondered if they were telling porkies :D

 

I very much doubt they drive their ANPR vans down every single street in the UK every month its just pot luck if you get caught.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, are we not talking about the law here? you own a car, you want to keep it on a public highway you tax it, if not you SORN it and keep it off the road, end of

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the law, but the road tax system is rather barbaric, and criminalizes people who don't have off road parking. As someone said above, sometimes people need to save for a bit to get their car through its MOT. While they're not driving it, it's unfair to refuse them a tax disc and at the same time punish them for not having one.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As several people have already said here, there are usually very good reasons why some people can't tax their car on the very day it becomes due. For instance, my tax ran out at the end of march. The date for my MOT was 5th April. Unfortunatly the car failed on a couple of minor points (taillight bulb & tyre). Applied for the retest and got 12:15 on the 14th April. That was great or so I thought as it meant I could still get the car taxed at the Post Office. I asked for a half day off work but couldn't get it. I asked a few people if they could take the car for me (wouldn't trust my car to just any T D or H). No joy there for various reasons. I even tried phoning the test centre that morning in the hope they would let me bring the car in that evening seeing as it would only take seconds to check. No hope there either.. I live in a housing estate and have no driveway. So off road parking is non existant unless I dive the car up the steep steps and through thw hedge into the garden.

 

I don't like being untaxed and it is the first time I have went more than a couple of days. Unfortunatly circimstances worked against me. So if I see a car that is only just out of tax I don't suddenly rush for the phone.

HALIFAX: 13/01/07 Sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter (marked as rec'd 16/01)

Paid in full in March 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...