Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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 
        • 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

DVLA wrongly fining me out of court settlement


ibzyuk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4889 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

Hi everyone,

 

I just joined this forum , so big hello first :)

Now with the annoying DVLA who want me to pay an out of court settlement of £90. I have been accused of that my car was reported to be parked on a public road while being on SORN on the 23/07/2008 at 10:44hrs. Also they say the car was clamped and when the clamping team came back the clamp and the car was gone?? Finally they also have photographic evidence.

 

I don't understand none of their accusation as my car has not moved for the last few months, it is parked in a private parking area not far from the road they are allegedly saying the car was seen. The worst part of this I was away on holiday when car was seen on public road and I had the car keys with me!! When I came back from holiday the car was where I left it no clamp and no movement.

 

I have sent two letters now appealing , sending them photo where my car was parked, flight itinerary of my holiday and have requested to see the photographic evidence.

 

The last letter I have received from the DVLA was to call the office to request to view the photo. I called them and they say they are not allowed to send out the photo and I will have to drive up to Sidcup to see the photo which is over an hour away from where I live and I would have to take at lest half a day of work to do this.

 

I have thought of the possibilities of how I could get such a fine :

 

  • If some one stole my car, got it clamped then removed the clamp and returned it back where it was. Which I would say is very unlikely.
  • Or some one copied my number plate and this is not my car.
  • Or the wheel clamping team are making a false report, how does someone remove a wheel clamp.

Would really appreciate some advice on what to do next , should I just wait until they ask me to go to court or is there anyone I could speak to in the DVLA apart from the payment line. Or should I write to them another letter.

 

Sorry for the long message, thanks in advance ,

 

Ibrahim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I would write back and make it absolutely clear that you do not wish to settle on their terms, you are convinced of the fatuousness of their claim and look forward to vigorously defending yourself in the criminal court when they take it forward.

 

 

IOW, they have to put up or shut up.

 

When you plead not guilty, they are obliged in law to release to you all the evidence on which they intend to rely on to prosecute the offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, tell them that you look forward to seeing them in court, obviously you will be entitled to see what evidence they have against you prior to the court date, keep all correspondence and just sit tight

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I heard of something similar to this was when they mistook a 6 for an 8. As the car was supplied by the local garage, BOTH owners had the same make and model and they were first registered on the same day. It was the motorist who hadn't removed the clamp got threatened with the fine! (It was later cancelled!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the advice. I was wondering can I request to have the photo sent to me, using the dvla Freedom of Information Act request form.

 

A photograph of a number plate would fall outside of the remit of the FoI Act. You would need to make a subject access request.

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dident meen to post the last one just then.

 

Any way the raoad is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine. But DVLA say I must prove to them in black and white that it belongs to me and ont the council and it is up to me to prove my self right and not them to prove me wrong. Funny I always thourght this country was inocent untill proved guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dident meen to post the last one just then.

 

Any way the raoad is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine. But DVLA say I must prove to them in black and white that it belongs to me and ont the council and it is up to me to prove my self right and not them to prove me wrong. Funny I always thourght this country was inocent untill proved guilty.

 

Tell them to take you to Court. The burden is then wholly on them to prove that they are right.

 

Once again, I re-iterate. Who owns the land is irrelevant. All that matters is who pays for its maintenance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way the road is my land I maintain it my deeds say it is mine.

 

Once again, I re-iterate. Who owns the land is irrelevant. All that matters is who pays for its maintenance.

 

It would seem The tall one is very clear on that point too pat, so it should be a fairly short court appearance. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Firstly, hello! I am new to this forum and this is my first post!!

 

Secondly, I have read your original post with great interest as the exact same thing is happening to me! I have refused to pay the fines as my car is declared off of the road, on private land and has not worked for over a year!

 

I have got everyone from the local citizens advice to the local mp involved, all requesting that the case be dropped but am now due in court tomorrow!!

 

I would be very grateful if you could let me know how your case is going or if you have any advice on what to do and likewise please feel free to ask any questions and I will try to help you out!

 

It's probably a long shot but does this fine come from the Mitcham DVLA depot?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Firstly, hello! I am new to this forum and this is my first post!!

 

Secondly, I have read your original post with great interest as the exact same thing is happening to me! I have refused to pay the fines as my car is declared off of the road, on private land and has not worked for over a year!

 

I have got everyone from the local citizens advice to the local mp involved, all requesting that the case be dropped but am now due in court tomorrow!!

 

I would be very grateful if you could let me know how your case is going or if you have any advice on what to do and likewise please feel free to ask any questions and I will try to help you out!

 

It's probably a long shot but does this fine come from the Mitcham DVLA depot?

 

Thanks

Sorry K69 I just happened to see your post, as I now have to appear in court next week so was checking back my post.

I don't believe it YES it from Mitcham DVLA depot, the guy who statement is being used as evidence is Jamie B.

It really unbelievable I have sent a few appeal letters, spoke to the prosecutor, legal advice and nothing stopping it from being cancelled.

At the end of the day they have a photo of a Nissan micra car with my number plate with a clamp on it(photo is black and white, so can not tell colour).

The only evidence been used in the court is a statement from this Jamie from Mitcham DVLA. Any advice on what to do on my court date will be very much appreciated. How did your court case go, did you win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw your own post about your DVLA case. It is exactly the same as mine and I am dealing with the same people. I am glad the DVLA dropped the case . I will give Natalie Bushell a call and explain that I am a victim of the Mitcham Enforcement officer. It happened near the same time as well 23 July 08 mine was.

I would like to join you in taking legal action against the Mitcham NSL. I was really thinking about paying the fine, was told I may incur more costs if I took the case to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibzy,

 

Do you have any evidence of your holiday (ticket stubs / card statements showing transactions while you were away / passpport stamps and so on)? If so, they can help establish that you weren't there. If you can establish that, and state that you hadn't given anyone else permission to use the vehicle (stating that to the court should be enough - you don't have to prove it) then you have a defence in that, even if the "offence" took place then the car was stolen at the time.

 

Normally you'd be expected to provide police reports to support that but, if the thief kindly parked it back where it was, then you couldn't have known about it to report it ;)

 

Does the photo show the car where they say it was? Or is it shown in the private parking area? If the clampers wanted to "boost" tickets then it's most likely they would have clamped and photographed it where it is, then removed the clamp again.

 

If it's not possible to tell where the car is from the photo then ask for it to be thrown out - it proves nothing unless you can see clearly that it's on the road they say.

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, I do have my passport with it stamped showing I was on holiday at the time. I am sure the car did not move as I have the only copy of the key and it was with me when I was on holiday.

You can't tell exactly where the photo was taken, but I assume it is the same place, DVLA are not using the photo as evidence just the enforcement officer statement.

I was told by a legal advisor, that being on holiday at the time is not enough to be not guilty. Said as I was the owner the vehicle I was responsible if some one moved the car.

Looks like I will have to say in court that the enforcement officer made a false report and is a liar...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooo - you cannot say that. As far as you are concerned he may well have seen a car that approximated yours with the same registration... but did he check the VIN...?

 

There are more than enough cloned cars out there - especially within the M25 area where it is common knowledge that the use of cloned plates makes live just the little bit easier.

 

At the end of the day, it will be decided on the balance of probabilities, but if you swear on oath that your viehicle was and remained ff road whilst you were on holiday, and all keys to operate it were under oyur control, your only explanation is that someone, somewhere is using false plates.

 

I would think that the DVLA guy's evidence could be chllenged easily by telling the court that as a licencing professional, he of all people would be aware that a registration number alone is not enough to prove that the vehicle he saw was the vehicle on your land. If you have a neighbour who can also corroborate your car never moved, will blow them out of the water!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by a legal advisor, that being on holiday at the time is not enough to be not guilty. Said as I was the owner the vehicle I was responsible if some one moved the car.

 

Not strictly true. The DVLA will claim this and quote VERA 1994 about it (Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994). Section 29 creates an offence of using, or keeping, an unlicensed vehicle, to which there was no Statutory defence (ie: the Act does not explain what might be used to show you're not guilty). Under that, being the keeper is enough whether or not someone else actually left it there.

 

However, the keeper of the vehicle at any one time is not neccesarily the registered keeper. Both terms are used in legislation at various points and they have subtly different meanings.

 

The registered keeper is simply the person who's name is on the DVLA database for that vehicle.

 

The keeper may be someone else entirely, who happens to have control of the vehicle on a temporary basis.

 

For example, if you lend your car to your brother for a week then, as far as any legislation referring to the keeper is concerned, your brother would be the keeper for the period he has control of it. Similarly, if your car is taken without your consent, the thief is the keeper (although not the registered keeper) at that time.

 

In your case, you could not possibly have been the keeper of the car if it was used while you were out of the country ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other point. They're not introducing the photograph as evidence but, if you have a copy, there's no reason why you shouuldn't. If the photo they took (to act as evidence) doesn't clearly show where the car is parked and clamped then that really begs the question why doesn't it????. You may not be able to accuse them of lying (as Buzby rightly points out), but you're free to ask them about the phot and leave the judge to make his own mind up. If that was the only photo they took then it should show the location. If it's one of a few and "the others show the road" then why haven't they presented them as evidence???.

 

That's assuming anyone turns up for them, of course.....

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks buzby and spunkymonkey for advice you made some good points. Regarding the photo, I do not have a copy, but I have spoken to DVLA and have asked them to compare a photo I have sent to them and the one they have. The have said the photo they have shows registration with a clamp, but can not tell where the car is located. Also can not be sure that it is my car as photo is black & white. Assume that's why they are not using it as evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks buzby and spunkymonkey for advice you made some good points. Regarding the photo, I do not have a copy, but I have spoken to DVLA and have asked them to compare a photo I have sent to them and the one they have. The have said the photo they have shows registration with a clamp, but can not tell where the car is located. Also can not be sure that it is my car as photo is black & white. Assume that's why they are not using it as evidence.

 

 

In that case, ask them for a copy so you can judge it yourself. They don't have to give you a copy if they're not using it, but it's worth trying. If you don't get one, you can still ask them in court why they haven't submitted any photo evidence - which is their normal procedure in these cases - in your case. Something along the lines of "isn't it normal for you to enter photographic evidence of the offence in these cases?..... Why have you decided not to produce the photograph that was taken of my car?" Again, then leave the judge to make his own mind up ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes they do, under disclosure rules - but you have to ask for it

 

Only if they're using as evidence - in which case, a copy should have been included with the summons. If they've decided not to take the photo near court, or refer to it in any way, then they don't have to disclose. But that really begs the question of why isn't it used?.

 

It's normal practice for the clampers to take photos as evidence of an offence because, otherwise, it's their word against yours if you just cut the clamp off and drive away.

 

Because the offence under VERA 1994 is an offence rather than a criminal matter, they have to prove it happened "beyond reasonable doubt". If the photo showed an offence, they would use it.

 

No photo = no evidence of the offence even though the (presumably professional) clamper was in a perfect position to secure that evidence if any offence was committed.

 

On the other hand, Ibzy can provide evidence that he was out of the country - which means he was in no position to commit the (supposed) offence.

 

So, an offence that can't be proved apart from the word of the clamper, and an accused with documentary proof that he was out of the country when this alleged offence took place. You be the judge and decide if there's "reasonable doubt"........ :-D

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked the DVLA to send me the photo and asked why its not included in the summons as evidence. The DVLA told me the photo is not being used as evidence as its not needed, and when I asked them about car being clamped and then the clamp supposedly being stolen and car moved. They told me you not being charged with stealing a clamp, you are being charged with having a your car on a public road when you declared sorn.

The only evidence they are using is a ticket filled by the clamper, so my word against his. By the way shouldn't the clamper have left a ticket on my car?

So in court I will ask them to produce the photo of the car being on public road, which I am sure it will not show.. and I will produce my passport with stamp in it that shows I was out of the country when the offense happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked the DVLA to send me the photo and asked why its not included in the summons as evidence. The DVLA told me the photo is not being used as evidence as its not needed, and when I asked them about car being clamped and then the clamp supposedly being stolen and car moved. They told me you not being charged with stealing a clamp, you are being charged with having a your car on a public road when you declared sorn.

The only evidence they are using is a ticket filled by the clamper, so my word against his. By the way shouldn't the clamper have left a ticket on my car?

So in court I will ask them to produce the photo of the car being on public road, which I am sure it will not show.. and I will produce my passport with stamp in it that shows I was out of the country when the offense happened.

 

(my bold) That's pretty arrogant of the, when you think about it - They're effectively claiming "we say you did it, and that's all we need". Not sure a judge would agree with that!

 

Your last bit is exactly the line I'd take - maybe push the photo (or lack of it) a little more ("Why do you take photos if they're not needed?" "Why do you feel the photo evidence isn't needed in this case?" "How exactly did the photograph prove that an offence had been committed at all?").

 

And remember: you were out of the country when the ALLEGED offence took place. They can't prove any offence without the photo - it's just the clamper's word against yours. By always calling it an "alleged" offence makes it clear that you don't accept any offence actually took place. It's the closest you can get to calling them liars, and any judge will see the implications ;)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...