Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Dvla - Sorn -help Me!!


ancientwarrior
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5648 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

Early 80's bought a motorcycle, at the sametime did a bit of running,unfortunately had a serious achilles problem which needed an operation. after a rest realised i had a problem with the tendon and motorcycle use - excess strain etc.

So I decided to 'winter' the bike as it was autumn and the weather was changing for the worse also allowing the tendon better recuperation. Believe it or not (I was single then) i housed the bike in the living room and viewed it as furniture. Anyway to cut a long story short I now wish to bring the bike out - bearing in mind sorn was not required then.

Yesterday i viewed the dvla web site - and NO I have never received 'my' v5c registration form for this bike - and did a search on the vehicle

WOOPS DATE OF LIABILITY SEPTEMBER 1988 - Yes I remembered I taxed it that year had to travel to a new job. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN USED SINCE. Aanyone any advice how to approach this delicate subject of relicensing without the brunt of fines etc

note 1 bought from new

note 2 have original log book

note 3 never seen the road or path since 1988

note 4 swear I phoned the dvla in '88 and was verbally informed I was exempt

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that since your m/cycle what out of use prior to the introduction of continuous registration, there was no requirement to register SORN; this means that the continous registration does not apply to you until you next obtain VED for the m/cycle.

 

I don't quite follow the bit about the V5. If you bought from new, the V5 should be in your name.

 

Anyway, you can get a replacement V5 by using a V62 form and paying a £25 fee. You should also complete and attach a V890 from to declare SORN if you are not intending to obtain VED.

 

If you want to tax (VED) the m/cycle, then you need the completed V62, MoT Certificate and insurance certificate, together with the fees for both VED and V62.

 

If you (fairly obviously) have no MoT, then you can ride the m/cycle to and from an MoT test appointment once you have insurance. For this purpose, it is a VED-exempt vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume when you say that you never received a V5C you mean you have the original V5 in your name, but you never received a V5C when DVLA updated all the log books? You can still tax a vehicle at the PO with the old style V5, however the PO will keep it and forward it to DVLA and you will get a new V5C.

Personally I would not worry about the SORN element if you are now taxing the bike if the vehicle has been off the road as long as you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Thanx for prompt response - seems really helpful - I was expecting to put the bike back on the road and be immediately hit with a large bill for back tax and non sorn application.

the v5 - yes the original is in my name but since 2005 registration has been updated by a v5c document by the dvla. they have not issued me with one for the motorbike and i was reluctant to ask why cos of the thought of outstanding monies possibly owed.

one question please explain ved exempt

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

To you helpers, many thanks for your time : With regards to the v5c update form - surely I shouldn't have to pay for that or do you think the dvla may have written it off with it being so long. I suppose its 2 questions - I have just been back on to vehicle enquiry for the cycle and it states :

Date of Liability 21 12 1988

Date of First Registration 01 08 1980

Year of Manufacture 1980

Cylinder Capacity (cc) 475CC

CO2 Emissions Not Available

Fuel Type Petrol

Export Marker Not Applicable

Vehicle Status Unlicensed

Vehicle Colour BEIGE

Vehicle Type Approval null

The information contained on this page is correct at the time of enquiry.

Vehicle Excise Duty Rate for vehicle

6 Months Rate £0.00

12 Months Rate £48.00

and I note the ved rates, is this a misprint or are you only allowed to tax bikes for a year, I assumed gwc1000 was referring to the mot appointment only

regrds and many thanx to you all for your response

:wink:

Edited by ancientwarrior
missed a note off
Link to post
Share on other sites

DVLA haven't 'written it off' if the on-line search brings up detail (as it apparently does).

 

I would get it insured; then MoT'd; then taxed using the 'old' V5 - which the DVLA/PO will retain and send yyou a new V5C.

 

If you haven't got the old V5, then you will need a V62 and the fee for a lost V5©

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...