Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Thanks for the responses. Just a few follow up questions in light of what's been said:   If I dont appeal to PPM, who can I appeal to?   Why should the PCN been attached to the windscreen? Is this written in law?   I assumed the document I had received was the NTK, if this is not the case, what does a NTK look like?   Regarding the compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act, could the "period" of parking not be argued either way? The legislation doesnt state it must have a start/end time of parking, which I assumed an ANPR camera would pick up if it had one. Is 4 minutes not technically enough to show the vehicle was parked?    Thanks !
    • I see jenrick has stuck his head up with them, and I'm sure this wont faze their nasty rhetoric one wit-less UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report | Economic growth (GDP) | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Resolution Foundation report suggests parties are dodging the economic challenges facing the country   Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it Immigration: how 14 years of Tory rule have changed Britain – in charts | General election 2024 | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it    
    • Will get them done asap My job changes week to week so at the time I didn’t know. 
    • You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  Many thanks
  • 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

Possible illegal activity at the DVLA


Big Bill
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5509 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

I have been trawling the DVLA regulations on privately importing cars from the USA because we have been in dispute over mine for 7 months.

 

Local Office Transactions Instructions, Chapter 34 under the paragraph Certificate of Title :- a car which has been registered in the USA must be given an pre March VRM from the Model year. e.g. a 2008 model gets a 57 plate.

 

However, a fair proportion of 2008 models are registered before 1st September 2007. This would require an 07 plate to be assigned. Now if you obtain a registration (57) that makes your car appear younger than it is (07) you are comitting a criminal offence.

 

What offence if any is the DVLA comiting when they force you to have one that does just that. Even the usual defence of "we only go on the information prvided" doen't wash in this case.

This is part of my complaint which has gone off to the PHSO.

 

Another silly thing, you can appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the DVLA based on their inspection of the car, but you must be trying to obtain a new registration for a mini bus that has benn scrapped and subsequently repaired, all other vehicles are disqualified.

{Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 regulation 15 , Schedule 3}

 

Has anyone noticed that the DVLA have collected £15,000,000 selling 6,000,000 names and addresses to the list of companies on the website. Some of these companies are run by known criminals.

 

They also collected £9,000,000 from their premium rate numbers in spite of the fact that premium rate numbers are outlawed in government departments.

Edited by Big Bill
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites

A standard UK registration would be;

 

Sept 07 to Dec 07 = 57

Jan 08 to Feb 08 = 57

Mar 08 to Aug 08 = 08

Sept 08 to Dec 08 = 58

 

Therefore if you assign a 57 plate for any US import covering Jan 08 to Dec 08 you are giving it the oldest possible VEM and thereofre not making it look younger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The assignment of a date related VRM is based on the date it was first registered in the USA.

 

You will note that a 2008 model can be registered in the USA prior to September 2007 because they start deliveries of 2008 models in june/july 2007.

 

This means that a not insignificant proportion of 2008 models which were produced between June and August and registered immediately should have been assigned an 07 plate on importation to the UK, the 57 only starts September 1st. Of course if it is not registered until October 2009 it still gets a 57 plate according to the DVLA rules when it should have been a 59.

 

 

This kind of confusion caused the DVLA to assign a plate for mine which stopped being issued three and a half months before it was made.

 

This goes for any year of model.

Edited by Big Bill
Clarify and spelling errors
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it was registered in the USA prior to September 07. irrelevant as to what "model" it was, then it will have a 2007 plate. By the DVLA website, when it is imported, it will be declared as a "2007 registered" car and therefore be given a "56" plate being the oldest version of the VED within the year Jan 07 to Dec 07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A 2007 model could have been registered before september 2006 thus being assigned an 06 plate. If it registered after September 2006 and before March 2007 it gets a 56 plate and march to August 2007 gets an 07 plate after September 2007 then it should have had a 57 plate.

 

The DVLA's rules overlook the pre September registrations and state that it must get a 56 plate unless you can show that the date of manufacture or the date of first registration in the US, was on or after March 1st 2007.

 

There is no way that you will get an 06 plate unless you know the rules and specifically tell them to do so. This is the usual get-out, in that if you don't tell them it is not their fault.

 

Since it took a specific request under freedom of information act to get a sight of the rules, most people are simply ignorant of the fact that they are comitting an offence, and what is more the records of the DVLA do not contain the information to detect that offence.

 

Now if you obtained a 56 plate when the vehicle should have had on 06 plate by falsifying your application then you will be prosecuted for fraud and could be liable for imprisonment up to two years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...