Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 5468 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...