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

DVLA & NSL have sucked me dry


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5231 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

dvla & NSL took my car away which is a reletivly rare and decent mercedes be it 9 years old, because it was imobilised by a fault, it was parked on the road right next to the entrance to our residential parking, I couldnt afford to tax & renew the insurance at that time, niether could I afford to toe it to private land which I have access to at that time, where I could of SWORN it, they clamped me and toed my car away to be crushed/auctioned and informed me I was commiting a offence even though it was not my fault the car had a fault with its ignition, since oct my car has been there.. and they slamed me with 1200+ of pound fees + 115 I would need to find for a tax disc .. DVLA told me that the pound could be asked to lower the fee at there discretion but then NSL said it was up to DVLA when I told them DVLA said its up to them, they strung me along for a week telling me that the manager will decided, only to tell me nothing can be done about the fees in the end, DVLA also then issued me a Penalty of 80 for not SWORN'ing in time and all the time I cant get back to working so and Im just being made to go under by them.

 

So because I was light of money, its the case that I am a criminal, and I am to be forced into a insurmountable debt and loose my car :(

 

What amazes me is the way other motorists and officials automatically look at us like some tax doging criminals with no insurnace who dont normally keep there vechile in line with the law when evedence can easily be supplyed.

 

I tryed to raise the finanace to get it from the pound and sorted out, but every lender refuses me due to the fact that I am self employed.. and have a default against my mortguage which was jointly held with my mother who fell sick and it could not be sustained - I was subsiquently slamed with 31,000 of exit fees.

 

I hope these people stamping me into the ground choke on there wages – its filthy dirty money and they know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

I'm not sure if I agree that you are seen as Tax dodgers, however you did park your car in a public place.

There are stories of a car which is subject to a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification), being moved for a short time only to be towed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dvla & NSL took my car away which is a reletivly rare and decent mercedes be it 9 years old, because it was imobilised by a fault, it was parked on the road right next to the entrance to our residential parking,

 

Why didn't you just push it in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - we've got to work within the rules. Not having the money to move, repair or tax a vehicle is not seen as a valid reason - and it has certaily helped keep the streets free of old card that would therwise clutter the streets untaxed and uninsured. So whilst I'm sympathetic to your plight - I cannot see how you would expect to be treated any differently from the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - we've got to work within the rules. Not having the money to move, repair or tax a vehicle is not seen as a valid reason - and it has certaily helped keep the streets free of old card that would therwise clutter the streets untaxed and uninsured. So whilst I'm sympathetic to your plight - I cannot see how you would expect to be treated any differently from the rest of us.

 

The car was unable to be steered its a Rear wheel drive AUTOMATIC with a electronic IGNITION and STEERING LOCK - and no you dont just break the steering lock on a prestige mercedes like some G reg old ford fiesta or just have it draged along by the cheapest toe truck in town it has to be "low loaded" technically speaking.

 

thank you very much .. "oldcart" that is what the .GOV and DVLA and self rightious people would love to believe but the problem is if by some miracal i can get my car back we are certainly going to go to court, tribunal, and adjudication.

Edited by brain_fallen_out
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - we've got to work within the rules. Not having the money to move, repair or tax a vehicle is not seen as a valid reason - and it has certaily helped keep the streets free of old card that would therwise clutter the streets untaxed and uninsured. So whilst I'm sympathetic to your plight - I cannot see how you would expect to be treated any differently from the rest of us.

 

ONLY the DVLA and People running pounds at people like my self's expense think in their demented little minds that people such as my self are guilty until proven.

 

vex⋅a⋅tious

2. Law. (of legal actions) instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the

defendant.

Not to mention the loss of earnings and pain and sufferance and mental stress of having no transport I have endured at there hands

 

In the middle of a recession I think that DVLA can act a bit more civilized and display a modicum professionalism and common decency before running off half cocked screaming the persons name as a criminal (Deformation of Character), slamming people with penaltys, toeing away and clamping tax payers and law abiding citizens motor vehicles, like a bunch of over zealous buffoons, and then proceed to authorize some other member of the general public to extort me for thousands of pounds via their office.

 

What you have to realize is a I informed / advised dvla of the situation from the beginning, I can prove it on a itemized phone bill for that period, I'm sure a brief could request the recording of the call(s) assuming DVLA are not breaking some other laws that involve destroying evidence.. so you have a minimal defense.. at the end of the day all they had to do was hold off till I could re-instate insurance + TAX.

Edited by brain_fallen_out
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that the SORN legislation was a ruse set up the govt to extract more money from the best cash cow in history - the British motorist! Where else could you have cases where widows lose their recently demised husband's cars because their grief made them oblivious to the tax expiring?

 

Having said all that, its been around for quite some time now so ignorance isn't really an excuse and whilst this car has a specific set of technical issues, moving it wasn't impossible, just a bit complicated, so I think you played into their hands by leaving it on the highway. If it had been my car I would have done everything possible to get it moved.

 

Remember DVLA isn't staffed by motor enthusiasts, they're civil servants who follow rules and procedures. To them your car could be a banger or a Bugatti Royale, its just a reg number at the end of the day and they simply don't care.

 

Do I think its unfair? Absolutely! Is it vexatious - no, not really. I may not agree with it, but the reason for this law's existence wasn't to annoy us, but to clobber the thousands of neds who simply don't bother taxing or insuring their motors each year.

 

You are morally correct, but legally you are on shaky ground here I'm afraid, but don't let that put you off appealing to their softer side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I sympathise with you falling on hard times, I know if I dodge my car tax I'm in bother, If I dodge my MOT I'm putting others in danger and if I'm not insured, that's just plain selfish.

 

I agree that these clampers and towing companies are parasitic ****. There should be a fixed penalty for car tax dodging, not any old rip off amount that some clamper fancies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't you have got someone with a tow truck to tow it off the road? Then there would be no damage to your ignition or gears.

 

I understand your frustration but in the UK as in most places ignorance is not considered a valid excuse to be exempt from a law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

yep I pay my tax's and to prove the point the car will be insured and taxed in the next week which BTW you get fined for being late anyway,

 

heh and the real kicker is so some rude police officer to come on national Tv and insinuate that people who don't have there car tax are "tight".. and ask any one who knows me will tell you I'm a very generous guy .. always accused of being too kind.. so nice of them to say when I'm paying £1800 year for him to have a job and ultimately a life.

 

but any way I will have complied completely .. if they crush my finance comps car they will have made a big mistake surely.

Tom I could not afford the toe truck option it was more expensive then a Insurance deposit and Tax Disc at the time m8

 

I could bring an armada of people to court who would swear on a bible that I had been trying every thing at that time to prevent this and comply with the law.

Edited by brain_fallen_out
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...