Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
    • That doesn't look like clacton ... Former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage buys coastal home in Lydd-on-Sea WWW.KENTONLINE.CO.UK Former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage bought a coastal home in the county, it has been reported.  
    • It's not a private road.  It's a small public street (with Resi houses) that leads into and from public road/ highway. The garages have land in front of the doors.  Then there's a yellow line. So there's a clear marker on what is private and what is public.  These people keep parking on the private land side
  • 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

Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4330 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

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Although I'm hopping mad at the nonsense they've come up with, it does actually all work in my favour ;)

 

1.) They admit not having a court order to take the car off my driveway

2.) They admit taking the car off my driveway

3.) They deny it is a breach of duty, (How can they deny the written law?? :D)

4.) They say it's not unfair relationship because it's not breach of duty, (The Consumer Credit Act 1974 says it IS breach of duty, therefore their argument is easily disproved)

Now you see what I mean!

I'm so glad I shared, I really appreciate your input :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you see what I mean!

I'm so glad I shared, I really appreciate your input :-)

 

Aaaah but its not any old duty its "statutary duty"

 

i am convinced that this defence was drafted by a writer from "mills & boon":p

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

paragraph 45: the grand finale.

 

every allegation is denied:confused:

 

but the real "crux" the illegal repo, s92 is admitted:eek:

 

"ROFL"

 

cab

Now you understand why I was so thrown earlier. It's so contradictory, vague and amateurish I thought it was some kind of joke!!

 

All it says is "denied, denied, denied" but no reasons why.

CPR 16.5 (2)(a) states there must be reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah but its not any old duty its "statutary duty"

 

i am convinced that this defence was drafted by a writer from "mills & boon":p

 

cab

They properly shot themselves in the foot with that one!

They admit the contravention of section 92 by admitting they didn't have a court order.

Section 92 subsection(3) states that any contravention of sec92 is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

Then they go on to say "it's not unfair relationship because we acted according to our statutory duty"

 

Oh no you didn't!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you understand why I was so thrown earlier. It's so contradictory, vague and amateurish I thought it was some kind of joke!!

 

All it says is "denied, denied, denied" but no reasons why.

CPR 16.5 (2)(a) states there must be reasons.

 

bang on the money wannabe.

 

maybe you should advice them to pop down to there local library and change there style of "fictional novelist"

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

still confused on this one "please clarify":)

 

cab

In 18 and 19 they are attempting to quote from the Act about their entitlement to serve a default and terminate.

 

In 20 there's a random comment about section 90 lol!

 

Then 21, 22, 23 and 24 is saying they defaulted and terminated.

 

Yeah, makes a load of sense I know!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 18 and 19 they are attempting to quote from the Act about their entitlement to serve a default and terminate.

 

In 20 there's a random comment about section 90 lol!

 

Then 21, 22, 23 and 24 is saying they defaulted and terminated.

 

Yeah, makes a load of sense I know!!

 

and they are trying to convince a judge:rolleyes:

 

just back tracking, is the default compliant.

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

and they are trying to convince a judge:rolleyes:

 

just back tracking, is the default compliant.

 

cab

This is what I was saying earlier about them refuting allegations I never even made! Why go on about section 90 when I didn't even allege they had breached 90???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compliant default my ar*e! The usual 14days cr*p, no numerical date. I wouldn't have minded but they never even bothered to send it to me!!

 

Done my head in enough for today, I'm going to bed!

 

Happy reading, (cos I know you'll re-read it! It's so incredulous you'll have to just to believe they really wrote that :D)

 

Goodnight Cab, thanks for your input x

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was saying earlier about them refuting allegations I never even made! Why go on about section 90 when I didn't even allege they had breached 90???

 

if i had'nt read there defence i could of answered that one, but having raed it "there is no answer" (twisted logic)

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

and good evening to you "double trouble" Aaaaw "sorry"

 

moz-screenshot.png

 

cab

 

 

Awww flower fanks hehe

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

wannabe can I see too please ;)

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

your "welcome" (no pun intended)

 

 

 

its "brilliant"

 

and good morning

 

cab

 

 

Morning :) wheres your thread then ;)

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

its coming "very soon"

 

cab

 

 

Oh the suspense........:razz:

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...