Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • 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

National mileage register query


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4950 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 am posting this on behalf of a member of another motoring forum.....

 

"I have had some probs with my Seat diesel, I have put it up for sale to buy a smart diesel instead and all I been getting in the past week is people coming agreeing a deal then they go do their hpi check and comes back with higher mileage reading from the register above.

 

Let me tell you, it has a full Seat history with all the mots and only 2 owners has 46k, now but checks are coming back 106k so its putting off all the customers, I can assure you this car has not had 106k and I bought it from seat themselves

 

I have googled this issue and it appears a few people have had trouble with the national mileage register but its not on, how do I get it off the register? They dont remove anything on there even if you fax all your evidence!

 

My question is this, WHERE DO THEY GET THAT INFO FROM??!!"

 

 

Thanks for any replies to this troubling problem!

 

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know my son received a letter from them after he sold his car last year asking him to inform them of the cars millage when he sold it. As it is voluntary he decided not to bother. They never asked for proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its just wrong where do they get it from? how can i out the miles on the register? cant sell the car when people think ive done 100k and im advertising it with 46k they even talking about police but i have done nothing wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mrs Hobbit

How strange, they claim my car is not registered with them.. I bought it briand new, it's sitting on my drive and they want 35 euros for a report. Oh Cartel ie is based in Ireland and is four years old...what a way to make money. Incorrect information on the first check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mrs Hobbit

How do we make the public aware of this. My car isn't even listed with them, which makes it even more disconcerting. The people who do use them believe their figures are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do as you;re doing now. Raise the concerns in motoring forums. Why not also ask them how you can be assured the data you are paying for is accurate? They might bury themselves.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I am posting this on behalf of a member of another motoring forum.....

 

"I have had some probs with my Seat diesel, I have put it up for sale to buy a smart diesel instead and all I been getting in the past week is people coming agreeing a deal then they go do their hpi check and comes back with higher mileage reading from the register above.

 

Let me tell you, it has a full Seat history with all the mots and only 2 owners has 46k, now but checks are coming back 106k so its putting off all the customers, I can assure you this car has not had 106k and I bought it from seat themselves

 

I have googled this issue and it appears a few people have had trouble with the national mileage register but its not on, how do I get it off the register? They dont remove anything on there even if you fax all your evidence!

 

My question is this, WHERE DO THEY GET THAT INFO FROM??!!"

 

 

Thanks for any replies to this troubling problem!

 

 

P

 

I have same issue i have a bmw 330i and have full bmw main dealer service history with all mot and receipts etc,last year on mot milage was 69,768 have mot and a recent service to that date confirming milage,had a hpi check yesterday from a buyer and it said 170,000 for that date it then said "revised"and 70,000 after it,they have updated the issue but the 170,000 remain on there for everyone to see even though it was an error,this put off my purchaser and i dont blame him i wouldnt buy a car i thought was clocked.It is good for the ads tougt when they say 1 IN 12 CARS ARE CLOCKED 2 IN 10 CARS HAVE ACCIDENT DAMAGE.purly because they make it up as they go along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no mystery. Read the link.

 

As you can see, it is very easy for a typo or transposition to cause problems, but if you provide the correct proof, they'll amend their records.

i think it has been ammended already hence the word revised and milage reduce to 70,000 2 months later however it should be removed not just revised surly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, Just thought I'd drop in my tuppence worth. We run the Irish National Mileage Register and collect mileage data for similar purposes as HPI (our car history website is called Motorcheck.ie). Our data sources are similar but with one exception. We don't use mileage readings provided by private individuals purchasing a car history check. We felt this was an area that would be open to abuse (false readings being submitted against cars) and wanted to make the data as reliable as possible.

 

However, we take the view that the national mileage register should be there to facilitate and validate the sale of a legitimate reading as well as uncover any cases of clocking. We realise that mileage data aggregated on a large scale will always contain a small percentage of errors. Whether it's simply human error at the input stage or mistaking a mileage reading for kilometers it can be annoying when a car history check shows up a perfectly legitimate car as having a 'mileage discrepancy'.

 

Our policy is to remove any offending readings from the database once they can be proven to be false. If the incorrect reading has damaged a sales opportunity we're always happy to speak with a potential purchaser and explain where the incorrect reading came from and how we're rectified it on our database.

 

At Motorcheck we feel that a good car history check service should protect both buyers and sellers. That's why we're always happy to listen to any customer who has issues with the data we provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i do have them and all been verified online from dvla so have stamps in book and car is mint buyer wouldnt have it or believe it,dont help sell the car though when these agencies say DONT BUY IF THERES A DESCREPENCY etc scares people off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it remains a fair warning. However, as you can prove the real mileage by way of previous MoT certificates (which is VOSA, not DVLA) this is positive proof of an error. Vehicle service records less so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...