Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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
      • 160 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 chasing back-tax but car was SORN-ed


mightyreal_1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4961 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

Hiya guys, need a little advice...

I've been having a little bit of correspondence tennis with the big bad DVLA and the story is this:

 

We had a car that was spare so let the tax run out and put a SORN on it as soon as the tax ran out, the car was left in a parking space in a cul-de-sac and I thought that would count as "off road"... obviously it doesn't...

 

The car was clamped then towed away to be impounded - the fines to get it released was ineconomical for the value of the car so we signed the vehicle disclaimer declaration and waived our ownership.

 

Thought that was the end of it but then they started sending letters to claim back-tax for the period when the car had a SORN on - we were actually receiving two letters as apparently it had been spotted TWICE so there were two out-of-court settlement amounts... so I have been writing to them to refute the demands explaining that the car always had tax or SORN on it and we did not realise that the car was not allowed to be in a residential parking space - my main point being that there was no INTENTION to commit an offence and I said I could make a statutory declaration to say so if need be.

 

They have eventually replied fully by a person and basically said that they'll accept one payment of £72 as out of court settlement.... I'm half tempted to just pay the damn thing but a part of me is reluctant because I feel I hadn't done anything wrong!!!! AND they've taken the car away already!

 

I am tempted to let it go to court because there may be one saving grace in my situation - they have been writing to a LAN (first Name) when it should be "Man".... would this technicality help the situation?

Also, what actually happends when the case "goes to court" I am guessing the court makes a judgement and either orders us to pay or dismisses the case.... what happens if the orders us to pay? they can't make us pay? and they would be chasing a different name anyhow....

 

Please, some advice would be appreciated.

 

Many Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the error is a technicality but won't affect the proceedings. If they've agreed to amalgamate the sightings and bill you for just one, then I'd take it and get it over with. If you take it to court, your mitigation will be noted, but the costs will continue and you will have to pay this AND the victims surcharge. The only SORN safety net is if you have your own ground/driveway/garage, nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only SORN safety net is if you have your own ground/driveway/garage, nothing else.

 

Not quite, as long as the vehicle is not on a public road - a road maintained at public expense- a SORN declaration can be submitted in place of a licence, although the DVLA contractors sometimes seem to forget that and clamp vehicles that are SORN in private car parks etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no grey areas, the vehicle is either on a public road or it isn't. It's the DVLA contractors and their interpretation of the rules that causes the problem. As long as it can be shown that the vehicle is not on a public road, a SORN declaration is valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think there are no grey areas? Ask those who have their cars parked in a cul-de-sac... and had their vehicle clamped for no VED. The point being made is from the accused PoV, NOT the DVLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whos point of view is considered, it is down to where the vehicle is. If the location -your cul-de-sac for example - is a public road a licence is required, if it is not, a SORN declaration can be made instead of a licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it does. There is an adjacent thread where the angst of the OP over his car being scrapped when he thought his CdS was not the 'public road' is a valid point. I would assume we are both aware of the ramifications of the rules, as we've made it out business to. It is evident, however that others are NOT as up to speed and whilst you are swift to nit-pick, I was attempting to give a non technical but safe reply to the non-technical. There will be CdS situations that are not defined public roads, so preventing one from saying CdS's are OK to park in (say), when they may not be. However, there is no ambiguity in my first statement, and I stand by that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not nit picking, obviously if the vehicle is on your own ground/driveway/garage etc, SORN is valid but your post may confuse others in that SORN can only apply there, whereas it is also valid in a private car park, road or other land that is not maintained at public expense.

As the SORN declaration is that the vehicle will not be used or kept on a public road, it makes sense that the first thing anyone should do is simply check the status of the land where the vehicle is and not just assume that the SORN regulation applies. The cul-de-sac in the post you refer to is apparently a public road, which is why it was clamped, as you said, why didn't they put it on their drive where it would be safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...