Jump to content
postggj

dvla clamping ???

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3584 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

after my experience with tyhe dvla local office today, ive been doing some digging with clamping and road tax

 

we all know the cretins who go around in the dvla camera vans are not realy dvla.

they were NCP

 

it seems a new kid on the block has rissen

 

NSL

 

http://www.nsl.co.uk/contact

 

NOW IF A MEMBER GETS CLAMPED FOR NO TAX BY THIS LOT, YOU WILL BE HIT FOR A BILL OF £260

 

£160 IS A SURETY.

 

THEY KEEP THIS UNTIL YOU TELL THEM WITH PROOF THAT YOU HAVE A VALID TAX DISC AND WILL THEN REFUND TO YOUR CARD. LEAVE IT FOR 14 DAYS AND YOU FORFIT THAT

 

LEAVE IT FOR TWO DAYS AND YOU THEN PAY AN EXTRA £100 WITH £22 A DAY STORAGE

 

AT THE START I SAID YOU HAVE TO PAY £260

 

£16O SURETY AND

 

£100 CLAMP RELEASE FEE

 

I KNOW THERE IS CASE LAW ABOUT A BALIFF BEING UNABLE TO CHARGE A CLAMP RELEASE FEE AS A CLAMP IS

 

JUST TO EMOBALISE A VEHICLE

 

SO DOES THIS NOT COUNT IN THIS CASE

 

YOU SHOULD JUST BE CLAMPED UNTIL YOU HAVE A VALID TAX DISC, THEN THE CLAMPED REMOVED AS

 

 

DVLA WILL THEN HIT YOU WITH ANOTHER £80 FINE FOR FAILING TO TAX OR SORN

 

LIKE I SAID

 

CASE LAW BACKS THIS UP SO

 

COMMENTS PEOPLE

 

 

THIS DOES NOT EFFECT ME IN ANY WAY, ITS JUST A SINARIO TO DEBATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but I believe NSL is the new name for NCP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i may be wrong, but i believe nsl is the new name for ncp

 

 

the plot thickens

 

now how about a decision if its lawful to charge for them to release the clamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's lawful - Schedule 2A, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

Ethical??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its lawfull to fit a clamp but

 

is it lawfull for ncp to charge a fee to release the clamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule 2A, s.1 (5) & (6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(5)The first requirement is that such charge in respect of the release as may be prescribed is paid in any manner specified in the immobilisation notice.

 

(6)The second requirement is that—

 

(a)a vehicle licence is produced in accordance with instructions specified in the immobilisation notice, and the licence is one which is in force for the vehicle concerned at the time the licence is produced, or

 

(b)where such a licence is not produced, such sum as may be prescribed is paid in any manner specified in the immobilisation notice.

 

THAT CHAGE WILL BE THE £160 SURITY TO GET A TAX DISC

 

THE POINT IME MAKING IS

 

IS IT LAWFULL TO CHARGE A FEE TO REMOVE THE CLAMP

 

A CLAMPS PURPOSE IS TO IMOBOLISE THE VEHICLE UNTILL THE VEHICLE HAS A TAX DISC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s.5 is the fee to release the clamp, s.6 is the surety for the licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay with me on this

 

 

this again comes under

 

cputr

 

there is case law also that states that baliffs cannot chargee a fee to release a clamp

 

dvla, who are in breach of cputr, which is a directive from the european court of justice and takes precedence

over uk law, and that the uk goverment must ammend its statutes as it will be classed as emination of the state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is they are not acting as bailiffs, they are acting as agents for DVLA, which is covered by different legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that contravention is covered under cputr which is a ECCJ directive and takes precedence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with unfair trading, the powers are in V.E.R.A. 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yess but cputr came in 2008

 

the directive says that the member state shall not profit in its reluctance to implament the directive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...