Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

MOT Rules for a SORN vehicle


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3145 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

Hello All,My first post and its a question :)My lodger has two Mazdas, she bought the first about 12 months ago - a mark 1 and about two weeks later bought a mark 2 the mad girl.The Mk1 has sat for a year in a garage and is now due for another MOT - why she hasnt gotten rid already I dont know but non the less.She took it for an MOT and it failed on some small welding job that needs sorting out - she has taken the car back to the garage from the test centre and has asked me to find a welder for her which I have done.The car needs to go from the garage to the welder ( a journey of about 7 miles or so) and then return to the test centre for a free re-test before a 10 day period expires (quite generous as I dont think they are obliged to do that).The Car is Insured, and I believe it still has a little MOT left but I dont think it has tax as she let it go after wasting about 11 months worth sat in the garage.I dont want her to get fined however so is there something that must be done, is this repair journey permitted as long as there are no detours (which there wont be) or is this a compulsory put it on a trailer job.Many ThanksAndy (Cybermat) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an exempt vehicle as far as tax and MoT is concerned providing it is being driven to/from a pre-booked MoT test or to/from pre-booked repair once it has failed such a test.

 

It does not need tax, MoT (or even number plates), but it must be insured to allow it to be driven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there is an exemption for going to a pre booked Mot, or from it to a repairer, in theory it does not cover driving it home from the test centre.

 

It most certainly does not apply for any subsequent journey from the place of keeping to a repairer, even if the repairs have been pre-booked, unless it is back to the original Mot centre where it will be retested following repair ie., change of mind over having them effect the repairs, or to another Mot centre where a new test will be carried out (fee payable) following repair.

 

The simple option, if you are correct that there is still some Mot remaining, is to tax it before that jouney, after all, is that not the intention for having it Mot'ed?

 

If the vehicle licence has expired, it should have been declared (SORN) as your thread title suggests, but you do not mention in your post. If that has not been done, a penalty may be averted if it is recent and the new tax is consecutive.

 

Another alternative would be to have the vehicle moved on trade plates as an alternative to being trailered.

 

Do not risk taking it on the road outside of the strict exemptions as APNR cameras have become an unobserved tool for enforcement.

Edited by Gick
Missed spacing

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there is an exemption for going to a pre booked Mot, or from it to a repairer, in theory it does not cover driving it home from the test centre.

 

It most certainly does not apply for any subsequent journey from the place of keeping to a repairer, even if the repairs have been pre-booked, unless it is back to the original Mot centre where it will be retested following repair ie., change of mind over having them effect the repairs, or to another Mot centre where a new test will be carried out (fee payable) following repair.

 

 

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

 

VERA Sched 2, S.22

 

Vehicle testing etc.

 

22(1)A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used solely for the purpose of—

(a)submitting it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) for a compulsory test [F45, a vehicle identity check][F46, a vehicle weight test or a reduced pollution test], or

 

(b)bringing it away from [F47any such test][F48or check].

 

[F49(1A)A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used solely for the purpose of—

 

(a)taking it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) for a relevant re-examination, or

 

(b)bringing it away from such a re-examination.]

 

(2)A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used by an authorised person in the course of a compulsory test [F50, a vehicle weight test [F51or a vehicle identity check or][F52, a reduced pollution test] or a relevant re-examination and is being so used]solely for the purpose of—

 

(a)taking it to, or bringing it away from, a place where a part of the test [F53, check][F54or re-examination] is to be, or has been, carried out, or

 

(b)carrying out a part of the test [F53, check][F54or re-examination].

 

[F55(2A)A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used by an authorised person solely for the purpose of warming up its engine in preparation for the carrying out of—

 

(a)a compulsory test [F56or a reduced pollution test], or

 

(b)a relevant re-examination that is to be carried out for the purposes of an appeal relating to a determination made on a compulsory test [F56or a reduced pollution test].]

 

(3)Where the relevant certificate is refused on a compulsory test [F57, or a reduced pollution test,]of a vehicle [F58or as a result of a relevant re-examination,] the vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used solely for the purpose of—

 

(a)delivering it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) at a place where relevant work is to be done on it, or

 

(b)bringing it away from a place where relevant work has been done on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Davis

 

Please show where in the above the driving to the repairer from the keepers address is covered.

 

What you have highlighted at the end refers to going from the Mot centre to a repairer.

Edited by Gick
addition

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Davis

 

Please show where in the above the driving to the repairer from the keepers address is covered.

 

What you have highlighted at the end refers to going from the Mot centre to a repairer.

 

Try reading. (You can't even spell my name correctly!)

 

22 (3) refers to taking a vehicle to and from repair premises - nothing to do with the testing centre. There is no statutory requirement for the vehicle to only travel from the test centre.

 

22 (1)(b) is the referral for returning from a testing centre

 

 

However, it is worth noting that the 22(3) exemption only applies after a lest certificate has been refused.

 

There is no requirement that the repair premises are the same as the test centre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Davies,

 

I apologize for getting your name wrong.

 

Surely the Mot and the repairs must be intimately linked without the break on the owner's premises for the exemption to be claimed?

 

To extrapalate the argument, in a month's time when the money is available, it can be driven to the repairer? Pre-booked. Or the welder takes a month to complete the repairs? I am not trying to be facetious when using this analogy, but there does not appear to be an outer timescale in your interpretation.

 

I certainly would not risk it and have the hassle of challenging it in court as the DVLA are likely to take a very uncompromising attitude to a subsequent journey.

 

I suggested alternatives to trailering so that the OP did not feel that this was the only way not to rely on interpretation.

 

If I have misled the OP then I apologize to him/her. .

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

VERA is silent on time-scales in this regard and therefore none exist (we live under Common Law which basically means that unless something is specifically forbidden, it is allowed)).

 

There is also an urban myth about the testing centre having to be closest or being unable to stop along the way.

 

The first is a myth as there is no statutory requirement to use a nearby testing centre - as long as you can demonstrate a pre-booked appointment, it can be at the other end of the country. The second has been completely debunked by case law; the driver is allowed to stop along the way.

 

Providing the law is being adhered to, the DVLA can go f*** itself. The decision on law is for a Court and not a government agency that thinks itself above the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
well said

 

i got dvla to drop a court summons against me through quoting statute legislation

 

not legislation acording to dvla bean counters and performance targets

 

 

 

this is very interesting, particularly as i am currently wrangling with nsl to refund my £260.

I am a motor trader. I collected a vehicle from is kept place and drove into my trade premises to briefly check a tyre prior to pre-booked mot test, before backing the car out of the garage onto the public highway. It was left there, with kets in ignition whilst i locked my gates. In those 2, yes 2 minutes, the nsl vehicle arrvied and clamped me.

I have a copy of vera sch2.22 but have been trawling the internet searching for legislation to support my case in fact that my garage is a place of repair and the vehicle was on its way to mot test.

I would like to know what case law you found - any help very much appreciated.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Davies,

 

I apologize for getting your name wrong.

 

Surely the Mot and the repairs must be intimately linked without the break on the owner's premises for the exemption to be claimed?

 

To extrapalate the argument, in a month's time when the money is available, it can be driven to the repairer? Pre-booked. Or the welder takes a month to complete the repairs? I am not trying to be facetious when using this analogy, but there does not appear to be an outer timescale in your interpretation.

 

I certainly would not risk it and have the hassle of challenging it in court as the DVLA are likely to take a very uncompromising attitude to a subsequent journey.

 

I suggested alternatives to trailering so that the OP did not feel that this was the only way not to rely on interpretation.

 

If I have misled the OP then I apologize to him/her. .

 

 

a)delivering it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) at a place where relevant work is to be done on it, or

 

(b)bringing it away from a place where relevant work has been done on it

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a)delivering it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) at a place where relevant work is to be done on it, or

 

(b)bringing it away from a place where relevant work has been done on it

 

Thank you but this refers to transportation after an MOT certificate has been refused. My situation was to check something prior to the test. VERA does not state that the vehicle must be taken DIRECTLY to the MOT station only that it must be used for the sole purpose of submitting the vehicle for the test. Its that case Law I'm searching

Link to post
Share on other sites

VERA Sched 2, S.22

 

Vehicle testing etc.

 

22(1)A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used solely for the purpose of—

(a)submitting it (by previous arrangement for a specified time on a specified date) for a compulsory test [F45, a vehicle identity check][F46, a vehicle weight test or a reduced pollution test],

 

 

surely that one applies, taking it to a prebooked test

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...