Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI DX Yes check it every month , after I reinstated the second DD I was checking every week. Also checked my bank statements and each payment has cleared. When responding to the court claim does it need to be in spefic terms ? Or laid out in a certain format? Or is it just a case of putting down in writing how I have expained it on CAG?
    • Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • 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 
  • 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

Failure to notify. Another case!


Number6
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3923 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

Well it doesn't really inconvenience me so that's a fail if that's the case.

 

Do they have to give a reason to the court or can they just say "we're not ready". Could they do it again when the case is re-listed?

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Maybe they're hoping to push the case into the "Olympic period" whereby the judges may be overloaded with games related rapid justice cases and hence get it put back even further.

 

Cynical... moi?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/20/1?INTCMP=SRCH

Edited by Number6

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hmmm, it's now been put back to week beginning 13th August!

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, it's now been put back to week beginning 13th August!

 

Looks like they're trying their hand to inconvenience you somehow.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely if they keep putting it off by saying they're not ready or similar then the judge will not be pleased when he sees what a simple case it is?

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the penny is slowly dropping and they realise they are having difficulty preparing something that they MIGHT get past an Appeal Judge to set a precedent valid for all lower courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now listed for August 24th

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done number 6. I am going though the same situation. I m waiting for magistrate court summons. Because i denied to pay £35 fine. And i asked them take me to court. When summons will come i will ask for advice from paul kenndy and raykay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case now listed for 24th August.

 

listing letter.jpg

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Attended court for the appeal hearing this morning.

 

I lost! Appeal dismissed.

 

Can't be arsed to post anything more for now.

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost the first case because the magistrate said you did not ' deliver " the document. You then appealed. You then lost your appeal to a higher court. Does that mean that a precedent is set? Does that mean then that posting the document upon sale of the vehicle is no longer the lawful way to notify then?

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dvla should now be telling everyone not to post their documents but to take them to dvla offices instead !

This is a crazy decision and it affects everyone countrywide!!

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Number 6, I am really sorry. I have given you a lot of encouragement to continue with your appeal because I absolutely believed you would win because having spent a lot of time on this issue myself the argument, I thought is a clear one. I am completely shocked your appeal was dismissed. We need to find out exactly what was the legal argument that supported this verdict and if it is as suspect as it would appear then it needs to be challenged further because if this is used as precedent we could see large numbers of other innocent victims of the DVLA as a result. It could be carnage !

 

I am wondering if we could all combine and raise the money to fund a further appeal to a higher court to properly settle what would appear to be a terrible miscarriage of justice.

 

First thing is to find out why this argument that we thought we knew so well was lost.

 

Still can't really believe it

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly, my initial emotion is 'gutted'.

 

However I do not accept this as being an end - but a beginning.

 

As stated several times, I am willing to 'cough up' to a fighting fund to get this clarified or laid to rest.

 

No.6.

My heart is with you, but I hope you will persevere and help make the change we all think is long overdue.

 

I await a detailed summary once the details are better known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tony P and Surfboy. I could hardly sleep last night because I could not work out how Number 6 had lost. He contacted me this morning and said that Judge ruled that Interpretation act does not apply because the regulations make no mention of service by post.

 

Sounds clearly wrong to me and I was much encouraged that DVLA have not discovered some clever legal defence.

 

Number 6 is willing to fight on but cannot take further financial damage. I would be really interested in us all getting together and setting up a fund to collect returnable donation from all who would be prepared to support this case.

 

Number 6 is absolutely adamant hat he sent the slip so this is clearly a miscarriage of justice that needs to be put right. Next stage I believe is Court of Appeal.

 

Does anybody know how we could set up a donation system that is clearly transparent and could deal with donation and return of monies once the case is hopefully won. We need also to consider how to publicise that the fight is going on.

 

Perhaps we could set up some kind of committee . If anybody who is interested or has relevant experience could let me know and I will pass ideas on to Number 6 who is justifiably in a state of shock today after his ordeal but clearly willing to fight on.

 

This could be such a significant case for so many future victims of the DVLA !

 

Regards Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost the first case because the magistrate said you did not ' deliver " the document. You then appealed. You then lost your appeal to a higher court. Does that mean that a precedent is set? Does that mean then that posting the document upon sale of the vehicle is no longer the lawful way to notify then?

 

I'm in a very similar situationbut in reverse. Could you supply me with the court location and the its case number please.

 

It would help me out quite a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've answered my question or made me feel better.

 

I think other people might be interested in this case. Its on bailii court of appeal. The website will not allow me to post a direct link to it.

 

Calladine -Smith v Saveorder Ltd [2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch) (05 July 2011)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...