Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Which would require a hearing....so the fee would be £255.00
    • When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Act:   a.     must a creditor provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof? or b.     can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself?   It was held that a creditor can satisfy its duty under section 78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.   The judge accepted that as a matter of law, section 78 does not itself require any particular explanation as to how the copy was made. However, as a matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor, it is desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. This will also explain why the copy might otherwise look a little odd. The creditor can also explain in the letter that this procedure is satisfactory under the Act. The judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):   1.     Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 2.     Name and address of the debtor 3.     Name and address of the creditor 4.     Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.   All of the above may be provided on a sheet which is separate from the full statement of terms and conditions which also forms part of the reconstituted agreement. The creditor may, however, decide to reconstitute the agreement in a different way so that, for example, the information above is populated electronically onto the same sheet as that which sets out the terms and conditions, or some of them. The judge stated that he did not intend to prescribe the precise form of the reconstituted agreement. The key point is what information it should contain, subject to the point that its format should not be such as to mislead the debtor as to what he agreed to.   The judge also considered whether a statement like the one appearing in the reconstructed application form in Carey referring to the agreement to the terms and conditions "attached" needs to be included in the reconstituted copy. Alternatively if the application form had said "I agree to the terms overleaf", should that statement be included. The judge held that this aspect of the form is not necessary for the purpose of the section 78 copy, although there is nothing to stop a bank from putting it in or indeed from furnishing a copy of the type of application form or signature page that the debtor would have signed, as some banks have done. The statement referring to terms and conditions is not itself prescribed information and the supply of the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time will tell the debtor what he needs to know in terms of the content of what he signed up to, including the presence (or otherwise) of the prescribed terms.   In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the section 78 copy the section 63 copy, which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) that he/she agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.   Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Regulations) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with section 78?   A creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Regulations as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.   Must the copy provided under section 78 include the debtor's name and address as at the date when the agreement was made, and if so in what form? The section 78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself.     If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?   If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.     As your agreement is post April 2007  Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3)   Consumer Credit Act 1974 would not apply.   Andy
    • well start a new thread for the court claim.   as for this one i'd await the letter of claim  
    • Useful information...   And....   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part55
    • nice and ofcourse totally unlawful.   £349.50 is the usual sum RLP try and fleece out of people under some silly civil threats none of goes to the store it all goes in RLP's pocket for their next staff holiday paid for by mugs that fall for their twaddle ignore!!
  • Our picks

mrchimps

No MOT clamped - paid £260

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2513 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

Hi, hoping someone can advise.

 

My car is not running at the moment and has been parked up my drive on SORN, I had to move it out last week to get access to my drive. So I parked the car outside my house and put the battery on charge.

 

Was supposed to put it back on the drive at weekend but didn't and of course this morning a road tax van spots it and clamps it.

 

I went out to explain, but they were having none of it. Clamped it and said it was being impounded unless i paid £260, or i could collect it from impound for £260 + £21 per day. I had to pay the £260 there and then.

 

I know my fault, but just wanted to check a couple of things:

 

1) To insure the car and get its tax would be more than the £260 - so if I do nothing and lose the £260 is that the end of the matter?

I have now moved the car onto the drive again (and confirmed it is still sorn)

 

2) as the car had no insurance will the police become involved and fine me through the post?

 

Any help appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately thems the rules now. As far as i know, the DVLA will act under the new continuous insurance enforcement rules which state that a vehicle must either be SORNd or taxed and insured. If it is SORNd then it MUST NOT be kept on a public road at any time. I believe that if you do nothing, you car will be crushed but i think you will still be liable for a penalty (I am happy to be corrected on that though). https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

 

The good news is that driving without insurance is a separate offence so it is doubtful that the police will be involved unless you have been caught/reported for doing so.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply - not sure if i follow

 

I have paid the £260 fine and moved the car off the road, is that the end of it as the car is still sorn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for reply - not sure if i follow

 

I have paid the £260 fine and moved the car off the road, is that the end of it as the car is still sorn?

 

Sorry, I missed that bit. I would check with the DVLA to see if the SORN is still effective and if there is any intention of them pursing the matter further. You could run a check here https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/enquiry?execution=e1s2 which will state the vehicle status.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that,

 

Just read some horror stories of people being fined again by the dvla on top of what the clampers charge.

 

Will ring and check

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be a further 'Fine', but what they may do is claim for the unpaid duty from when the last licence expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't be a further 'Fine', but what they may do is claim for the unpaid duty from when the last licence expired.

 

Hi,

There shouldn't be any back dated unpaid duty to pay as long as the car was continously 'sorned' both before & after you moved the car. As you said you checked this then you will be okay.

 

It's such a shame thou that just by removing your car from the drive to the road & back cost you £260!! That was some bad luck to get caught out this way, but as another poster said it's the law now.

 

Regards


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every single minute of it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

There shouldn't be any back dated unpaid duty to pay as long as the car was continously 'sorned' both before & after you moved the car. As you said you checked this then you will be okay.

 

It's such a shame thou that just by removing your car from the drive to the road & back cost you £260!! That was some bad luck to get caught out this way, but as another poster said it's the law now.

 

Regards

 

Don't think that is true i'm afraid. If you breach the terms of your SORN, it would invalidate it thus meaning that any duty would be due from when the last valid disc expired. Again, I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

There shouldn't be any back dated unpaid duty to pay as long as the car was continously 'sorned' both before & after you moved the car.

Regards

 

See the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994, Section 29. 3A, (a) & (b), Section 30. (1) & (2) & Section 31. (1) & (2) which explains the liability for the outstanding duty for using or keeping a SORN vehicle on a public road.

Edited by Raykay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That dosent sound good? I think it was sorn beginning October. £260 down and looking at even more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thank to both Sailor Sam & Raykay, for the correct information.

 

Previously I was led to believe that as long as your vehicle is sorned continously without a break then no back dated duty was due. So that's true BUT only if it's parked on a drive etc & NOT at anytime moved onto a public road (whatever the reason).

 

So in this case would the OP have to pay all back dated duty from when the car was originally sorned?

 

Regards & thank again :)


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every single minute of it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me if I'm looking at tens or hundreds in terms of the fine?

 

Tax is 107 for 6 months and last sorn 3months ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My car is not running at the moment............parked up my drive on SORN, Was supposed to put it back on the drive at weekend but didn't ..........2) as the car had no insurance ...........

 

Unless I'm reading your post incorrectly, your car was without MOT, SORNed and no insurance, yet you moved it onto the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has mot, not insured not taxes

 

Not according to the title of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, i know mistake on title

 

paid the £260 and £95 fine in post.

 

lesson learned

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...