Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • it's 85k of turnover (well, now £90k). However, you're digging yourself into another hole here. That ship has probably long since sailed. Is it worth pursuing this? You're not going to get anything back from it either way.
    • Hi,   A few pointers from yesterday to take note of evris cpr 27.9 failed again so we should really make issue of this also their WX fail to comply with CPR so again we should take issue with their statement of truth  you cant get tort if you get damages under subsection 7 of CRA because its double recovery  - not sure what we think of this? however its the first time i saw the judges make reference to your non automatic rights from s49 which s54 and 57 assist with. We should start stating this specifically for claims as I think its much better than just 49 and 57 as we need to make it clear where our non automatic rights come from as 54 automatic frankly dont help  I have sent the claim form and defences to the admin email because I can’t upload them for some reason as it wont let me but thought this may help as its the first time we’ve taken tort to trial. although i think the DDJ was honestly struggling to understand some parts of the law because he was asking me about them and how he should interpret them, especially for the automatic. Will apply for transcript if you want it?
    • I decided on confrontation - which I hate.  Omg the arrogance of the driver.  They refused to say who had given them the alleged permission to park on the private land - unless I proved ownership.  I couldn't believe they could be so objectionable.   They advised they couldn't take public transport to work as they lived too far away.  They couldn't rent a local garage as none were available. I simply said that's their issue not mine. It was infuriating that this person had such misplaced entitlement.  However I decided to humour them and show them the title deeds.   They couldn't respond.  Although at this point they alleged some guy in a city up north - whose name they couldn't remember - gave permission!!    They then asked if they could buy the garages and land!! Yet can't afford to park on a meter !! They seemed to back down and agree to now park elsewhere.  I hope so. 
    • I've worked out the contractor invoiced apx 250k - Without adding vat to the invoices.  So based on above he should have added vat to all invoices once he reached 85k?  Obviously he had to pay his labourers - would those payments get taken off what he received?  Or it doesn't matter cos he invoiced for the high sum?
  • 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

Driving licence fines threaten two million drivers


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4114 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

Many drivers face a fine of £1,000 if they fail to update their photo-card driving licences, according to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

 

It started issuing photo-card licences 15 years ago and more than 30 million drivers now have one.

 

These are usually valid for 10 years and there is a legal requirement for drivers to renew the photograph at the same time as they renew their licence.

 

However, two million drivers have failed to do this.

 

More ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the article, it looks like the DVLA is crawling along the same lines as the automatic fining system based on a database for taking cars offroad. I've only had a photo licence for a year, renewed when I passed my test. My father however still has an olde paper licence which the article says is to be phased out in two years time.

 

He always carries his passport with him along with the licence but this doesn't save him from the mandatory charge of updating.

 

There's definitely something rotten in the Swansea offices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another area for profiteering to take place in the DVLA.

 

If their only concern was that we all have an uptodate photo to help the police, then the updates should be free or produced purely "at cost". There is no way it should be costing the DVLA £20 to produce a new photo licence, probably more like a fiver!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private parking companies, pay day loan sharks, people who offer to carry out repairs to your perfectly sound roof, debt collectors, Nigerian sc.am merchants, the DVLA.

 

All the same, except that one is backed by the Government and Politicans, [and there's two more set's of shyster's]

 

Sam

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private parking companies, pay day loan sharks, people who offer to carry out repairs to your perfectly sound roof, debt collectors, Nigerian sc.am merchants, the DVLA.

 

All the same, except that one is backed by the Government and Politicans, [and there's two more set's of shyster's]

 

Sam

 

Don't agree with that sameagle. As the government refuses to stamp down on payday loan companies and allows them to charge the rip-off rates in the thousands of %, that means they must agree with it, so they are government backed as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, compuslory ID cards by another name. They do the same in the US but there, if you dont have a driving license they issue you one that doesnt entitle you to drive just so the police can ask for it as they dont have ID cards. I had to have mine because I moved house and it was required for the updating. They cost about 50p to produce and they dont show any entitlement to drive, that is on your paper licence but produce theat and not the photo card and you get procecuted, the exact same reason they scrapped ID cards in 1952.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Sometimes the licence shows less than 10 years depending on how the original was produced. For example, if you held a provisional for 4 years before pasing your test, the full licence will only carry the remaining 6 years that your photo had left before expiring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The DVLA's own annual reports (available on-line) show that over the last few years they cannot trace the registered keeper of a vehicle from their Vehicle Register in between 1 in 23 and 1 in 34 cases. The target is better than 4%. The situation with the Driver Register is even worse where the driver cannot be traced from the record in nearly 25% of cases. The target is 20%.

How on earth can they be allowed to continue issuing penalties "from the record" with that level of inaccuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...