Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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
      • 160 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

Taken to court for failure to advise change of keeper


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3742 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

So I received a 'next steps' letter from a county magistrates court informing me I hadn't paid a fine after a court hearing. This is the first I have heard of this and after some digging I have found it relates to the sale of a vehicle in September 2012.

 

They had written to me at an old address and the court found my new address which is why I received this letter.

 

I have contacted the court and will go on Monday to complete a section 14 statutory declaration confirming I was unaware of the proceedings against me and have the case and fine nullified.

 

I understand however it is likely that the DVLA will re-issue proceedings against me and I will have to attend court as it has already got to this stage in my absence. It seems the pre-court negotiation letter is not an option for me.

 

I have two questions really - I sent the V5 by post as stipulated on the form. It was first class post so I have no record of posting, though after 15 months is it reasonable that even if I had sent it by recorded mail I would still have the record of posting?

 

So accepting that I am innocent of the offence of not not sending the change of keeper, how should I defend myself in court? Can I point out that I have complied with the request under the definition act of ''sending' the document. Also, I assume that they must prove beyond doubt I didn't send it and I can't see how they can safely do this?

 

The second question regards the amount of fine - they are saying the total outstanding of £310 includes costs of £85, a court fee of £25 and the original fine of £200! £200 seems a lot for sending a document when a standard speeding fine is £80. I'd this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was issued with a charge for not notifying DVLA of change of keeper. my thread is here.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284709-DVLAs-Late-Licensing-Penalty-How-many-Court-Cases-have-DVLA-Lost

 

hopefully some of the information used here might be able to help you sort your problem with them out.

 

I am sure other with more knowledge will be able to advise further

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will be happy to know that the law is changing next year, but as far as I know, a lot of people get caught out this way, as the small print on the notice, says if you haven't had a confirmation letter within a certain length of time, you are meant to get in touch. I do not think any judge would find you guilty, as you sent the document, but recorded delivery has been lost on me with an important document, and the Royal Mail just said put in a claim form for what I don't know. DVLA know they system is wrong, as the Citizen's Advice, but you will possibly get more reliable information on here. Good luck

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's ironic you've had this experience. I nearly fell over when I saw the Magistrates letter setting out a £310 fine!! This is the first I've actually heard about this. I sent the slip off in March, have heard ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and then get a kick in the proverbials! I would have thought at least I'd get an opportunity to defend myself. I have until 14th Jan to pay otherwise the court send out their henchmen. Can someone advise??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't believe it. Just to clarify, I have not heard from DVLA before regarding disposal of the vehicle, they haven't offered me a poxy fine which I probably would have paid to get them off my back, and I get a Magistrates letter straight on with the £310 fine. WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try speaking to DVLA, request a "Late licensing Penalty dispute process" - form V991.

 

 

Won't be a Late Licensing Penalty - it is a magistrates court matter, either failure to notify or not having a licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do I do? I am planning on writing to the Magistrates Court, seeing if I can suspend the matter, and dispute the matter. However, if they don't co-operate, I am planning on paying the fine and sending a letter of dispute taking the the DVLA to court to claim my money back plus interest. Does that sound logical??!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to contact the court and arrange to make a statutory declaration under s.14, Magistrates Court Act 1980. Which, if accepted, will cancel the conviction and the DVLA will have to start again, which gives you an opportunity to defend the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...