Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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

Car clamped and impounded for being used and kept unlicensed in the UK


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3509 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

Sorry i am new to this page and i don't know how it works well.

 

I live in Reading and i brought a Spanish car with Spanish registration on the 8th June 2014.

I brought the car into UK for bringing goodies into my home in Reading.

 

On the 16th June 2014 a police officer stopped my partner when he was driving the car and

the police officer clamped and impounded the car because the car was used in UK without a UK license and UK tax.

 

On the 17th June i paid 260 pound fee for releasing the car from the pound and paying a surety fee.

Then, i was explained that the car needed to be registered in UK or had to be removed from UK immediately.

I took the car back to Spain on the 28th June 2014.

 

On the 21st July i received a letter from the DVLA saying that i had committed an offence as i am the owner of the Spanish car

that was seen on the 16th June 2014 by the police and impounded because the car wasn't licensed in the UK.

The DVLA said that they have intention to take court against me with regard to the offence.

That they offer me to pay an out of court settlement of 247 pounds.

 

I send the DVLA a letter on 24th July 2014 saying that the car was no longer in the UK because i took the car back to Spain on the 28th June 2014

as the car was going to stay in the uk for a short stay.

Therefore, there was no need for them to take me to court.

 

On the 31st July 2014 i received another letter from the DVLA saying that it is an offence to use or keep an unlicensed vehicle in the UK.

That i stated that the car is no longer in the UK but that i still have commited an offence.

That they continue with the intention to take me to court.

 

They say that they offer me a final opportunity to pay the out of court settlement of 247 pounds requested in the previous letter.

That i should pay the 247 pound by 29/08/2014 to avoid court action.

 

Could you help me to please!!

 

I think i have already paid a penalty for keeping the Spanish car in the UK without UK registration and tax.

Would you recommend me to write the DVLA a letter saying that they want to fine me twice for the same offence??

 

Thank you for the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 diff things

they want £247 'fine' for using the car on uk roads

 

you paid the release fee from the pound, not the above fine.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you recommend me to pay the 247 pound fee to avoid court action? or to go to court?

 

Would you recommend me to write a reply saying that i have already paid the 260 pound fee for releasing the car? do you think it is not paying twice for the same offence??

 

thanks for the advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you recommend me to pay the 247 pound fee to avoid court action? or to go to court?

 

Would you recommend me to write a reply saying that i have already paid the 260 pound fee for releasing the car? do you think it is not paying twice for the same offence??

 

thanks for the advice

 

You have had this answered in a previous reply.

 

There are two different sums owing for two different matters.

 

The £260 is a fee to have the car released from impound.

The £247 is a administrative penalty in place of going to court to be prosecuted for having the car unlicensed.

 

You could have not paid to have the car released and had the car crushed, and still be liable for the £247.

 

You chose to pay the impound fees and have the car released but that wasn't paying for the offence of having the car unlicensed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want this to go to court and face a much larger fine

 

Just because you have taken the car back to Spain that will not stop action you were using it

On the roads over here

 

Best bet to pay out of court settlement

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want this to go to court and face a much larger fine

 

Just because you have taken the car back to Spain that will not stop action you were using it

On the roads over here

 

Best bet to pay out of court settlement

 

Thank you everybody for your replies, you have been of help

Best to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the car was taxed in Spain, then there is no issue with using the car in the UK temporary and it does not have to have UK tax etc, but you need to show that your permanent address is in Spain. It seems that the vehicle may not have gone through all the proper channels for importation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...