Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I did not receive any paper work back from Lowells, but I did receive a confirmation letter from their solicitors on their behalf asking me to communicate with them only, and not Lowells. They also offered payment plans and options to avoid any further court action.  I did not respond to this letter in any form.   Tomorrow is Day 33, and I was wondering if I should put in my defence this evening, or should I wait until tomorrow, in case anything arrives in the post in the morning? I am worried in case I am counting the 33 days wrong, and it is today and not tomorrow. (claim was submitted 19th March).
    • lookforinfo, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just related to official civil enforcement officers, i.e.  Council Traffic Wardens,  who are employed by an enforcement authority. That is local councils for instance or a private company employed by a council.   PCM are a private company trying to obtain payment from a speculative invoice and have no authority to issue PCN's.        
    • can i use this......   No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty… The following are examples of charges that are arguably therefore penalties: Parking in a space you own but forgetting to display your permit Entering an incorrect VRN into a terminal Underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there Parking outside a bay when no other cars are stopped from parking
    • You said to stop paying od/current acc debts. Are they not likely to take any action. And should I send sar requests to both the original creditor and the dca 
    • I, **** **** am the Defendant in this claim.    I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******.   A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1)   I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2)   I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3)   I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)   The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5)     PREAMBLE   Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on.   The ISSUES   9.    It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   10. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay.   11. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.   It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5)   13. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.   14. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.   15. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery.   16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.   17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

DVLA court summons

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2247 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hello all

I am new to the site and was looking for advice on this matter.

I am a motor trader and was using a vehicle with valid trade plates displayed. For some reason it was picked up by a camera as 'untaxed'

The DVLA sent a letter asking for a fine, to which I replied explaining that the vehicle was using trade plates. They do not seem to have received my response and have now taken the matter to court. I have now written to them again but they have not yet responded.

My problem is that the court date is approaching and I am now not sure what to do.

Does anybody have any advise on this? Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

DVLA often seem to lose documents and make errors. They are like a dinosaur and are certainly not at all customer facing. I sometimes even wonder whether they are run by Vodafone – or maybe it's the other way round they run Vodafone.


Presumably you have a copy of the photograph – or there is other documentation referring to the registration number that you were driving under.


Presumably you have your trade plates and all the documentation relating to those is complete in order.


I think that the best thing for you to do is to go to court on the day with your trade plates with the photo with your documentation and plead not guilty. Pull the trade plates out of the bag and shown to the magistrates. Tell them that if they want to have any of the documentation checked and they are welcome. Finally, tell the magistrates that you have tried several times to query the whole thing with the DVLA and that you have had no response. Show the magistrates your copy correspondence. When you have been found not guilty – as you surely will, then respectfully ask that you be given a figure for costs against DVLA given that you tried very hard to query it and to save everybody's time including the time of the courts.


Keep your claim very reasonable, but if you have lost half a days work for instance and the cost of getting to the court then claim those. Try to keep it less than £50 because the magistrates will be very wary that they are being suckered into a money grab. The most important thing is to get an order for costs against DVLA - even if it is only £10 - because then that emphasises to the DVLA that they got it badly wrong.


Please do let us know what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the plates mounted as they should be or on the parcel shelf ?



I couldn't agree more with the bit about 'losing' documents which is why I always advise sending recorded.

The DVLA must 'lose', (said very loosely), more mail than all other departments put together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I was told, when we used trade plates, that if they were not displayed as per instructions, then the cover they provided would not be in force. I can't remember the locations for display but I remember being specifically told that DVLA would fine you if they were not correctly displayed. I was just on the brief, I didn't actually use trade plates so I took very little notice so I'm sorry I cant be more accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a confusing response from the DVLA. Here are some excepts:(exactly as it is written in their letter)


"Under section 29 of the vehicle excise and registration act 1994 it is an offence for a vehicle to be unlicensed without a Statutory Declaration in force. As a result of a vehicle being seen unlicensed as the registered keeper of the vehicle you are liable for the amount of time the vehicle has been unlicensed whilst in your possession.


In response to the above you have stated that the vehicle(...reg number given) was being used on trade plates as it was undergoing repairs. Please could you provide 3rd party evidence to support your claim in the form of a written statement from the garage confirming that they were carring out the repairs. In the statement the garage must confirm what vehicle they repaired and the dates it was in their possession.


However I am able to offer you the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement of ......(amount given) to resolve this matter.This amount must be paid in full by .........(date given)"


They have actually extended the deadline to pay the out of court settlement.


Any suggestions on how to proceed with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They think that you are the registered keeper and that your car was with a garage having repairs done. They don't understand that the RK is the same person who was driving on the trade plates, i.e: you.


It sounds like a standard form letter, their computer system 'script' probably doesn't have on option for your circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I would respond as requested, 100% honestly even though being administratively equally obtuse, and write two letters -


- one letter from 'me' the Motor Trader and holder of the Trade Plates confirming the vehicle was being used on the public road by you in your capacity of a Motor Trader at the appropriate time and dates and it was displaying your trade plates number XX XXX. Add the duration it was off the road under repair (presumably from when the previous tax ran out unless it was SORN - something you have not told us)


- one letter from 'me' the Registered Keeper saying "following DVLA's letter to me of xx/xx/xxxx I enclose a letter from the Motor Trader and Trade Plate holder giving the confirmations you requested. As this now fulfills the requirement in your letter I assume the matter is now closed".


Put the two in the same envelope and send by a Signed For/Proof of Delivery service (whatever the post office offers these days).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the reply from Tony P will not work. The OP has fallen foul of a common misunderstanding of the use of trade plates. When he applied for the TP's he filled in an application form the guide line notes of which state - 'A motor trader: may use the trade licence on mechanically propelled vehicles only if they are temporarily in their possession in the course of their business.'


The actual law is Section 11(3) Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 'In the case of any other motor trader, a trade licence is a licence for all vehicles which are from time to time temporarily in his possession in the course of his business as a motor trader.'


As the vehicle is registered in his name, this condition has not been adhered to.


Sorry, but I fear that unless the Trade plates are held by his business as a limited company and the vehicle registered to him in his personal entity, the OP will have difficulty in defending this. As it has proceeded to Magistrates Court, he might need to plead guilty with mitigation as misunderstanding of the conditions applied - vehicle had been in storage and was only now being moved for repair and he thought that this was sufficient to be 'temporary possession'.

  • Confused 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...