Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3170 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

Please help running out of options.

Judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

No one will overturn judges decision despite all the evidence.

 

We bought a car in 2011 from a neighbour.

Registered and insured it.

Two days later that car was stolen from us.

 

 

The police were informed and took a statement for it to be reported stolen.

They never found the car and it was never returned to us.

 

 

The police told us to write off what we had paid for the car and cut all ties to it.

We did this and cancelled the insurance we had.

 

 

Apparently the dvla took us to court ( without our knowledge )

have said the case was successfully prosecuted.

It was prosecuted because we never received the court summons so never turned up.

 

 

The case was for keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance standards.

Our appeal was accepted in 2013 and the case was closed.

The same appeal was sent to the dvla but they didn't respond until 2014 and it was no comment.

 

 

Fast forward to Saturday 5th September baliffs banging down the door,

assaulted me by forcing the door back on me and used an illegal threshold manoeuvre.

 

 

Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

Thursday 10th September the baliffs steals our car without authorisation

and hits me side on with his vehicle when I ran out to get a warrant or authorisation from him.

Marston's baliffs seem to act like rabid dogs all the time!

 

 

Disgusting creatures to deal with.

He was forced to return our car and the keys on Friday September 11th which he did.

He also made a report against me for criminal damage.

Apparently I ran out into the road and struck his fast moving vehicle!

 

 

if I had been able to strike his fast moving vehicle the injuries to my arm would be on the inside of my arm not the outside.

Personal injury solicitor taking my case against him.

 

Same Friday judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

We are not paying a debt we do not owe as we have no legal obligation to insure a car we do not own and was stolen from us.

The amount is £628 plus baliffs fees which they told us is triple the amount.

 

Where do we go next please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving thread to Bailiff forum

 

Regards

 

SS

Edited by citizenB

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had Successful appeal, why did Marstons visit ? Suggest you make a complaint to the court enforcement manager about what has happened. Also look to pursue a complaint about the enforcement officers who visited.

Edited by citizenB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because no action was taken on the case it was simply closed but the baliffs notice left live instead of closing it properly. Tried that the person responsible no longer works there. Three emails later no one will touch this case as the 21 days out of date was by a district judge so no one wants to go against her no matter the evidence

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you definitely won the appeal and there is nothing owing, then take this proof to the court to make a complaint. No district Judge is going to ignore such evidence and allow enfircement of a debt that does not exist.

 

Or you are mistaken about the appeal and you owe the money.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently the dvla took us to court ( without our knowledge ) have said the case was successfully prosecuted.

It was prosecuted because we never received the court summons so never turned up. The case was for keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance standards.

Our appeal was accepted in 2013 and the case was closed. The same appeal was sent to the dvla but they didn't respond until 2014 and it was no comment.

 

Fast forward to Saturday 5th September baliffs banging down the door, assaulted me by forcing the door back on me and used an illegal threshold manoeuvre. Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

Thursday 10th September the baliffs steals our car without authorisation and hits me side on with his vehicle when I ran out to get a warrant or authorisation from him.

Marston's baliffs seem to act like rabid dogs all the time! Disgusting creatures to deal with. He was forced to return our car and the keys on Friday September 11th which he did.

He also made a report against me for criminal damage. Apparently I ran out into the road and struck his fast moving vehicle! if I had been able to strike his fast moving vehicle the injuries to my arm would be on the inside of my arm not the outside. Personal injury solicitor taking my case against him.

 

Same Friday judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

 

We are not paying a debt we do not owe as we have no legal obligation to insure a car we do not own and was stolen from us. The amount is £628 plus baliffs fees which they told us is triple the amount.

 

Where do we go next please?

 

I must confess to being very confused about the above and would be grateful if you could provide some further information.

 

It would seem from the above that you were prosecuted for not having insurance on the vehicle and that you were unaware of this and had not received a summons. I would assume that the reason for not receiving any documentation would have been because your name and address would not have been on DVLA records at the time. It is what happened afterwards that I am confused with?

 

You say that you appealed the court fine and that the appeal was accepted and that a copy of the appeal was sent to DVLA (in 2013) but they they did not respond until 2014. This 'appeal' that you refer to, an application for a Statutory Declaration? If so, did you attend the hearing?

 

Following that hearing, if as you say the court accepted that you were not responsible, the court would have sent a copy of their decision to the DVLA prosecution team and that should have been the end of the matter. The only way to have got to conviction revoked would have been by way of a Statutory Declaration. The court should have provided a copy of the order to you after the hearing and if not, you can obtain a copy from the Magistrates Court. If it is the case that DVLA had not received a copy of that order that does not explain WHY it was possible for a warrant to have been issued.

 

If you could respond that would help a great deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

 

Complain to the police as well. This has nothing to do with them and thedy are only in attendance to stop any breach of the piece. They have no authority to get involved at all.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I think I have confused things here based on what the court admin told me. They said it shows on the system that our appeal was stamped and accepted but no hearing was ever set. They said the case was simply closed on the system but not done in the right way. Well got a Document that's stamped and dated with the appeal notice and full appeal on it.

 

No it's the right details the dvla have we just never received the court summons so I'm making a freedom of information request to them to prove that they actually sent one in the first place.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I think I have confused things here based on what the court admin told me. They said it shows on the system that our appeal was stamped and accepted but no hearing was ever set. They said the case was simply closed on the system but not done in the right way. Well got a Document that's stamped and dated with the appeal notice and full appeal on it.

 

No it's the right details the dvla have we just never received the court summons so I'm making a freedom of information request to them to prove that they actually sent one in the first place.

 

You need to make a complaint to the court manager about this. If the appeal was rejected, why did you not receive notice. Sometimes if the appeal stands no chance of success, it is rejected without any hearing. You need the court to find out what happened.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant thank-you. Then how do we squash this nonsense? The 142 was denied so am I right in thinking its an n244 next and that can squash the conviction?

 

To be honest i don't know and until you find out what happened to your last appeal why should you do this again. The court need to see if a mistake was made by them and do what they need to do to rectify the situation.

Edited by citizenB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mistake was the dvla bringing this nonsense to court and lieing under oath. We had insurance for the stolen car and only cancelled it when it was reported stolen and the police told us to cut all ties to the vehicle. So I really don't understand how this can happen. Someone somewhere along the line has been professionally negligent at the dvla that's for sure

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to computer problems I had been unaware that GM Mummy had sent an enquiry about this incident through to me via my website. Yesterday I spoke at length to the debtor and it is fair to say that there has been a great deal of confusion about the 'appeal' and with his permission, I am updating the forum.

 

His car had been stolen two days after it's purchase in 2011. He reported the incident to the police and as the vehicle could not be found, he cancelled the insurance and advised DVLA. Ths in my opinion was the correct thing to do.

 

Fast forward to 2013 and he had a visit at his home from Marston Group in connection with a court fine for keeping a vehicle on the road without insurance. He genuinely did not know of the court fine given that the summons had been sent to a different address. Either Marston Group or the Magistrate Court had located a new address for him.

 

Following this visit in 2013, he made enquiries with the court and the court agreed that he could make a Statutory Declaration. The court sent him the forms to complete and return to the Magistrates Court. Regretabally, he did NOT return the forms to the court. This was a misunderstanding on his part as he thought that the court would first send him a hearing date. After receiving the application from the court he also wrote again to DVLA.

 

For reasons that are unclear, the Magistrate Court did not pursue the matter any further until last week (September 7th) when he had ANOTHER visit at his home from Marston Group. Following this visit he made enquiries with the Magistarte Court and they made an appointment for him to attend the court on Friday 11th Seotember. At the time of making the appointment, the court did not have the background paperwork available. Unfortunately, the court did NOT inform Marston Group of a forthcoming application for a Statutory Declaration (there is no legal obligation on them to do so) and accordingly, on September 10th Marston Group re attended his property and clamped and removed his vehicle. The debtor immediately complained to the Magistrate Court and it would appear that the court contacted Marston Group to advise them that a Statutory Declaration hearing was scheduled for the following day and that with this in mind, they should return the vehicle (which they did). It is important to stress here that his vehicle had NOT been stolen by Marston Group. It was taken legally.

 

The following day (Sept 11th) he attended the court and after reviewing the court file, the Magistrate REFUSED to grant permission for him to file a Statutory Declaration given that he had failed to return the documentation two years earlier and that he was therefore very much out of time. A statutory declaration must be filed within 21 days of becoming 'aware' of the fine .

 

Following this disappointing (but entirely correct ruling) he has been advised that the warrant is NOT on hold any longer and that Marston are perfectly within their rights to legally enforce the warrant.

 

I have advised the debtor that his only option is to apply to the court for permission to REOPEN the case under what is known as a Section 142 Application. This is NOT a statutory declaration application. Unfortunately the other problem that he faces is that he does not have any documentary evidence that the vehicle has been stolene in 2011. Accordingly, he has made a Subject Access Request to the Police for details. He must have this information if the court are willing to re-open the case.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about you and we checked this advice with our solicitors and they said everything you have said is wrong. The appeal was stamped and received by two agencies and nothing asking us to complete any paperwork. The court made genuine errors which they have admitted to. We cannot be expected to mind read or know what to do when we hear nothing further. You also missed out the part where the two addresses they have are correct and neither address received a summons. We have also put in a request to see the original summons if there was one

 

We had never heard of a statutory declaration until last week so I have no idea where you got that from. We have been warmed about people like you that give out wrong advice intentionally. We have now found out what should have been done regarding this and it is undergoing judicial review.

 

TRACE were the ones who said Marston had stolen it as had it been done legitimately it would have appeared in their system. Therefore it was reported stolen and he was forced to return it.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

You also left out the part where the 142 was denied and the baliffs were forced to return our car based on false allegations that we are disputing. This is called professional negligence

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of the theft, was there no Car Insurance in place to cover the theft. If so, they will also have details of the claim and the period the Insurance was in force. With a theft claim, once a vehicle is not recovered after a period of time, the Insurers would pay for total loss. The Insurers would normally be sent the V5 registration document, as they would become the owner having just paid the claim. Would have thought that the Insurers would update DVLA, but it is sometime since I dealt with motor claims.

 

GHMummy should ask the Insurers about this.

 

From what i remember, the theft is reported to Police and Insurers. The Car Insurance remains in place until the Insurers have waited a period to see if recovered. Then if not recovered, the Insurers pay the total loss, take over ownership and the insurance is cancelled.

 

Is the no Insurance issue down to the Insurers not advising DVLA ? If this is the case, get a letter from them, provide to the court and they should accept it. Then it is about dealing with sorting out the issues that occured as a result.

Edited by citizenB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

GHMummy, you mentioned the Statutory declaration in your first post. The situation is confusing and i hope your Solicitor has all the information clear about what happened.

 

Given that this relates to Insurance, you should look at my last post, as it could be key to sorting this out.

Edited by citizenB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

 

If the Insurers have made a mistake in not updating DVLA, you should be able to recover all of your costs from them, if you give them full details.

Edited by citizenB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about you and we checked this advice with our solicitors and they said everything you have said is wrong. The appeal was stamped and received by two agencies and nothing asking us to complete any paperwork. The court made genuine errors which they have admitted to. We cannot be expected to mind read or know what to do when we hear nothing further. You also missed out the part where the two addresses they have are correct and neither address received a summons. We have also put in a request to see the original summons if there was one

 

We had never heard of a statutory declaration until last week so I have no idea where you got that from. We have been warmed about people like you that give out wrong advice intentionally. We have now found out what should have been done regarding this and it is undergoing judicial review.

 

TRACE were the ones who said Marston had stolen it as had it been done legitimately it would have appeared in their system. Therefore it was reported stolen and he was forced to return it.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

You also left out the part where the 142 was denied and the baliffs were forced to return our car based on false allegations that we are disputing. This is called professional negligence

 

Thank you for your response. The person that I spoke with yesterday was your partner (whose is the person whose name this fine is in). My post reflects my conversation with him accurately. In fact, I have just read again, your partners email to me and he states the following:

"My stat dec was turned down by Camberwell Magistratres because of the 21 day rule on 11/09".

I am therefore very confused by your above comment that the application to Camberwell had in fact been for a section 142 Application and NOT for a Statutory Declaration.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TRACE were the ones who said Marston had stolen it as had it been done legitimately it would have appeared in their system. Therefore it was reported stolen and he was forced to return it.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

If you read my post you will see that I stated the following:

His car had been stolen two days after it's purchase in 2011. He reported the incident to the police and as the vehicle could not be found, he cancelled the insurance and advised DVLA.

With the greatest of respect TRACE are not qualified to state whether or not a vehicle had been stolen. They are merely an online service run by London Councils for anyone whose vehicle has been towed away for illegal parking by any council in London. TRACE will advise which pound the vehicle has been moved to and will provide information on the procedure for release.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mistake was the dvla bringing this nonsense to court and lieing under oath. We had insurance for the stolen car and only cancelled it when it was reported stolen and the police told us to cut all ties to the vehicle. So I really don't understand how this can happen. Someone somewhere along the line has been professionally negligent at the dvla that's for sure

Did you notify the DVLA that the vehicle was no longer in your possession and you were no longer the owner? If not, then the DVLA would have been correct in prosecuting you.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have done both and both have been denied. He already told me he told you that so don't try it! You are also well aware of the contract of sale to myself so again nice try. I was referring to our car that was stolen by Marston's. There is something called due process. There are rules and regulations they must follow they are not a law unto themselves like they seem to think. They were also caught out lieing yesterday. So again don't comment unless you know what you are talking about.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

 

And if you read my post you will see that I had stated that the vehicle had been insured when it was stolen and that the insurance was cancelled after the vehicle could not be found.

 

It was for this precise reason that your partners application to court two years later (in 2013) should have been accepted (assuming of course that he had been able to provide evidence from the police that he had reported the car as stolen, and evidence from the insurance company of the date when insurance began and when it was cancelled).

 

Without such evidence any application (whether for a Statutory Declaration or a section 142 Application (to re-open the case) would be doomed to fail.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have done both and both have been denied. He already told me he told you that so don't try it! You are also well aware of the contract of sale to myself so again nice try. I was referring to our car that was stolen by Marston's.

 

So again don't comment unless you know what you are talking about.

 

It is really unfortunate that you are responding in such a hostile way. I had not wanted to mention on the forum the matter of the Contract of Sale between you and your partner and I am only doing so now because of your above comment.

 

Your partner stated to me that he had transferred the car into your name a couple of weeks ago (after receiving notification of the recent enforcement by Marston Group). I correctly advised your partner that such a 'Contract' would sadly NOT protect his car from seizure given that goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' from the date on the warrant and that this means that any 'transfer' or 'sale' of any goods (including a car) would be liable to be challenged.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3170 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...