Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.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

Parking a "SORN" vehicle on an unadopted road


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4308 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

Hi

 

I had a vehicle parked without a sorn ,clampped after they came onto our off road parking which is not repairable at the public expence ,they stated they had a power to come onto private land and clamp vehicles if there was no sorn?

 

Is that correct ? They then took the vehicle away from the same place they clamped it to a pound .I that day had received a reminder letter from DVLA to say i needed to declare sorn.I declared sorn and paid a £90 fee .

 

The vehicle was undriveable as my engine had blown up and it had been placed there at my request prior by the AA.

 

The vehicle has since been destroyed by the pound i think .

 

I today received a "out of court settlement " letter from DVLA NOW saying that on the day the vehicle was clamped i was using,keeping a vehicle on a road whilst a SORN was in force ! They want me to pay a further £191 pounds .

 

1)If its not a road can they clamp it ?

2)If its sorn and clamped and not on a public road how can i commit an offence of using/keeping it on a road?

3)Can they remove the vehicle from a private parking space and crush it ?

 

I cant win with these morons !I even called the car pound who as ive stated say "our records show when we clamped it there was no tax and no sorn on it and we can clamp vehicles on private land if they are not sorn "

 

DVLA clamping unit just washed their hands and said i had to contact the car pound manager ,which i did and was met with the usual neanderthal monkey knuckle dragger reply .

 

Im currently trying to get the county council to tell me officially the road is not repairable by them .Its a private parking area in a culdesac dereivated with different coloured tarmac from the public highway .

 

Anyone help please ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since Continuius Registration was introduced, you had either to get a VED or declare SORN. You did neither. The issue isn;t that it was on an 'unadopted road', but that you had no disk OR SORN.

 

All my off road vehicles are locked away in my garage, but I still need to SORN them, otherwise I get hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Why do you people want to report somebody for trying to save some money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you have no lives and just want to be bitter!!!!!!!!!!! the man is not harming you in the slightest, you would 100% take the chance to save a bit of money on your tax!! your not loosing out, the DVLA is, who are making millions and millions from us!!!!!! citizens should stay together!! its because of ppl like you that these companies get bigger and bigger and start to take the monkeys with us!!!!!!!!!!!! the amount of ripping off these big companies do is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!! all im saying is stop being losers get on with your own life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is people like you who fund these schemes because of an inability to play the game within the rules, and as such become financially liable through ignorance. By all means, be a victim - but your opinion that we shouldn't have to pay because we are not 'harming' anyone is a pretty pointless conclusion.

 

If nobody tried to defraud, then there would be no need for the 'tightening' you compalin of. Don't be silly an assume I support this 'new' system - I don't. But I read the rules and make sure I comply so the bu*g*rs don't get me. I'nsteading of having a rant, I suggest you do the same.

 

Then they won't get anything out of you either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that was directed at sailor sam, bondie45 and buzby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This is directed at you Piers; I report un-taxed vehicles (those which are signifitantly out of date) simply because it's highly likely they are also un-insured ect. Not having tax is just the tip of the iceberg and generally indicates that there are other legal contraventions. Why should I pay tax, insurance and make sure my car is legal when others don't? The rules are there for a reason although I would agree that the motorist is possibly the highest tax payer as we pay twice on fuel and then road tax as well. But unfortunatley, thats the way it is whether we like it or not. I too don't agree with the system but if I have to comply with it, then I don't see why others shouldn't.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi I wonder if anyone can help me with my problem. I live on a new housing development where the estate and roads are owned and maintained by the housing association through a service charge paid by residents. The roads are unadopted and my vehicle was parked in my designated parking space which is a linear parking bay that lies between the road and the footpath. I SORN'd my vehicle in Nov 2011 and it was insured but the MOT had run out. The vehicle was awaiting repair and was not being used. In January 2012 my vehicle was towed away by the local Environmental Health Officer watched by a police officer citing VERA as the reason. The EHO said that although the road was unadopted it was public highway because the public had access to it and therefore all vehicles had to be taxed, insured and MOT'd even if parked in designated bays and that SORN vehicles could not park anywhere on the estate. I reluctantly accepted this and paid the fine and towing fee etc and got my car back. Recently I parked my car on the road opposite a junction and received a trespas notice from the lanlord stating that if i did not move the car which was in their opinion causing an obstruction it would be towed away under TORT at my expense. Surely my landlord cannot have it both ways and do I ahve a claim against my car being towed when SORN as in the initial problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...