Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   Please don't hijack this thread, it's for advising the OP.   The best thing is to start a new thread of your own and then we'll advise you.   HB
    • Hey Andy, Dx,   With the deadline approaching to enter this defence i have amended as best i can. Can either of you help with it or point me in the direction of a similar case so i can get some ideas for myself? Or is the below ok? Considering i could of nearly perjured myself i would really appreciate it if you guys could take a look.   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is noted.   5. Paragraph 3 is noted.   6. Paragraph 4 is noted.   7. Paragraph 5 is noted. As i can't recall entering in to this financial agreement with Halifax i have asked them to prove that i had entered in to this agreement. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Thank you for the reassurance I will pop back on tomorrow and let you know how it went.
    • Just like is said in BN's link regarding total lack of oversight or proper challenge   "To put this in context, £12bn is more than the entire general practice budget. The total NHS capital spending budget for buildings and equipment is just £7bn. To provide all the children in need with free meals during school holidays between now and next summer term, which the government has dismissed as too expensive, is likely to cost about £120m: in other words, just 1% of the test and trace budget."   Says it all doesn't it Serco and co given more than the entire NHS capital spending budget to ... fail, miserably   penalties for that - more of the same money for more of the same failures.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

DVLA court summons letter for no insurance after SORN date


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1804 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hope someone can help with a SORN question.

 

To cut a very long story short

 

my son's car became undriveable so bought another.

Phoned DVLA after getting a fine

 

what he needed to do to SORN it as he hadn't received the log book from the DVLA and couldn't do it online.

He was told to send in a letter which he did.

 

After a couple of months he got a summons from Stevenage Court for not having insurance.

He wrote to them and explained he'd sent a letter and lo and behold,

notification and tax refund was received the next day and dated back to the receipt by them of the letter.

 

He has now just received a further letter saying that as the SORN was backdated

the offence of no insurance still stands albeit well after the date that the vehicle has been SORN'd.

 

He has an acknowledgment from them stating "Your SORN starts on 11/09/2015"

Summons states that he had no insurance on the 6/10/2015??

 

Is this legal??

Surely if the vehicle has an official SORN date and the tax refunded back to the 11th,

how then can they say it was uninsured after that time?

 

 

Any help would be gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like I have posted this in the wrong forum so am posting here as well as the General Motoring Forum. Hope this doesn't mess things up too much.

 

 

Hope someone can help with a SORN question. To cut a very long story short my son's car became undriveable so bought another. Phoned DVLA after getting a fine what he needed to do to SORN it as he hadn't received the log book from the DVLA and couldn't do it online. He was told to send in a letter which he did. After a couple of months he got a summons from Stevenage Court for not having insurance. He wrote to them and explained he'd sent a letter and lo and behold, notification and tax refund was received the next day and dated back to the receipt by them of the letter.

 

 

He has now just received a further letter saying that as the SORN was backdated the offence of no insurance still stands albeit well after the date that the vehicle has been SORN'd. He has an acknowledgment from them stating "Your SORN starts on 11/09/2015" Summons states that he had no insurance on the 6/10/2015??

 

 

Is this legal?? Surely if the vehicle has an official SORN date and the tax refunded back to the 11th, how then can they say it was uninsured after that time?

 

 

Any help would be gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did he have valid insurance upto the date the car was eventually SORN?

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

Afraid not, that's why he got a fine but the case file states that he did not have insurance on the 6th October. The SORN acknowledgement states that the vehicle was SORN'd on the 11th September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but he has not got a fine yet?

 

 

or is this two things?

 

 

he was fined for xxxx offence

 

 

now he has an additional summons for no insurance for a date passed sorn date?

 

 

your posts are a bit confusing

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

My apologies, tried to cut to the chase but left out a ton of history.

 

 

Original fine was failure to Insure because it hadn't been SORN'd dated 22nd June.

 

 

He paid this and wrote a letter as advised by the DVLA stating he wished to SORN it on the 11th Sept.

after much correspondence because they had never sent him a log book.

 

 

It is the same offence but the summons is for an offence which is indeed past the SORN date.

 

 

Having written to them again they maintain that the vehicle was declared SORN on the 27th October and was backdated as requested, which is probably when they processed it as opposed to when they received the letter.

 

 

request to backdate was made asking for it to be backdated to the date of receipt of the letter.

Edited by ABONE
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be missing something but it seems to me that if you are being summonsed for no insurance on a specific date (6 October) you plead Not Guilty on the basis that on that date insurance was not required as the vehicle was under SORN.

 

 

And as evidence, produce to the Court the DVLA letter stating the SORN commenced from 11 September

(take several photocopies for the Clerk and each of the Magistrates),

adding it's status remained unchanged on 6 October.

 

The fact the letter confirming the SORN commenced 11 September was itself dated after 6 October should be an irrelevant distraction. Irrespective of the letter's date, it is confirming DVLA's acceptance it was SORN from 11 September. End of matter!

 

It is difficult to get DVLA to understand or accept they made an error, so trying to explain to them at this stage is generally useless. They may be interested in settling at the Court room door if they see/hear your defence (not that you are obliged to do this).

 

If you plead Not Guilty and the Magistrates accept this, don't forget to ask for your own costs - and let us know!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Thanks Tony P.

 

 

From their letter these are the phrases which I think are pertinent

 

 

" When declaring a SORN the DVLA will send you an acknowledgement within 28 days confirming receipt

and subsequent update of your SORN application, (Didn't happen, more like 60)

 

 

it also states that you should contact the DVLA if you are not in receipt an acknowledgement letter.

(Don't see where this is a requirement in law)

 

"Until such time as an acknowledgement of SORN letter is received the registered keeper

cannot assume their vehicle has been SORN"

 

" Your have stated in your correspondence that you vehicle was SORN at the time of the offence.

This is not the case, your declared SORN on the 27/10/2015,

(Not true, this is when they printed it out which was 4 weeks after the declaration n was sent to them)

and you requested that it be backdated to the 11/9/2015.

(Again not true, the request was to refund the tax from the date the letter was received by them)

 

"Your legal responsibility did not end until you received confirmation of your SORN from the DVLA."

 

So if their database and acknowledgement state that is was SORN on the 11/9/2015

how can it not be effective after that date??

 

I'm confused with their logic and would be very grateful of some clarity.

You make more sense to me Tony but then its the DVLA.

I'm just still unsure of the legal position.

 

Any further help gratefully received.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...