Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Untaxed vehicle


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2222 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

I got a letter from the dvla that says they have photographic evidence of my car on the road (6/9/2017) and if I did not pay an out of court settlement of £361 by 29/9/2017 they would send it to court to get it.

 

I haven’t taxed it since March and I have taken a few months off work to do some home projects, but I got busted the other day going into town, as above.

 

They say that even if I tax it then the penalty of £361 still stands and I have to pay it to them.

 

Can they do this?

 

Also I just went online to get it taxed and it says that I have not paid since Nov 2016,

I am sure I taxed it in Spetember 2016 and it ran out in Feb/beginning March 2017…

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The Late Licensing Penalty is treated as a civil matter.

 

Using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is a criminal offence, if the out of court settlement offer is not paid, it is a matter for a court case in magistrates' court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Yes.

PUBLIC being the operative word. Law is funny around this point but the SORN doesnt allow it to be just left in a car park.

is this something they can do to me even though my license is revoked? being in a public car park not on the road
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

PUBLIC being the operative word. Law is funny around this point but the SORN doesnt allow it to be just left in a car park.

 

A SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used or kept on a 'public road' - a road repairable at public expense. A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato and others, House of Lords 1989

Link to post
Share on other sites

A SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used or kept on a 'public road' - a road repairable at public expense. A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato and others, House of Lords 1989

 

Yes and no. The marked spaces in a car park are not subject to the RTA. The roadways are. So a vehicle in the roadway even within a car park must have everything that it needs (VEL, insurance, MOT etc).

 

But assuming that the vehicle was parked in a space, as it normally would be when parked in a car park, then the 'public car park' is a bit of a red herring.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. The marked spaces in a car park are not subject to the RTA. The roadways are. So a vehicle in the roadway even within a car park must have everything that it needs (VEL, insurance, MOT etc).

 

But assuming that the vehicle was parked in a space, as it normally would be when parked in a car park, then the 'public car park' is a bit of a red herring.

 

A public car park would be a 'public place' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and so that act would apply.

For vehicle licensing and SORN purposes, it would need to be considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A public car park would be a 'public place' for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and so that act would apply.

For vehicle licensing and SORN purposes, it would need to be considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

 

Ahh yes, you are correct. My mistake. Although it's probably not helped by the fact that legislation plays 'mix & match' with what it defines as a road. :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a case of a chap who got lost following his satnav and drove up a farm track and got stuck. When he called for help he got doen for driving without due care ad attention. This begs the question as to why the law applies on private land and also WHAT other road users?

 

If the law is misapplied the yu can bet your bottom dollar it will be misapplied in the circumstances outlined here. The original case law regarding display of tax discs was in Cheam Library car park and the judge said that it didnt matter how the vehicle got there it was only how it was when the CEO ticketed it that was important so there is some protection from the law but the OP will soon have his car removed and also get a further series of bills for the priviledge

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the farm track was considered to be 'a road or other public place' within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988, then a charge of careless driving is possible - s.3 of that act.

 

If Cheam library car park was not considered to be a 'public road' within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise Act 1994, the judge was correct that there was no a requirement to display a vehicle licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP has not been here since sept 2017

 

thread now closed due to newbie bumping since then

 

start a new thread

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2222 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...