Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I could be wrong here so could @namedisplay please clarify if I am correct or completely wrong?   In your post#1 you mention that due to your health issues and your mental state at the time you rang the Training Room and was told it would cost and initial £200 and then £15 per month until you finished the course.   Then further in post#1 The Training Room told you you were not eligible for an extension because you hadn't completed enough of the course.   With the above I now refer Post#12 which mentions your circumstances are covered by 13 in the TTR Terms and Conditions.   What is mentioned above seems conflicting from TTR for the following:   1. IMO that money of £200 and then £15 per month (on top of original Course Fees) was them at that time agreeing to an extension as per 13 in TTR Terms and Conditions   2. Them stating you can't extend Course as not completed enough of Course is not in TTR Terms and Conditions (that I and others can see) (Note they could be referring to 15 in TTR Terms and Conditions)   Can you clarify the above and were you informed those extra costs were due to an extension of your Course.   Again I will ask did you provide the Training Room with Medical Evidence when you asked the above?   We also still need to see the Letter from Training Room Threatening Legal Action (fully redacted) which you still haven't posted?   You need to send The Training Room a Subject Access Request (SAR) asking for 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase means whatever format they hold that data in whether it be written, email, recorded phone calls etc.   They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond to your SAR Request and that Time Limit only starts once they have acknowledged your SAR Request. They can extend that Time Limit if they need to prove identity before actioning the SAR Request so be aware of that.   A SAR Request is now FREE and make sure you get Free Proof of Posting from the Post Office     Your right of access ICO.ORG.UK   Can you please make sure you answer the questions asked of Caggers to assist you    
    • I've been trying to resolve a issue with 8 PCN issued by Tyne Tunnel 2 (tt2.co.uk). Tyne Tunnel 2 is a gated toll charged tunnel to cross the River Tyne in Newcastle. We moved in recently so all a bit new to us. My dad had been using the tunnel about twice a week and he had been paying cash for the toll fee at the booths. At some point in November 2021 they had done some constructions where the gates had been closed and payments had transitioned to online methods. My dad had been oblivious to this and been on his merry way multiple times thinking that he doesn't need to pay. So he received the first PCN some where end of November which had been issue on the 26th after which point I went on alert and sorted out the online accounts and such. However the current total of fines has amounted to £255.20 and I have appealed explaining that soon as the letters were received we have resolved the issue but they insist on us paying 8 PCN. I feel it's unfair that the fine is for the same offence which we couldn't have rectified or known until we received the first PCN letter and after the first PCN we have rectified it so feel they are being bit draconic. Any advice on this matter? 
    • No need to apologise! I am extremely grateful for both your help   Gosh very good attention to detail going on here   Great thank you, i will put them back as below   Good evening to you   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.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with Lloyds TSB. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either, having failed to provide an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   3.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      4.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or Lloyds TSB pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any Notice of default served.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14.    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 or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 5th of January 2022 I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 5th of January 2022 I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of 27/01/22 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • std letter the court send simply telling you the claimant has 28 days to do 'something' else the claim get autostayed.   go read a goof few 10's of PCN claimform threads.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

No Insurance and car seized


tigeress289
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1219 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

Surely the cps will have to produce evidence that the shopping was for business and not personal.

How would they do that???

I agree that a letter to the superintendent with the insurance confirmation attached could stop anything going further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread tidied please refrain from using reply with quote as this makes the thread twice as long

 

23 quotes of previous post when answering removed.

 

dx

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

Thank you, I do have an idea of what I said but fail to see how the officer could state I was not insured.

 

I have always had insurance as is the same with my brother. As for the attitude, I could have told him I owned Tesco's as I couldn't believe I was going to have my brothers car seized.

 

On the appeal front, I have never trusted the law. Many years ago I was taken to court for speeding on Tottenham Court road. I had watched the police car drive by me as I was sitting at lights at the beginning of it. Further up I passed the police car on the inside as the traffic was slower where the police car was.

 

This went through 3 different courts before I gave up but my best quote to the Judge in the final court was.

 

On my first appearance I was a normal driver, on the second appearance I was Stirling Moss and on the third I was Evil Kenevil. I had proved I was not speeding and pointless carrying on. It was a joke.

 

 

And for me years later I am getting the same thing again. The frightening part is most seem to thing its OK for the police to act in this way.

 

 

One friend changed their insurance to business as they often use a step ladder to change bulbs round their old mums house. £15 a month cheaper, result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something not quite right here.

 

What do you do for a living?

What does the owner of the vehicle do for a living?

What vehicle was it, car, estate or van?

The OP I believe is a Builder

2 That has nothing to with anything

3Toyota Hybrid 6 seater.

 

 

The only thing here I could make out is that this may not be a business cover issue but rather a Vehicle type Issue that the OP is facing. The OP may not have covered due to the engine size limitations or Vehicle type limitations set out in his DOC cover terms and conditions. Its becoming increasingly common to set a 1.8 engine capacity limit, with Chassis type Limitation excluding 4x4's Suv's MPV's etc and COVER LIMITATION as in Third party ONLY no business no commute your screwed, Check your terms and cons of your DOC booklet.

 

 

But if your Insurer is going to state in a letter your covered, Business and all, then You need to set up a meeting with the inspector at the station where the officer is based, if your a business you would have a business account to purchase things with, If you paid by card on a personal account that is evidence of a personal transaction and not a business one and show this to the inspector too.

 

 

Subject access request the footage from his camera this can take a month to come through mind!, There are policies in place that if he wasn't 100% sure you were insured or it was disputed as there is a insurance in place and the level of cover is disputed and he cant speak to the insurer he should have provided a HORT1 or producer but not all forces will go by that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 2 has everything to do with it.

Do they own a business or do trips to and from a cash and carry as part of there work?

From what I can gather they both DONT own a business together, they aren't members of the Cash and Carry and OP has stated the Cash and Carry allows members of the public to shop there without membership. OP does a bulk shop at Cash and Carry for personal use not business.

 

 

The level of cover the OP's brother has is ofcourse irrelevant as its cover for the person on the policy entitled to drive that car. If OP's policy excludes the use of DOC for business on his policy or excludes the class of vehicle,engine,chassis type that his brothers car is that he was using, the OP is in a bit of a spot.

 

 

As we have gathered, the OP states that both he has business policy as it worked out cheaper to have this cover the question is did his DOC cover his use of his brothers car or the alleged offence of business use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

paid by my personal debit card in my name. If I paid cash the invoice is cash no name.

 

The stop was one of them random pull over a couple of cars at a time.

 

 

One thing I forgot to add, on the conditional offer notice it states,

 

On the 16/06/2018 at 14:05 hours. I had already phoned my brother to tell him the officer has mentioned business. Having checked I have just seen my brother amended his insurance to add business at 14.15 hours. Could I have stopped them seizing the car then if he had told me..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your brother insurance out of it for now.

 

 

Unless your a named driver to which you are not I assume, it has no relevance to your case, The fact remains in proving your not a trader or using the vehicle for business purposes.

 

 

So... You used a debit card that has a transaction code on the receipt related to your personal bank account, if its a personal account like you say, then the bank statement that shows the transaction proves it wasn't purchased with a business account so there lies your evidence to prove "reasonable doubt", it is reasonable to assume that if your a business you have a business account and make business purchases with because business tax and balancing the books right!

 

 

I will assume you have no LTD business in your name or an employee of that shows on companies house either right secretary manager director etc! evidence again of reasonable doubt, its all circumstantial evidence of course but its evidence all the same.

 

 

BUT you could ALSO find that the DOC extension you were using MAY not have covered you ANYWAY, If your brother is Leasing his car or in some way shape or form renting it, it will not be covered, you will not be insured if your under 25, DOC only covers thirdparty so if you smash it up its your brothers paper weight but not relevant, What limitations are imposed on you motor certificate in the DOC part? what restrictions are in place?

 

 

Again take your brothers cover level out of it, its for him and not you, But I do suspect that a car conversation when you got pulled was "I'm not covered, my bro's car is going to towed, ring him and tell him to insure it now so they can take it" this failed though didn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned a van.

Was this a van or a car?

I believe op said it was a 6/7 seater hybrid. Prius plus type car that if you fold down the seats it turns into a van pretty much, ive got sportage suv and you could fit 2 monthly shop in a poundworld in.

Edited by DarkAtmosphere
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, my brother car is a Toyota hybrid 6 seater.

He changed his insurance to business to try and stop getting his car towed away.

Technically it was still covered by his own insurance once the items were removed,

adding business cost him £37 extra to save £150 seizing and the time to go and get it.

 

He is a pen pusher and he never took the insurance out 10 mins after I was stopped, it was longer but that is the time on the offer notice. However, I did not know that at the time and would have argued for them not to have seized the car.

 

I phoned him after the officer said I was not insured on his policy, which I was but when you have an officer talking down to you, there is very little you can do as my wife was with me at the time. We were shopping on a Saturday.

 

As for insurance we both have fully comp and each allows us to drive another's car.

I am not a named driver on his policy as he is not on mine.

 

My purchase was not a business buy and I do not have a company or employ people.

I use my car for social and to and from work, where ever that may be.

My insurance states self employed builder and its a car, not a van.

 

I am going to pass this over to the solicitors and see what they can do as I feel as a member of the public, the odds of getting anywhere other than the court are stacked against me with the police.

I may as well employ them now.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you manage to speak or write to the right person this will be withdrawn.

The cps would have hard time proving you were acting as a business from what you described.

Have you tried contacting the chief constable?

Otherwise, is there a contact address or email in the letter you received?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...