Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. 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. Can a PPC (claimant) 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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

Has anyone ever had a regisration mark removed by DVLA


tigeress289
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2045 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

Having lost a few registration marks to DVLA over the years. I wondered if anyone has ever lost a registration mark which made their car worthless as the DVLA did not affix another. This was a valuable classic car some years ago.

 

I am also looking at the legal power of the DVLA.

 

What they can and can't do legally. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "lost"?

If you lost the physical plate that you attach to the car you simply get another one made by car parts shops.

I've never heard of DVLA not finding an existing number plate in their system, but with them everything is possible

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago the DVLA removed the registration mark of a vehicle I owned.

 

In doing so they reduced the cars value to zero as they did not affix a replacement number. The car had ex works history but was involved in a racing accident.

 

Having purchased the vehicle some years after and restored it, there was a claim made to the vehicle.

 

But then the claimant then changed their story and made up another.

 

Long and short DVLA removed registration mark.

 

I want to know what legal power they had or have. And if this has ever happened to anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Started 24 years ago removed mark 2 years later. The time is not important any more as I am just interested in if it has still gone on. I have lost registration marks to the DVLA over the years, 4 BYO and 33 ALC spring to mind.

 

I am interested to know if anyone has taken them to Court and won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, a fact that the majority of people don't know is that DVLA own all registration marks and can they remove that mark. They even took the document back as it is their property.

 

4 BYO for an example, they said the mark did not exist and not on system. This was years ago when they stole numbers by the thousands.

 

They have made Millions selling personal numbers, thousands of people lost marks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made it so your link is clickable

 

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

Simon Tse (then Chief Executive of DVLA) said to the Commons Transport Select Committee in 2011 that they were looking at the possibility of ‘selling’ previously issued registrations.

See the transcript (also interesting for other matters), particularly the final paragraph under Q21-

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/uc1611-i/uc161101.htm

 

I am not aware that has come into effect and assuming it hasn’t, DVLA cannot issue (sell) a number that had previously been issued.

If or until it does come into effect, other than by ‘normal’ transfer, the exception is previously issued numbers can only be used again once the subject vehicle has been positively identified by documentation and/or certification by recognised Marque Owners Clubs, such as following a restoration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon Tse (then Chief Executive of DVLA) said to the Commons Transport Select Committee in 2011 that they were looking at the possibility of ‘selling’ previously issued registrations.

See the transcript (also interesting for other matters), particularly the final paragraph under Q21-

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/uc1611-i/uc161101.htm

 

I am not aware that has come into effect and assuming it hasn’t, DVLA cannot issue (sell) a number that had previously been issued.

If or until it does come into effect, other than by ‘normal’ transfer, the exception is previously issued numbers can only be used again once the subject vehicle has been positively identified by documentation and/or certification by recognised Marque Owners Clubs, such as following a restoration.

 

 

This was one of the biggest mistakes DVLA made relying on Car Clubs, they are run by people who are enthusiasts but a fair few were run by people who used the club for their own gains. Majority of car clubs are limited companies and can be dissolved at any time.

 

 

Most of my plates were stolen by DVLA using the simple excuse of no record of ownership. They were all stolen prior to the DVLA use of SCORN, which was just another money earner. A few cherished number plate companies were started by someone working at DVLA or having someone on the inside.

 

 

My main post refers to a registration mark being removed because of ownership dispute and car club information. The car club involved are still going with completely different people running it but still covering things up as its in their interest.

 

 

Car clubs are a dying trend now so please don't think otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon Tse (then Chief Executive of DVLA) said to the Commons Transport Select Committee in 2011 that they were looking at the possibility of ‘selling’ previously issued registrations.

See the transcript (also interesting for other matters), particularly the final paragraph under Q21-

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/uc1611-i/uc161101.htm

 

I am not aware that has come into effect and assuming it hasn’t, DVLA cannot issue (sell) a number that had previously been issued.

If or until it does come into effect, other than by ‘normal’ transfer, the exception is previously issued numbers can only be used again once the subject vehicle has been positively identified by documentation and/or certification by recognised Marque Owners Clubs, such as following a restoration.

 

If this were the case , why and how did DVLA sell the registration numbers to the 3 famous Italian Job minis. The DVLA can do what they like as it is near impossible to bring them to justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like other people I'm confused about how you lose a registration. I thought as long as you have the document the reg no is yours.

 

When the DVLA took over vehicle registration matters from local authorities there was a fixed period for the transfer to the DVLA, either automatically as a vehicle was re-licensed, or application of transfer by the keeper. The DVLA stated that at the end of the period, any vehicle details that had not been transferred to the DVLA system would no longer be recognised. There were pleas from some of the motor clubs and the DVLA agreed that they may consider later applications for vehicles verified by the clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the DVLA took over vehicle registration matters from local authorities there was a fixed period for the transfer to the DVLA, either automatically as a vehicle was re-licensed, or application of transfer by the keeper. The DVLA stated that at the end of the period, any vehicle details that had not been transferred to the DVLA system would no longer be recognised. There were pleas from some of the motor clubs and the DVLA agreed that they may consider later applications for vehicles verified by the clubs.

 

 

 

That was around 1974 wasn't it? Mind you OP did say their problem went back 'many years', but I wasn't thinking of over 40 years ago!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was around 1974 wasn't it? Mind you OP did say their problem went back 'many years', but I wasn't thinking of over 40 years ago!

 

 

 

The DVLA registrations started with the 'M' suffix - August 1973 and transfer from local authority records DVLA records ran for a period after that. I wondered how far back the OP meant as 4BYO and 33ALC do not appear on the DVLA vehicle record system so they could have been lost by not being transferred from the local authority system to the DVLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but when you send them in they were not received. Registered mail did not prove what was sent. With 4 BYO, I even sent parking permit from previous owner and tax disc, still lost it and nothing returned.

 

 

It may have depended on when you sent the documents and how long after the DVLA closed the transfer period that they accepted late applications. For late applications they required the original local authority vehicle log book with a letter from an accepted car club that the details of the vehicle shown on the log book matched those of the actual vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...