Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I purchased a bathroom tap for £125 from online company, 'QS SUPPLIES', in May 2020. It was duly fitted and all was fine until December 2020 when the top lever came away from the base of the tap rendering it useless. I immediately contacted QS SUPPLIES using their online complaints procedure and submitted a photo, as required. When after a few days I had heard nothing from them I called their CUSTOMER SERVICES team and was told that they were waiting for a response from the manufacturer, a company called 'SANEUX', I pointed out that my contract was not with the manufacturer and that I expected QS SUPPLIES to deal with my complaint. I was then advised to email them again, which I did...twice.... when they finally responded to my second email they asked me to send another photo of the faulty tap. This time, their response was that their,  TECHNICAL TEAM had looked at the photo and decided that the tap, "APPEARED TO BE FORCED", and therefore they would be, "UNABLE TO OFFER A REFUND ON THIS OCCASION".  So after  7 months of use and at a cost of £125, this company, on the strength of one slightly grainy photo have decided I am entitled to nothing. I have applied to be reimbursed by my credit card company under Section 75 but I am still determined to attempt to get QS SUPPLIES to take responsibility and would really appreciate any advice about the best way to go about this.  
    • Good news for me is that the Bounce Back Loan came through so I can pay the full car payment!  Thanks for reply.
    • Welcome. please follow the advice given above as to reading around the various stories and then monitor this thread for a full reply tomorrow  
    • Hi Everyone,  I am the seller in this case and want to thank the buyer for their support.  The bike was delivered to the local Hermes Parcel Shop really well packaged and sealed on the 3rd Feb with a receipt obtained.  Sadly the parcel was emptied on route to the buyer.   I had listed the bike for collection only however the buyer messaged and asked if we could arrange a courier to which I agreed and they organised that.  When the bike went missing I contacted the local police as the Hermes parcel shop said they would not release CCTV to me.  We got all this from the Police.  since then the buyer has tried his very best which I am grateful with Hermes and parcel2go but is struggling.  Any help is appreciated. 
    • Also, you should start a claim against Hermes. Post your story on the Hermes sub- forum. Give us a full breakdown – including dates and value et cetera. We will help you get your money back
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

DVLA untaxed fine - seller didn’t send off logbook...


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 857 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

Hi all, first time poster here, apologies if I get anything wrong!

 

I bought the car two years ago, immediately set up a direct debit and - foolishly now it seems - thought that was that.

 

You all know where this is going... So, last month my car got clamped outside the house, that was the first I knew that my car was untaxed. It turns out I’ve been driving for a year with no tax, I was (and still am) a broken man :(. I regularly check my MOT and insurance online, but tax - it just never crossed my mind, the direct debit was set up immediately, it renews, so all good?

 

Surely there’s a major flaw in the system here? The seller didn’t send off the logbook SO the DVLA had no idea I was the registered keeper. And yes, lo and behold, I now find out about the rule that the direct debits will NOT renew unless they have the keepers details...

 

Then when I finally get the logbook it states that ‘this does NOT prove ownership of the vehicle’ - so what the hell does??? The person who taxes and insured it??? Who then has their direct debits not renewed by the DVLA???

 

Adding to this is the fact that the missus is not on her logbook (I am) yet they renewed her direct debits???

 

Also I have two vehicles also registered with the DVLA. The police also found me within two weeks a few months back for speeding (33 in a 30...) It just seems so wrong?

 

Is there ANYTHING I can do about this? I’m guessing not etc etc but if I start getting the fines coming through as they’ve spotted me on camera 6 times over the past year I won’t be able to afford that...

 

All this because they didn’t renew the DD? And doesn’t the fact that they did with the missus ruin their argument?

 

Apologies but I’m completely out of my depth here and don’t know which way to turn. Would a magistrate see common sense and see the flaw in the system here? Is it worth heading to court to argue my case?

 

Thanks

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies guys a few mistakes/typos above but it was too hard to go and fix them all whilst on my phone!

 

I’m also aware of the fact that it is my responsibility to check about the logbook after four weeks - I’ve got no argument there :( ... Just seems wrong that they can not renew a DD - what possible reason would they give for that? The complaints perhaps from owners who sold the cars but were still getting charged?

Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful how you interpret what the V5C actually says..and what it means..which is not what you quoted above.

 

it says 'this document in not proof of ownership..it shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle'

 

now like surnames and addresses will not run up a red flag, as you say, husband often pays for things for spouse and or siblings..

 

but in your case its registered in a different name and a different address totally so when it came around to the system wanting to renew it spat it out as two things are wrong.

 

you should have queried why you didn't get a V5c after about a week or two of owning it.

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

Not there are knowledgeable ones here that will hopefully be along soon

But pers id cough up..it was your doing that caused it..

 

The vehicle is not in your name and you should have retailed the green slip thus ensuring he did transfer ownership/registationto you at rhe time of purchase

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

Just looking at the DVLA’s guide to re-taxing, their official line is ‘Your direct debit will not automatically renew if there is no vehicle keeper in the DVLA’s records’ ...

 

Wouldn’t the previous owner (who didn’t send the logbook off) still be in their records as the keeper? And hence the vehicle does have a keeper and the tax should have been renewed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but as post 6

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
yes but as post 6

 

Sorry bud I’m not arguing for the sake of it honestly! I also paid two months tax for a cheap runabout I bought during that period when I sorted the brake lines on this car for the MOT...

 

Is the court process worthwhile? Are the costs extortionate for going to court to get someone independent to listen to this? Are you then able to pay in instalments as the DVLA won’t allow it? It just seems so unfair on the average motorist who is and has paid tax for 30 years; I’m really tempted to get a magistrate to hear this but is the process a nightmare?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...