Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
    • Hungary is attempting to be a world power in manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, despite locals' reservations.View the full article
  • 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

DVLA reminder about renewing driving licences


honeybee13
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 396 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

Article deom the Mirror.

 

WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK

British drivers who have had a driving licence for 10 years must renew it in time - within 10 years - or face harsh penalties, the DVLA has warned

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might very well be mistaken, but isn't that article very misleading?

 

I thought it was only the photocard part of a licence that needed to be renewed every ten years, and not the licence itself.  And if somebody only has an old style paper licence, nothing needs renewing after ten year because they don't have a photocard.

 

Has the law changed?  If it has it's news to my wife and I suspect many people!

 

(I see whoever wrote that article can't spell "licence" properly either...)

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure it's wrong insofar as it says that anybody who passed their test before 2014 needs to renew their licence.  It's only the photocard that needs to be renewed so if you don't have one because you still have an old paper licence you can't renew it.

 

Also I'm not sure if they are right to say that not renewing your photocard necessarily invalidates your insurance.  I would have thought you would still have a valid licence even if the photocard is not renewed - but I'm not sure about that.

 

What they don't explain is that not renewing a photocard is an offence in itself and you can be fined up to £1000 for that.

 

So not a great article really.  Perhaps Lucy and Milica could do with a refesher at journalism school...

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the said article in the mirror, just like the mail clickbait posts  is designed to panic people.100's a day from them.

 

read the article above

 

but if you have ever had a photocard then you MUST update it before its stated expiry date of 10yrs, with a new photo, or it is invalid and you 'could' be prosecuted.

the mrs just had this.

it's quite easy to do.

 

 

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 the article is seriously misleading for all the reasons given above. Once a driver passes his test, his "entitlement to drive" normally lasts until he is 70. That entitlement may be withdrawn or shortened (for example, for medical reasons) but generally the driver is entitled to drive until his 70th birthday.

 

What is most misleading of all is the issue of insurance. There are very few reasons which entitle insurers to decline cover for third party risks as required by the RTA and the driver having an expired photocard is not among them.. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

DVLA are deliberately very misleading on this and it is unfair. Even DVLA staff will differ in opinion, but you have to remember many of these are agency staff with little experience. The higher up you go, the more experienced people you talk to. They will lead you to believe that the licence is invalid if the photo is not updated and you cannot drive. This is actually untrue, the licence remains valid, but your photocard has expired. You are covered whilst they update it also.

 

I had this confirmed when I sent my own licence back to have the photo updated - and they 'lost' my driving record! They told me to apply for a new provisional licence and take my test again after 40 years of driving!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...