Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.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 - Help needed - Continuous Registratin


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6120 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

Please can somebody offer any advice.

 

We part exchanged our car back in December and sent off the tax disc and the log book to DVLA. They in turn sent us back a cheque of the refund of the tax but nothing else. We did not chase them for the confirmation letter.

 

We have subsequently received a Late Licensing Penalty for failling to tax the car in January.

 

 

We have written to them a couple of times explaining the situation and providing the Used Car Part Exchange Invoice that we were no longer the owners of the car, but they are still refusing to budge and say we must pay the fine.

 

I don't understand why we must pay the fine if they haven't done their job. They obviously got our forms because the refunded the tax but didn't apply the change in ownership.

 

Admittedly we did not chase for the confirmation letter but this is not against the law, however they are now stating that under the Continuous Registration the registered keeper is responsible until they have a receipt from DVLA acknowledging their disposal notification. So if they don't send it out or you don't get it you can be fined.

 

Sorry it's long winded but I'm getting really frustrated and I'm thinking about just rolling over and paying the £80 but the principal is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a possibility that the V5 slip got lost in the process of arranging the refund. Reply to the Letter, providing a copy of the letter they sent with the refund, you need to explain that as far as you were aware that receipt of the tax disc refund was confirmation you were also no longer the RK. (It isn't, but you wouldn't have known that). They'll probably realise this and waive the charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for all your help. i've just spent 30mins on the phone,trying so say about the tax refund letter but they would not budge. There argument was that If I'd sent it by recorded delivery they would have lodged all the contents. When I said you don't say that on any form. They did not have a response.

 

In the end I caved in and paid the fine. I'm a law abiding person and could not have the thought of this hanging over me. Although I did get them to record the fact that I did not agree with the fine and was paying it under protest. (For what it's worth).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame you did this, as you've effectively rolled over and paid when the rest of us have been prepared to take them to court. It was on the very issue of a requirement (not) to send correspondence by Recorded Delivery that provided their undoing in my case. Even with your refund, the DVLA knew you had disposed of the vehicle. I'm afraid you've just made it easy for them to bully others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your input. As for being 'harsh' it is a total surrender to the DVLA, it's called 'stating the obvious'. However, since you've initiated this exchange, the OP had already stated the V5 had been sent to the DVLA, what was your purpose in asking the same question again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point Busby but I felt after 7 months of wrangling and the conversation this morning I felt I had taken it as far as I could without wasting more of my time and potentially costing me more than the £80. I've learnt my lesson with dealing with the DVLA.

 

Send everything recorded

Phone on a regular basis to check progress and don't assume anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your input. As for being 'harsh' it is a total surrender to the DVLA, it's called 'stating the obvious'. However, since you've initiated this exchange, the OP had already stated the V5 had been sent to the DVLA, what was your purpose in asking the same question again?

 

The OP was probably not feeling too good about the situation and you making the above comment was unnecesary in the circumstances. Still, it's further evidence (not that any was needed) of the type of person that you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP was probably not feeling too good about the situation and you making the above comment was unnecessary in the circumstances. Still, it's further evidence (not that any was needed) of the type of person that you are.

 

What more insults? Can't you do anything more useful with your posts? We do not need these 'side' comments that are not germane to the principal thread. I fought the DVLA and won fair and square for stupid and unfair rule that penalises innocent motorists like the OP. He was bullied into submission, and I was pointing out that the DVLA will see how many fight their corner and how many roll over in establishing their future policy. What YOU think of my views is of no interest to me, and your constant harping shows the type of person YOU are. I do not need you to be judge and jury on my postings, please take your concerns to the Bear Garden where they belong, if I can be bothered I might respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point Busby but I felt after 7 months of wrangling and the conversation this morning I felt I had taken it as far as I could without wasting more of my time and potentially costing me more than the £80. I've learnt my lesson with dealing with the DVLA..

 

I can appreciate you can feel vulnerable to the unstoppable machine that is the DVLA. But bullies need to be stopped. The whole point of this site is to provide help and a bit of back-up. Given your circumstances you were in a better position than most, having had your refund proving the V5 slip HAD to have been received by them (if they got one, they got the other). As you'll note from other threads here, they have fouled up MANY times, get if you're of feint heart they just take your money. To me that's demanding money with menaces, and they deserve all they get - but that doesn't extend to paying them a figure they pulled out the air. So they still think you're the RK of this vehicle? If not, how/when did this change?

 

If you've the strength to fight, write to the DVLA, saying you were coerced into making the payment despite them being sent the V5 slip and tax disc. You give them 28 days to make good this wrongdoing or you will be forced to raise a Small Claims action for the money paid to be returned to you. It'll probably not come to that - but they're quick enough to chase you the same way, they should be treated in exactly the same way!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...