DVLA car seizure, DVLA issued fine then dismissed section 142 |
DVLA car seizure, DVLA issued fine then dismissed section 142 |
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 1 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,723 |
Looking for advice regarding an issue i have with the DVLA regarding a fine, car seizure
I had a car seized by the dvla or their partners NSL.at the time the car was parked opposite a garage where it was booked in for an MOT ie literally on the other side of the road 20ft away. I had the usual offer from the dvla of an out of court settlement etc which I in no uncertain terms told them what to do with it telling them there were mitigating circumstances ie the car was there at the garage for an mot to which the dvla responded by simply pushing ahead taking me to court. I was issued a fine in the nearby magistrates court for a ridiculous sum for non payment of vehicle duty. After taking legal advice I applied to have the case reheard under section 142 of the 1980 magistrates court act where the fine was dismissed due to the car being booked in for an mot.My hearing didnt actually take place in the court room actually in the corridor and the court didn't even want to see the evidence I had brought to dismiss the fine, this making the whole basis of its seizure in the first place null and void I contacted the DVLA after the hearing and was told to approach NSL for the cars value or what they got from selling the car at auction,totally unacceptable I want the value of the car at the time the lost earnings from the sale that fell through and compensation for the stress and hassle,the court was starting to pursue me for the fine threatening letters etc. I have been through the independent complaints assessors procedures,and the ombudsman who agreed with the dvla saying they had followed procedure just pushing aside the court dismissing the fine as though it as no bearing or significance. Im considering various paths I dont want to go into to much detail there is something very wrong here that needs addressing,can someone advise thank you |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 02:22
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
You can think that, and we can think you're an idiot.
-------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 06:47
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
We are telling you the law as it stands, if you don’t like it then campaign for a change in it, right now you’re like a child asking for something that’s not possible and stamping thier feet because they can’t get it.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 07:16
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
...the site will be hacked and brought down,try helping people with a valid need We’ve seen some extreme reactions when the OP doesn’t like the advice. We’ll arrange a refund. If you are that determined then start legal action against those who you think have wronged you. It may possibly be an expensive outing. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 00:39 |