Code: ctzreate
swarb.co home
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CCJ awarded by DVLA. Please help!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro

 
 
 
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GE0RGE200



Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:42 pm    Post subject: CCJ awarded by DVLA. Please help! Reply with quote

Hello

I recently found out that I had a CCJ awarded against me in 2005. Basically I had a vehicle which was taxed until the 1 September 2004. On the 3 September 2004 the vehicle (which had by this time been untaxed for 2 days) was burnt out by vandals. The police arranged for destruction of the vehicle. I didn't advise the DVLA at the time because their website advises that; "You should only tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) that your vehicle has been scrapped if you actually break it up or destroy it yourself. In the event of the vehicle being written off, the insurance company will notify DVLA on your behalf." This did not happen and the car appeared on the DVLA database as untaxed on a public for at least a further 4 months.

I have recently received a copy of the judgement in which the claimants argument states; "no further license was issued for the vehicle before the end of the prescribed period of 1 months from the date of that expiry (ie 1 September 2004)"

I was planning to contact the DVLA and ask them to ask the court to set aside the judgment as I believe I have a reasonable defence and I did not receive the original summons. If this fails I will ask for the court to se aside the judgment. If it goes onto a rehearing and I lose, will I have an opportunity to pay off the judgement within 28 days or will it still stay on my credit record?

Many Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rainmaker



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Similar situation with myself in 2005.. the car i had was written off, and the insurance and i were arguing over settlement... it was untaxed, i couldnt tax it as the insurance was expired, i couldnt insure it as it was written off, the police marked it as untaxed with a sticker and before the insurance came to collect it the DVLA uplifted it.

I would suggest that the judgement against you is unjust as you complied with the instructions given to you on their website. That the DVLA national database remained out of date due to the police not carrying out their obligation to inform them.

I would write back to the court and the DVLA informing them of the situation and advising you would like the judgement set aside given the circumstances, failing that, be prepared to fight it in court.

I'd also recommend you speak to a qualified solicitor, or your local CAB.
_________________
Illiud Latine dici non potest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I had a CCJ awarded against me


You have taken on board a detriment as an award, just like the council' s now award PCNs. Try to refrain from allowing this new spin to take over.

The DVLA uses the same system as derived in the charge certificate, namely two presumptions of guilt.

CC – Either you did not appeal the Notice to Owner OR you did not pay.

In my personal case these were both false representations amounting to fraud, see

http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=148&mode=&order=0&thold=0

The DVLA use the same - rebuttable presumptions of guilt that reverse the UDHR and EUHR presumptions of innocence.

Either you did not file a SORN OR you did not re licence the vehicle following the end of the previous (something like that).

With the DVLA, actually the Bill of Rights arguments prevail, since they're claim is for a treasury department and that is of the Crown.

So you are entitled to a hearing BEFORE conviction.

They say; I have seen their letters, their claims are consistent with the Bill of Rights, I have watched such a case through the court process and it should help you.

http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3560&sid=1ac79d69208ba225fe13e9b5411c4960
is about the BoR.

I will try to ask the party who went through it to post here.

I don't see how you can fail if you produce the Police evidence of he destruction. Costs should be theirs. Do ask the case be set aside, and then ask for a hearing under the BoR. They must provide it, or back down on the evidence you provide beforehand.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PROVING....

The Bill of Rights 1688 is still alive today, see the Crown is involved here.
Wayne's pages.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
_________________
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rainmaker



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony wrote:
PROVING....

The Bill of Rights 1688 is still alive today, see the Crown is involved here.
Wayne's pages.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
_________________



Your argument is rather far fetched. I agree with it in princple, but there's no point arguing it here. Get it in court...





..... and be shot to pieces by a judge.
_________________
Illiud Latine dici non potest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a political argument that needs proper codification.

I don't have any gripe with the Bill of Rights and a case to put it in court. The point is to show the arguments put forward at PATAS are flawed, and that we need a bill of rights governing the council's conduct that is akin to the same plunder before 1688. They can't be relied on to adhere to their codes of conduct.

The case that went to court was for another, and the DVLA HAD to allow it in court, unlike the council who prefers to bully and send in baliffs, keeping it away from a court's eyes.

In a separate case, I have taken the first round with my council, and the BoR was one of 17 statutory breaches, 8 in one simple proven written admission and 20 contradictions. They tried for costs all in all just under £4000, at that first hearing and they were dismissed. This was the delay in completing BoR issue, but to help you bit on to a remarkably similar case I suggest you have a look at this being posted called PLUNDER, and they still wanted their money in court.
It's on another site, and all is going public shortly, just to whet your thirst and satisfy your appetite for a judge to blow us; people you dislike, to bits.
I know and see that is what you want. But didn't see any argument; just an opinion, to back it up, and in court one has to adduce arguments as you well know.

Anyway its a free for all. Just posting facts that's all.

And see for yourself how a council can be relied on for integrity. The BoR is relevant since they do exactly what the Crown prerogative did before it was governed by a court, but the councils deny every attempt to take a case to a real court, unfortunate it failed; thus far, in their attempt with me.

This one, £757.94 for a contravention that did not occur. Have a look and debate it if the contravention did occur. It's an open debate, and you can all all put your opinions at this first stage on what you think. Looking at the way you think, it's likely you will be on the council's side and argue the council are right, and I am wrong, and need special hallucinatory glasses to match up with your views.

Thanks for the comment, anyway, much appreciated.

Actually in Latin it's called;

culpa lata dolo æquiparatur

as you will know of course.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rainmaker



Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No tony, you mis understand me.

I do not dislike you, or people like you.

I agree entirely in principle with what you're saying.. however flooding a board with the same arguments and giving advice to people to take their council to court under the BoR for a parking ticket.....

The sad thing is, that's the way it is these days, and no amount of arguing or legal wrangling is going to change it.. sadly.

It would be great if the BoR meant something... but in the 21st Century, government will walk roughshod over it to best fit their needs....

If you've got a case... great, take it to court... keep us posted, but please, ease off with the preeching about how great the BoR is and how its going to save peoples parking ticket skin... it wont.

The moment you mention BoR in a case for a parking ticket, the Judge/Magistrate is going to straight away thing:

"oh great, we've got a cocky claimant here"



And another point, you'd do well to search for traffic cases under my name - you're comments regarding me siding with a council blah blah blah.... you'd be good to do research on people before you take a swipe at them. Wink
_________________
Illiud Latine dici non potest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"oh great, we've got a cocky claimant here"


I don't want to usurp this persons original thread so I posted my reply on my own for its relevance to BoR.

But on two points of accuracy, and false emphasis;

Quote:
however flooding a board with the same arguments and giving advice to people to take their council to court under the BoR for a parking ticket.....


There is only one post on the BoR issue from me, it gained a deal of dissent that was fallaciously argued, and that resulted in a larger number of reads than usual.
The figures are;

Quote:
Our users have posted a total of 8654 articles
We have 9507 registered users

One and a bit threads in 8654! Hardly FLOODING a board, I think.
Disproportionate exaggeration to reach a hasty generalisation!
This post , not my original, has the precise relevance pointed to showing that the DVLA DOES have an obligation under the BoR to ensure a hearing before enforcement, to ensure the debt is properly judged where no consent exists.

So when you place the accurate numbers beside the comment;

Quote:

you mis understand me.
I do not dislike you, or people like you.
One might just be forgiven for 'mis understanding' otherwise perhaps.

I don't see where I said to anybody, DO take your case to the court under the BoR, I thought I simply pointed out WHERE the BoR arguments; by established but errant authority was untenable. If you interpreted it that way, the interpretation suffered in reading from the original in my opinion.

Perhaps in future if I say, 'here's an argument on the fallaciousness of the BoR rulings, but don't take your case to court based on it alone'. I must bear that in mind in future, a sort of caveat to deter examination of a sound principle in flawed use, I will take that on board.

While I would argue a case on other grounds, the BoR tenet and its principle, doesn't deter me from placing that principle before a judge, to simply state that where damage has been done, BECAUSE I didn't get the EUHR Pr5 Art 6, then damages in punitive and exemplary aspects warrant greater scrutiny because zeal overtook a duty of care I was entitled to in a council's 30 page code of conduct.

But do bear in mind the principle of the BoR is enshrined in the UDHR and EUHR, where everyone is SUPPOSED to be able to have the right to a fair and public hearing in a reasonable time. The Fair, and Public are the two bits I find demonstrably unreal in many cases. And the clamps and tow aways breach the principle, in many cases causing irretrievable damage despite a hearing 6-12 month's later.

If you feel that's a good thing, why not argue a nice alternative principle that puts it right. I bet it won't be far off the BoR, which only differs from the EUHR that simply places the punishment AFTER judgment.
I think that's a fair and reasonable comment.
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:50 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anisah786



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 1234
Location: UK,

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony wrote:
Quote:
"oh great, we've got a cocky claimant here"


I don't want to usurp this persons original thread so I posted my reply on my own for its relevance to BoR.


Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anisah
Quote:
I work in the dark



Better not to advertise it.
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clive pearson



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no former act can be succeeded by a new act unless said new act ACTUALLY mentions the former act it supersedes!

where does any road traffic act mention the BOR act Please?, as I cannot find any reference?
_________________
Welcome to Great Britain, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

this bonfire night I intend to burn an effigy of the PM

"there will be NO Birmingham Northern Relief Road"!!, Liars, Liars Liars!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clive, Hi.
You won't find it.

The BoR cannot be repealed unless expressly, and nor can it be impleidly repealed.

I have sufficient case law authority on this assertion, provided from Robin DeCrittenden's HC appeal last year.

The way around it is as explained, the goal posts have been moved, and the rights removed.

BUT they still remain insofar as the DVLA is concerned, the BoR, Wayne thread link, shows the DVLA expressly wording it, and the CROWN is a third party to the civil action. Would that the RTA was so circumscribed?
Ah but that would slow the revenue a bit.

Then the argument on lower taxation would fall as it would have to be collected properly through fiscal measures that are unpopular and we don't want to upset that 'feel good factor'.

I thought it appropriate to add this post from pepipoo just updated.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=624b9632b5b876aedeb29a09bb9e6200&showtopic=22095

These days you need proof that is categorical.
Proof of sending may be part of it, like a stamped certificate of posting, but proof of signature is far better.

I have known this for many years now. I have a recorder and camera in car at most times, to ensure if stopped I have accurate records, not lies afterwards. I had it when stopped by the police ten years ago. I said give me a ticket, and I will see you in court. They took me to court, and the CPS withdrew the case the day I walked in with camera, shorthand recorder and witness. It cost the police £625 it started me thinking, how close our system is to that behind the iron curtain 40 years ago, the similarities are remarkable, and the differences very very little, merely ideology. The main one is the spin we get daily to maintain a feel good factor while AWARDING us PCNs as if they were medals. Award! I choose my words carefully and it's from a letter on the councils own heading.

On another ocassion my wife on the pavement, was given a PCN while I had drven off, by a warden who begged her to accept it, ununiformed, because he would lose his job since 4 managers were watching him, they lost that one too.

Equally When I had stepped out of the car, and a warden approached within 2 seconds, she showed him her recorder, and you couldnt see him from the dust. Where did he go? These witches ae afraid of recorders. Comedys of errors.

My council sent an NTO, and I replied by hand and got a receipt they forgot about.
After 6 weeks and getting charge certificate, I wrote alleging they never sent an appeal.

It is very lengthy to tell, the first bundle at court exceeded 500 pages. and will all be published in due course. BUT they wrote back denying absolutely .........; look at the language of presumptions, I had NOT sent the NTO appeal, and they had never received any representations at any time. ( I HAD NOT? ) ONLY God and I myself can possibly know what I do in my own time in my own home?
They threatened enforcement, and I invited them to send their bailiffs where I would have the police arrest them.

I then showed them THEIR receipt, dated, signed, stating receipt for appeal.
They backed down, I took them to court, the first hearing cost them just under £4k in costs.
Lies, abuse, despotism are too kind for what they tried, and if you want to see more of what they do, have a look at a neighbour of mine undergoing the same tooth pulling operation, just like in 'the boys from Brazil".

http://www.twtanb.co.uk/


Otherwise they are nice people, and individually just like you and me, when not agenda driven and sworn to say nothing or lose their job, funny isn't it?

It is on its way to the High Court. The most ludicrous web of false representations are being issued at present that will be fully dismantled.

You can make up your own minds if you think they are totally out of control or have a right to have such control in the first place since we are stupid enough to elect them each time around when they use semantics and REFUND OUR taxes as if they are doing us some good.
I don't mind legal penalties, but they have gone beyond the legal in decriminalised enforcement the enforcement is in many cases criminal in extortion and fraud. All to be unfolded as “time unfolds what plighted cunning hides.”

Just an opinion, by a now extremely happily disillusioned citizen, while protocol 5 Article 10/11 still allows me to utter views freely.
BTW in Wayne's case, the prosecuting lawyer was actually and apologetically on his side saying this is all new in the last ten years.
The Judge found that while he stated he had sent the SORN, they had not received it; despite their system of records showing flaws.

So the moral is KEEP receipts, to AVOID deceits. Keep PROOF to ensure TRUTH.

If you want to stare at the face of morality and integrity, just consider the argument.

It is inadmissible evidence, there is NO unambiguous agreement to prove that money was pledged for honours.

A reduction ad absurdem test is simply this.

SO when a group of people agree with a nod and a wink, to commit to bending the rules / law

they MUST write it down in an unambiguous agreement so that a solicitor can witness it and file it later for prosecution? The art of semantics and ocllusive words / acts.

Funny isn't it?

I know I'm mad; in the sense of being angry, though some will prefer the standard usage, but at least it's only north north west

"I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly I
know a hawk from a handsaw." Hamlet
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group