1 & 3 should always be the same person.

2008 - 2009 insurer # 3 Co-Op CIS insurance - I see other people have had this from the Co-Op aswell. 2007 - 2008 insurer # 2 2006 - 2007 insurer # 1 A year ago I took out car insurance with insurer # 3, they wanted the no claims letter, and I told them by phone I was aware they wanted it and it will be with them soon. The problem was xmas post and possibly a postal strike (can't remember). The other problem was insurer # 2 sent me the wrong figure on the first letter they sent me. I phoned insure # 2, and asked for a correct new letter to be sent. Whilst I was on the phone with them they said they had lost my proof of no claims that I had given them a year ago, they asked who I was insured with prior to tthem and they then picked up the phone (whilst I was on hold) they phoned insurer # 1 and came back to me with that information confirmed and they were now happy to send me an ammended no claims letter. The guy on the phone also said "why doesn't your current insurer just phone us and we'll tell them?" I phoned back insurer # 3 and said "why don't you phone insurer # 2 and confirm it by phone?" They replied "We don't do that" Anyway the letter arrived and I sent it to them (1st week of January), I told insurer # 3 by phone "I have just sent it to you". I heard nothing further from them and assumed everything was ok. Come renewal time they sent no renewal, so when I phoned them to ask why and for a new quote, they said they had cancelled my policy in 1st week March 09, and had sent a letter in 1st week Feb 09. They say they deducted about £60 from the remainder of the premium and refunded me about £70 at the time. Now when I go to "gocompare" I have to say "yes" - "I have had insurance refused, cancelled, or recinded" which means 99% of insurers on that site will not insure me including Insurer # 3 but insurer #3 on the phone was wanting to insure me when I phoned them last week (I refused). When I asked insurer # 3 for a full refund of the pro rata 9 months premium assuming I now forward to them again another copy of no claims from insurer # 2, they refused. They also said I have nothing to worry about re: having insurance "cancelled" by them because it was only "cancelled" and not "refused or recinded". What they don't seem to understand is that I now cannot answer "no" to that question on gocompare and other similar websites. I told them that: *had they just phoned insurer # 2 at the time (like insurer # 2 had phoned # 1) none of this would have happened *I did not recieve any letters from them after December *I would expect to not only have been sent a letter of 1 months notice but ALSO a letter saying "your policy is now cancelled here is your refund less deductions" And that I recieved neither letter. *They have on record my phonecall 1st week Jan saying "I have just sent it to you" *I want this "cancellation" revoked somehow so I can answer "no" to that question *I want a letter of no claims from them after I have sent them the new letter from insurer # 2 What I need to know is what can I do in regards to getting the deducted money returned to me. And also in having this "cancellation" black mark against my name removed? They also made no effort to get the insurance certificate back from me.

Is that you saying - without actually saying it - that you were wrong on this and you offered your apologies?

It is my understanding that there is no offence involved here and the supplemental charge is a debt not a fine. So will not be heard in a magistrates, nor would the 6 months rule apply. It would be dealt with in a civil court and the 6 year rule would presumably apply. Ahh, on reading a few of the more recent posts on this thread someone else has already pulled you up on this. The relevant law is VERA 1994 section 7A where it quite clearly states that it is a "supplement" "to be collected as debt". How many debt collections do you know of that are done in the mags criminal court?

If you disagree, by all means say so politely. Put forward argument to support your disagreement, and if you like, warn innocents to be careful about following some advice given in a thread. It appears you did this (rather impolitely) early on in the thread. Why you felt the need to keep coming back for more and then complain about getting more is beyond me. You also did not answer all of PD questions to you. None of us are obligated to answer to anyone or all of the points they put to us or answer in a manner that they would like. There's no need to be rude to people.

I will reply, though not authorised by Pleasuredome to talk on his behalf, I do support his actions in this thread. He came here to ask if we knew of ways to un-register a vehicle. We answered with one or two ways of doing it. And concluded that those 1 or 2 ways were the only ones we knew about. This basically concluded the purpose of the thread. Other people then asked PD why he wanted to know, he kindly told us. Then people expressed doubts on PDs idea. Then others asked him to explain in greated detail. PD responded, kindly, with greater detail. Then those person/s then entered into argument (some/one not so politely either) with PD. PD defended his position. Then someone accused PD of "preaching", which was ridiculous as he had only been responding to questions asked of him and argument put to him.

Exactly, the judge can only use the argument you put to him. If you put the wrong argument forward he will find against you.

There is a difference, because the DVLA are not telepathic. They have to read or hear the words spoken to them to become "informed" or "notified" of your declaration. If the legislation uses a word not defined within the legislation, and the meaning of that word is disputed the judge will usually resort to a dictionary definition.

I think you're trying to do what in the USA some people theoretically think, that because they are constitutionally allowed the right to free travel, that right overrides the laws that require them to register their motor vehicles. We in the UK have the same laws requiring all motor vehicles (which are not exempt) to be registered. We don't have a constitution to give us the same theoretical hopes that they have in the USA. I'll bet you won't actually find any Americans who go through with this idea. Unless you remove the engine and have an intention to never use the vehicle on the road again, you will not be allowed to unregister the vehicle. Just out of interest There are vehicles that are exempt from continuous registration, vehicles which have been stored off road - untaxed, prior to the SORN laws coming into effect (something like 1995) are exempt from SORN regs & fines, unless they subsequently become taxed - or voluntarily SORN'd again, then they have to from that point on be subject to SORN regs.

If you "self scrap" they will require proof that it has been scrapped or dismantled. You'll have to ask them what the minimum actions required would then have to be done to satisfy them. One famous story was a guy who sent them a video of the car being crushed by a tank. You may want to keep the bits of the car for future projects, so it is understandable that you may not want to destroy the vehicle. Exporting the vehicle is the only other way I know. When you report a car stolen, the DVLA get notified, and they (should) ammend the vehicles register to remove your responsibility to it. But it remains on the register. You can and should - protect yourself by writing to DVLA to have them "remove your interest" in a vehicle that has been stolen. Which makes me wonder if you can legally "remove your interest" in a vehicle not stolen but remains in your possession, I suppose you theoretically can, but it would probably leave you open to prosecution under VERA for keeping an unregistered vehicle. There is something in law about a vehicle without gear box or with engine in such a state that no prospect of vehicle being made mobile (and no intention of owner to put it back on the road) is no longer a motor vehicle. Smart v Allan 1962 Which could help you.

Why do you fail to see the difference? They are two very seperate things. Look them up in the dictionary, you will see two very different definitions.

IMO you stand no chance of winning using this argument. All you do is show the letter you posted belongs to the recipient. Ownership is not the issue here, the issue is notification. The DVLA will simply argue that they were never notified. If I was judge & jury on that argument I would side with the DVLA.

Make sure you keep a copy of the letter. And their response. BTW I agree it's much better to keep the letter simple, rather than the long drawn out "template letter" currently featured in another thread near the top of the board.

I agree, the fact they don't offer an immediate option of going to court could be seen as them attempting to withold your A6 right from you. Against the spirit rather than the letter of the act as you say. I think this aswell as the "reasonable time" argument would be a good defence to use. All we need now is for Danny to tell us what the wording of his argument was exactly, and scan his court judgement documents in for us so we might see what his judge said on the matter.

Not exactly, because on the first demand notice they send you they warn that non payment could result in court action. Not exactly the same as saying "you have the right to challenge this in court" I agree, but effectively the same thing.

Ah, but they are legally authorised to charge a supplemental payment. Authorised by the Secretary of State as per VERA 1994 S.7A. The supplement is payable by you, and you have a right to dispute that, but if you lose you have to pay up. And if the judge thinks your non payment was unreasonable you could have costs on top. Copies of appeal letters to show the judge could help you avoid costs in court - providing your grounds for appeal were reasonable.

They (DVLA) have to take the most cost effective course of action, they don't want the hassle of writing to you lots of times threatening court action, so they farm that business out to a third party. As I'm sure you know, you are not required to pay if you don't want to, not until a court has found you liable. The ones that don't pay, will theoretically eventually be taken to court. Thus satisfying their A6 right to independant ribunal. I suppose you could argue it should be like parking tickets, which have a tick box on the back, where you tick to indicate -right at the start- you wish to challenge the ticket in court at the earliest convienience. Now that aspect might be seen to be quite important, (what aspect? I hear you ask)...... The article 6 right is the right to an independant tribunal "within a reasonable time". I think if they ignore your letters of denial, or letters requesting an independant review (court case), then refer you to a DCA and it does not go to court for months even more than a year in some cases.....*THEN* I think you would have a chance of using A6 as a defense, you were not given an opportunity to defend yourself within a reasonable time. It might also work if you just sit back and wait until the fat lady sings, having not requested a court case, it's possible your A6 right has not been complied with.

Right ok, And my contention with the same paragraph of the OP is that I see nothing in Art 6 that would require them to have their own appeals service. Ultimately the County Court is the "appeal service"/"the independant impartial tribunal established by law".

Why? Danny believes this defence will work in court, he even won a case, alledgedly using this defence, but has not explained in much detail what his argument was, and why the judge agreed with him. There doesn't have to be, the court is the independent tribunal, the appeal service if you like. Perhaps, this is Danny's point, he believes the institution needs to have it's own in-house appeal system established in law, before the county court. But I see nothing to back up that argument. Oh and.... Danny, I have sent you a PM BTW. I am genuinely interested in your views, not trying to attack you in any way, except as Devil's Advocate ISWIM. I am on your side, if the DVLA can be beaten I'm all for it.

If an officer sees a unlicensed vehicle on the road, apart from whatever they do to the driver or stick to the windscreen of the car, they also notify the DVLA as a matter of course. The DVLA then try to recover the supplement which they are entitled to in VERA 7A. It is also entirely possible that as part of the FPN there may now be an attached section/invoice which has to be sent off and paid to the DVLA to cover the supplement that is now payable. Scans of the letters and court docs would be much appreciated DDWales, what was the court date? And there's no need to apologise for having a few blurred memories of an event a long time ago, which did not even involve you directly.

Surely, when you refuse to pay -as is your right- the "independent and impartial tribunal established by law" is the County Court that the DVLA then take you to, to determine if you are liable to pay the supplement or not. So I don't really see how your A6 rights are being witheld. Which would be ok if the DVLA were accusing you of guilt of a section 31A offence. But as I understand it, the DVLA will probably not be saying you are guilty of ANY offence -none that they care about anyway- they will simply be saying that you are liable to pay a supplement under section 7A (1)(a) for falling foul of 7A (1A)(d). Sometimes the DVLA ask for the supplement (£40/£80) aswell as the whole of the tax that would have been payable since the vehicle was last licensed. I can see that there could be grounds for using your argument against having to pay the back dated tax, as that is not covered by the "supplement" which 7A says you have to pay. But I have not read all of the act and regs so I don't know about this exactly.

The way I read it was you have the right to a 20 min max as long as it is (or was) necessary to require that amount of time. But the adjudicator refused to agree that parking attendants need to wait that long before issuing a ticket. Meaning it was reasonable for a ticket to be issued, but down to the driver to provide evidence that they were loading and that it was neccessary to take as long as it did. Can I ask people The judgement refers to the traffic mangement orders of all councils having identical terms (top of pg 2). This must be because all councils were ordered to have this exemption. I would like to know what order or legislation laid out the required wording that all councils have had to follow? It appears to me that this 20 minute rule only applies to councils who have decriminalised the parking in their area. I guess there is no stated limits in laws that apply to non council enforced parking. A pity the OP was a stumper (a thread with no concluson).

And it would have been nice if you had just admitted it as such when I first asked you, rather than continue to argue your position as though it were a fact. Pot? Kettle? - Not at all - no one asked me if I was speaking of fact or opinion.

You didn't explain what evidence in total was placed before the court by you to support your argument- for example proof of delivery, nor did you say if the DVLA bothered to turn up in court. Nor did you say why the judge agreed with you. You never did post the scans of the judgement, did you? In any event, you struck lucky, other people have equally had to pay up. Your case does not make case law as I'm sure you know.

Again for the 2nd time you have refused to acknowledge that this ridiculous argument is only your opinion, and you have nothing in directly related law or case law to show it is correct. Lets see if you can make a hat trick. But it is, legislation, which puts the onus on the sender to deliver, so it would be relevant in counter argument to your quotation of unrelated "rules" which support your argument. Your point is unclear. I simply said the Law is clear, and it is up to the keeper to ensure s/he complies with the law. The DVLA facilitate this by allowing 4 weeks, during which the RK can confirm the DVLA recieved the notification, and during which they will not take any action, and the DVLA make a recommendation to the RK that the RK phones up if they have not heard from the DVLA within 4 weeks. This is the DVLA recommending a "sensible course of action" for the RK to follow. There's nothing "self defeating" here. You'd rather I said the Secretary of State would you? It was clear enough, there is a difference between VERA 1994 S.22(1)(d) & VERA 1994 S.22(1D). For anyone reading this who was relying on your reference, I thought it would be better to quote the correct reference. However in truth they both deal with notification of certain changes just different changes, so you were partially correct. I thought you might have been referring to SORN hence my reference. Considering we are discussing the notification of the DVLA by means of Royal mail, the letter has to be delivered in order for the DVLA to be informed, so both verbs used were correct in the context. Plus I was counter arguing your position that simply posting was enough. Thus my use of the word delivered was appropriate. You cannot prove a negative, thus it would not be for the DVLA to prove non-receipt, it would be for the court to decide who was telling the truth. The DVLA say "we did not recieve it, if we had it would have been processed as usual" The RK says "I sent it but can't prove they recieved it and did not confirm at any stage that they had recieved it and did not recieve any confirmation from them. If what you said held any water you could ignore all speeding NIPs and when charged with a section 172 failure to disclose, just say "I did send it back, it's for the prosecution to prove they did not recieve it." In your opinion but it is only that.