Why is the policy of not allowing links so selectively enforced on CAG?

MSE and Pepipoo have a more enlightened attitude to links to other sites which are of use to members of the forums. Putting in useful links is not spamming by any stretch of the imagination.

I wonder why it is ok to post a link to the Honest John site but when it is suggested to CAG members that they might get more info and/or help at MSE or P e p i p o o "The Management" at CAG say that is touting?

Stephen Thomas had also admitted to being the driver on internet forums and I understand the PPC produced this evidence at the hearing.

Was this as a result of a change in legislation?

If his licence has been revoked by DVLA because he has not returned it for the previous endorsements to be added then he should have received notification from DVLA that they wanted to revoke it. He could still drive for up to a year once he has received this notification. AFter that it his licence would show up as an expired full licence on the system and he would be regarded as not having a licence. If he was a new driver who had accumulated 6 points within 2 years of passing his first driving test then he would have had to apply for a new provisional licence and his details on the system would show up as revoked until test passed.

The OP didn't remove the clamp, another person did.

I suspect with the type of agreement you have signed that you will have to pay the remainder off in full and will have little chance of forcing BMW Finance to keep on taking your monthly payment. You could try contacting them in writing to see if they will revise their position of of course, but they would be within their rights to insist on the full payment.

Do DVLA have the power to be a prosecuting authority and issue their own summonses to magistrates court? Have you contacted the court in question to clarify this?

Did you take any photographs of the chip before you handed the car back? Did the hre company give you a report detailing the damage, including the size of the chip?

What the insurance companys are saying is that the car has to be roadworthy. They would be hard pushed to refuse a claim because the road fund licence had expired if the car was roadworthy. Whilst they could try and refuse a caim if the car was not taxed or MOT's they would have to prove that the lack of tax or MOT was material to the claim or part of a premeditated illegal activity to avoid the tax/MOT. If the MOT and/or RFL had expired by a few days as per the OP's situation then it is unlikely to affect the insurance. If they had been driving around for a few months then it would be easier to prove premeditation. There have been rulings by the ombudsman on this issue in favour of drivers who had expired RFL's/MOT's.

If you didn't send in your licence when you got the points then DVLA would revoke it. However, you can drive for up to 12 months once it has been revoked in this manner. In theory, the information the police have access to is the same that DVLA have, as it is DVLA's own database that the police will access, but DVLA are not noted for the accuracy of the information they hold. I would apply for your replacement licence as soon as possible.

This is incorrect information. The road tax has no bearing on the insurance and the insurance would not be invalidated because of this. If the car was booked in for an MOT and the MOT had expired this would not invalidate the insurance either if there was an accident on the way to the MOT test centre. If insurance was not valid if the car was not taxed or MOT'd then how would people get on who had SORN'd their car and then needed to get it MOT'd before buying a new road fund licence?

If the DVLA was holding on to details of long expired endorsements then they could come into conflict with the Information Commissioner as holding on to such information would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. Information has to be relevant and topical/timely and I doubt DVLA would be able to argue that having information relating to a long expired endorsement would be compliant. As for the courts getting print outs from DVLA. the print outs only show endorsements that are current. They do not show expired endorsements.

Is it worth the risk of buying a car from dealers who have a bad reputation, or are you just intending to go along to the dealers and have a bit of sport with the salesmen before a tactical withdrawal and purchasig from somewhere with a better reputation?

You usually have to specify that you want GAP in the first instance, and all GAP will do is to make up the shortfall between what the insurance company pay out and what was paid for the car when it was purchased (depending on the type of GAP policy purchased). Some GAP policies will provide a replacement car.

I would think (and I am sure if I am wrong someone will correct me) that without anything in writing regarding the terms and conditions relating to the payment of a deposit that the dealer will have difficulty in making such a claim. In fact I think you should be asking the dealer for a refund of your deposit given the lack of any written T's and C's. Did you pay the deposit by credit card? If you did you could take up the matter with the credit card company and ask them to get the money refunded.

What paperwork do you have regarding the deposit that was paid?

I think you will find this is normal practice in such a situation. You made the decision to insure the car TPFT and the only way in which you might recover the costs of the car are if there is a third party who was involved in the accident who is at fault. Sadly the loan is still outstanding and will need to be paid.

I had a situation with a BMW motorcycle relating to the front brake discs. Two sets were replaced under warranty due to warping and the second set also warped. BMW eventually came out with a new design of discs, but this occurred when the bike was out of warranty (almost a year out of warranty in fact) but because the fault had been logged and I had been asked to wait until a solution was found they did the work without any problems. The modified discs have been fine for almost three years now. The key issue with warranty claims is to notify the dealer as soon as possible.

Can you clarify that the deposit was placed on a car that was to be purchased in the UK please?

Such arrogance by the DVLA! They acknowledge that it is not covered by law that a person should contact them after 4 weeks if no acknowledgement letter has been received yet they still think because their system is good that they can ignore legislation (Intepretation Act) and still issue fines!

I don't know hold old you are but if you are over 17 and your potential journeys will be on roads with speed limits above 30mph then I would consider a 125cc scooter instead of a moped. Mopeds are restricted to 30mph and you will find them a liability on the faster roads. TC is on the money with regards to the compulsory training that you will need to complete to be able to ride a scooter. The CBT is only the basics and further training would be recommended, especially for a non driver such as yourself. I would add that if you haven't done so already you will need to apply for a provisional driving licence through the DVLA.

My guess is that the finance company would apply for a V5 before disposal of the vehicle and then the onus would be on them to notify DVLA once the vehicle is finally sold.

You mentioned the letter was from a debt collection agency. If the case had gone to court then you would have bailliffs appointed by HMCS (court service) after you which would be a wholly different ball game, so it is a possibility that the case has not gone to court in your absence. You have complied with your legal obligations to inform DVLA that you have sold the car, and there is something called the Intepretations Act which covers the posting of items. I don't know that much about it, but I am sure someone will be along soon to give a more detailed run down on it. There is nothing in law that says you have to check up with DVLA to see they got your V5. DVLA seem to think that because they advise people to check up with them if they have not received a V5 it gives them free rein to then fine people. It does not.