Author Topic: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA  (Read 36425 times)

milk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2013, 02:51:10 AM »
I thought that response from Chris Curson was a good response.

Particularly interesting to read that they make exceptions for themselves, you may deposit 500-1-honeys, nice, but in the event of personal injury unless bankrupt you may not use the deposit for personal injury liability.

Although the National Insurance covers everything in the Country, if it could not settle a personal claim of death say of a famous & valuable singer, then what business does the National Insurance have of meeting the demands upon it of the claims that must have been assessed before its introduction.

With ref to a group action, i heard Rob Freeman i think, comment on this recently and I tend toward his suggestion that a 'representative action' might not be the best thing. That the power of the people rests in our numbers, and a representative action would consolidate, therefore another blow collectively in gloominated hands, using its small minority to combat the Large Throng, as Larkin Rose puts it, in his vid 'the tiny dot.'

I realize your post on that was a time back.

I got a fine last year Spirit for not doing a sworn, I thought the same thing as you, wtf, My automobile was on private land.

Some great quotes on the law regards license, but that they are quite old, 100 yrs, which would indicate they should be very well known within the institutions holding responsibility to communicate such to the officers & agents operating such institutions.

Is there anything over this side of the Atlantic ocean? (the Atlantis ocean)

I immediately thought, with the term 'license,' Lye Sense. Lye to your sense, common sense deception.




M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2013, 07:44:09 PM »
Q: On what grounds do the police attempt to seize vehicles?
A: On the grounds they are acting as highway robbers?
Q: Funny. No, what act do they believe gives them the authority to seize vehicles?
A: The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Q: Serious Crime and Police Act! You're joking, right?
A: If I am, then it's in a tragicomedic way.

As we read through this, it becomes clear just how the statutory regulations apply to the PERSON ~ see how many times it gets repeated... this is powerful mind programming, most effective on those goons who know not what they are.. most of the population, a cynic might say. I'm just dumping the info here for now, to be revisited at a later stage when I intend to apply some critical thinking to examine the basis of the wrongful arrest of the Man and theft of his de-registered vehicle by West Porkshire Police Force back in August 2011. I will also reveal how said 'force' committed fraud by way of misrepresentation in a blatant attempt to gain further from the Man's loss by means of their highway robbery. 


Quote
150 Offence in respect of incorrectly registered vehicles

(1)After section 43B of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) insert—
“Offence in respect of incorrectly registered vehicles

43C Offence of using an incorrectly registered vehicle

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, on a public road or in a public place, he uses a vehicle to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which—
(a)the name and address of the keeper are not recorded in the register, or
(b)any of the particulars recorded in the register are incorrect.

(2)This subsection applies to a vehicle if—
(a)vehicle excise duty is chargeable in respect of it, or
(b)it is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force.

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show (as the case may be)—
(a)that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish the name and address of the keeper of the vehicle, or
(b)that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish particulars correcting the incorrect particulars.

(4)It is also a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show—
(a)that he had reasonable grounds for believing, or that it was reasonable for him to expect, that the name and address of the keeper or the other particulars of registration (as the case may be) were correctly recorded in the register, or
(b)that any exception prescribed in regulations under this section is met.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6)The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing, varying or revoking exceptions for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).

(7)In this section—
“keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom it is kept at the material time;
“the register” means the register kept by the Secretary of State under Part 2.”

(2)In Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty offences) after the entry relating to section 43 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 insert—

Quote
151 Power of constables etc. to require production of registration documents in respect of a vehicle

After section 28 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) insert— “Power of constables etc. to require production of documents

28A Power of constables etc. to require production of registration documents

(1)A person using a vehicle in respect of which a registration document has been issued must produce the document for inspection on being so required by—
(a)a constable, or
(b)a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section (an “authorised person”).

(2)An authorised person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) must, if so requested, produce evidence of his authority to exercise the power.

(3)A person is guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with subsection (1).

(4)Subsection (3) does not apply if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(5)The first condition is that—
(a)the person produces the registration document, in person, at a police station specified by him at the time of the request, and
(b)he does so within 7 days after the date on which the request was made or as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(6)The second condition is that—
(a)the vehicle is subject to a lease or hire agreement,
(b)the vehicle is not registered in the name of the lessee or hirer under that agreement and is not required to be so registered,
(c)the person produces appropriate evidence of the agreement to the constable or authorised person at the time of the request or he produces such evidence in person, at a police station specified by him at the time of the request—
(i)within 7 days after the date of the request, or
(ii)as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(d)the person has reasonable grounds for believing, or it is reasonable for him to expect, that the person from whom the vehicle has been leased or hired is able to produce, or require the production of, the registration document.

(7)In subsection (6)(c) “appropriate evidence” means—
(a)a copy of the agreement, or
(b)such other documentary evidence of the agreement as is prescribed in regulations under this section.

(8)The third condition is that any exception prescribed in regulations under this section is met.

(9)Where a requirement is imposed under subsection (1) by an authorised person, a testing station provided under section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may be specified under subsection (5)(a) or (6)(c) instead of a police station.

(10)A person accused of an offence under this section is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception, but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.

(11)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(12)The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a)prescribing descriptions of evidence for the purposes of subsection (7);
(b)prescribing, varying or revoking exceptions for the purposes of subsection

(13)In this section “registration document” means a registration document issued in accordance with regulations under section 22(1)(e).”


Quote
152 Power to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance

After section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—

“165APower to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2)The first condition is that—
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,

(b)the person fails to produce them, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(3)The second condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,

(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4)The third condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,

(b)the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and

c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—

(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

(b)enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;

(c)use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6)Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—

(a)in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;

(b)in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section. But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7)If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

(8)The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force.

(9)In this section—

(a)a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;

(b)a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

(c)“counterpart” and “licence” have the same meanings as in section 164;

(d)“private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

165B Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 165A

(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a)the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 165A; and

(b)the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.

(2)Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—

(a)for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 165A to a person who is the registered keeper, the owner or the driver of that vehicle;

(b)for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the registered keeper or the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may seek to have it released;

(c)for requiring the payment, by the registered keeper, owner or driver of the vehicle, of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;

(d)as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may be disposed of;

(e)as to the destination—

(i)of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations;

(ii)of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A;

(f)for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 165A.

(3)Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations is not liable to pay it if—

(a)he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time in question, and

(b)he did not know that the vehicle was being driven at that time, had not consented to its being driven and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented it from being driven.

(4)Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different cases.

(5)In this section—
“local authority”—
(a)in relation to England, means—

(a)(i)a county council,

(ii)the council of a district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,
(iii)a London borough council,
(iv)the Common Council of the City of London, or
(v)Transport for London;
(b)in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough; and
(c)in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;

“registered keeper”, in relation to a motor vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.”


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/contents
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
DEFINED: HOW THE COPS ARE HIGHWAYMEN ENGAGING IN ROBBERY BY EXTORTION
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2013, 09:47:28 AM »
Hi. Here is a link to an interesting podcast from Gnostic Media which adds further to the knowledge and information of this thread:

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen


"An Interview with Freeman Burt and Bob – The Highwaymen” – #172

Quote
August 28, 2013

By Jan Irvin

This episode is an interview with Freeman Burt and Bob, titled “Highwaymen” and is being released on Friday, August 28, 2013. This interview with Burt and Bob was recorded today, Aug 28, 2013.

Excuse the delay on this episode. Burt and I had recorded this show 5 days ago but both of us had our recordings fail. So we’ve re-recorded the entire show.

In this episode Freeman Burt is back to discuss the “highwaymen”, or highway robbers – those code enforcement officers who use tricks on us and strip our consent for their commerce codes and statutes – that don’t actually apply to us.

In old times the highwayman was the robber who held you at gun point or threat of violence on the highway to extort money and goods from you – one of the most heinous crimes – a crime punishable by death. With Burt is “Bob” who scored a recent victory in California to tell us how he managed to escape the highwaymen.

What can you do in the face of extortion on the side of the highway? Should you defend your rights there on the side of the highway, or in the courts?

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

HIGHWAYMAN. A robber on the highway.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_h.htm


HIGHWAY. A passage or road through the country, or some parts of it, for the use of the people. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 442. The term highway is said to be a generic name for all kinds of public ways. 6 Mod R, 255.

2. Highways are universally laid out by public authority and repaired at the public expense, by direction of law. 4 Burr. Rep. 2511.

3. The public have an easement over a highway, of which the owner of the land cannot deprive them; but the soil and freehold still remain in the owner, and he may use the land above and below consistently with the easement. He may, therefore, work a mine, sink a drain or water course, under the highway, if the easement remains unimpaired. Vide Road; Street; Way; and 4 Vin. Ab. 502; Bac. Ab. h. t.; Com. Dig. Chemin; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.; Egremont on Highways; Wellbeloved on Highways; Woolrych on Ways; 1 N. H. Rep. 16; 1 Conn. R. 103; 1 Pick. R. 122; 1 M’Cord’s R. 67; 2 Mass. R. 127; 1 Pick. R. 122; 3 Rawle, R. 495; 15 John. R. 483; 16 Mass. R.33; 1 Shepl. R. 250; 4 Day, R. 330; 2 Bail. R. 271; 1 Yeates, Rep. 167.

4. The owners of lots on opposite sides of a highway, are prima facie owners, each of one half of the highway,, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 33; Ham. Parties, 275; Bro. Abr. Nuisance, pl. 18 and the owner may recover the possession in ejectment, and have it delivered to him, subject to the public easement. Adams on Eject. 19, 18; 2 Johns. Rep. 357; 15 Johns. Rep.447; 6 Mass. 454; 2 Mass. 125.

5. If the highway is impassable, the public have the right to pass over the adjacent soil; but this rule does not extend to private ways, without an express grant. Morg. Vad. Mec. 456-7; 1 Tho. Co. Lit. 275; note 1 Barton, Elem. Conv. 271; Yelv. 142, note 1.

- See more at: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen#sthash.8QTcKvup.dpuf

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
FACT OVER FICTION WINS ~ TRAVELLING FREE BEATS 'DRIVING' FOR THE STATE
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2013, 08:03:20 PM »
"THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL: Freeman Wins in Court- No License Plate" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUYVn6RBiI

Quote
Randy Stroud (owner of Sovereign Tactics)  stopped at a restaurant at 9:30pm, August 8th 2013, Nashville, Tn,  on gallatin pike going south bound, when he was stopped by a police car for not having government tags.  Stroud noticed that a squad car, with it’s lights turned off had been following him, (or atleast it appeared to be so.) Back up was called once stroud did not provide a drivers license and twelve squad cars showed up. Approximately 15-20 officers appeared to be on scene. Was this routine for a traffic stop with no plates, or was it political targeting?  I had never seen anything like it. It was a first.  I suppose preaching about the non-aggression principle and making youtube videos about Voluntaryism makes you unpopular with government employees. Additionally, the extra units that were called out, refused to ID them upon request by stroud and his spouse. Stroud (myself) attempted to hand documents to the arresting officer, Robert Ruiz, stating his rights and his affirmations, however, he would not touch them, citing implied contract. These officers had done their homework on me.

                ( Stroud was parked in front of this establishment during time of arrest)

Randy reminded the officers that the Declaration of Independence requires consent to be governed, he preached to them for 30 minutes, to no avail.  The more Mr.Stroud preached, the more officers arrived on scene. Stroud made no threats of any kind. Even Mr.Ruiz himself admitted that he had no priors or outstanding warrants. Mr. Stroud reminded them that they had no standing, whereas there was no evidence of a breach of contract, no victim, nor any property that had been damaged or stolen. One officer actually tilted a firearm towards his direction. The officers were going to take him to jail, but they will instead made a deal and agreed to have him booked on september 4th where he will be printed then receive a trial for a class C misdemeanor.

Stroud is a “right to travel” activist. During the stop, I ( Randy Stroud), reminded the officers that I had been paying the gasoline tax, I contributed towards the roads construction, and began to read several supreme court cases. The officers smirked, and began to film myself, and my passenger.   I had been recording the event, however, my camera suddenly died, and once I attempted to turn it back on, it had a blue screen of death. Interesting…..

The interesting part of the night was the fact that the restaurant was owned by two muslim men from Egypt, whom took me in after the incident, fed men, and consoled me, while the 20 plus American, mostly white police force, were intimidating me and my spouse with a show of force, and demanded extortion fees for causing no victims. The fact that the US government has implemented the NDAA, patriot Act, and has made just about every human behavior regulated or possibly illegal in some way or another, it should not surprise me.

Randy has a personal stake in the matter. In 2003, stroud’s father, “Ronald Stroud” was involved in an accident, where he was sitting in the turning lane, when he was suddenly struck by another car. The officers determined it was his fault due to “skid mark” evidence, (even though I witnessed the act) , and it resulted in him losing his license. Because he was a carprenter, he needed a work truck to continue his work, and ignored the revoking of his license, as riding the bus was not practical. This eventually lead to multiple arrests and losing his business. Such a shame……….for a victimless crime of not having a piece of plastic.

I now seek immunity, counsel, and support from DA Torry Johnson, Officer Robert Ruiz, and Governor Haslam. I will reach out to them, and ask them to protect my inherent rights. Included is letters below. If this matter can be dissolved outside of court, and we can come to a human understanding of personal self-ownership and liberty, I think it will be best for all parties. I am not at “war” with government.  I see this as a peaceful opportunity to educate these men on “natural” rights.

http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1516


Quote
Freeman Wins in Court- No License Plate- Randy Stroud

     
Published on Sep 4, 2013
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1516
No license, no license plate. Check my home page to see copies of the letters.
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1538 (article 1)
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1548 (article 2)
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1545 (article 3)
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
THE LICENCE DECEPTION: WE HAVE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL, SO WHY WOULD YOU NEED 1?
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2013, 12:36:56 PM »
THE TERM LICENCE (American Spelling - 'LICENSE'), as defined by Black's Second Edition and the Courts:


Quote


Quote
“License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

“A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

Quote
A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

Quote
“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

Quote
“Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

Quote
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

Quote
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Link: http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html[/size][/font]
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 12:44:50 PM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

gerbil

  • Sovereign
  • Sr. Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Kevin the gerbil
    • VOIDMORTGAGE
Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2013, 07:09:17 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24571342

Man admits driving without licence for 40 years

A man stopped by motorway police told them he has been driving without a licence for the past 40 years.

He was pulled over in the Nechells area of Birmingham at 09:45 BST, a police spokesman said.

The unlicensed driver also had no insurance and his car has been seized and impounded.

"He has committed a criminal offence, and the matter will proceed to the courts," a West Midlands Police spokesman said.

"We don't know whether the driver had even passed his test," he added.

The DVLA has been notified about today's driver, Central Motorway Police confirmed.

Penalties for driving without the appropriate licence include a fine of £1,000, a driving ban, and being prevented from obtaining a licence for a period of years.
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
http://www.voidmortgage.net

M-P:A

  • Trustees
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2013, 12:56:04 PM »
If he's not got a driving licence, how on earth can he be called a 'driver'?
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2013, 09:56:22 AM »
I wonder if he would benefit from reading this thread?   ;D
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted