Impounded car problems

andycan1

Hi all it seems that my friend had a short driving ban and when that ended he sent the forms and monies required to DVLA to get his licence back. They then sent his licence to the wrong address and when he contacted them to find out where it was they promised to reissue it to his address and told him he was able to drive but he then got stopped by the police in a routine car check which was when DVLA computers told the police his licence had expired.

The police were right to take the car but DVLA were wrong to tell my friend he could drive. I believe DVLA should pay the costs and compensation due to they gave my friend the wrong information and despite accepting his licence application and his money they have not actualy given my friend his licence back and are now telling him he needs to reapply for his licence and also pay again.

Gene_Hunt_2

andycan1 wrote: »

Hi all it seems that my friend had a short driving ban and when that ended he sent the forms and monies required to DVLA to get his licence back. They then sent his licence to the wrong address and when he contacted them to find out where it was they promised to reissue it to his address and told him he was able to drive but he then got stopped by the police in a routine car check which was when DVLA computers told the police his licence had expired.

The police were right to take the car but DVLA were wrong to tell my friend he could drive. I believe DVLA should pay the costs and compensation due to they gave my friend the wrong information and despite accepting his licence application and his money they have not actualy given my friend his licence back and are now telling him he needs to reapply for his licence and also pay again.

So which is correct?

Either they issued a licence or they didn't. The wrong address is irrelevant.

andycan1

This is where DVLA contradict themselves as they say that the licence was sent out and then say because he has not recieved it he has to reapply and pay again. It seems something went wrong at DVLA but instead of fixing the problem they would rather try and paint over it by saying it couldn't have happened when it is there in black and white.

Gene_Hunt_2

andycan1 wrote: »

This is where DVLA contradict themselves as they say that the licence was sent out and then say because he has not recieved it he has to reapply and pay again. It seems something went wrong at DVLA but instead of fixing the problem they would rather try and paint over it by saying it couldn't have happened when it is there in black and white.

No, either you or your mate are bull sh***ing.

Paradigm

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

No, either you or your mate are bull sh***ing.

To be honest I'm leaning this way myself.

Your "friend" must have proof of the money leaving his account so why would he have to pay again? Unless of course he's telling porkies??

The DVLA saying the licence had expired is incorrect unless he's 70 (or some other restriction was in place... medical grounds maybe?)

From what you now say the licence was revoked due to the "short ban" & not expired!

Something smells here.

Wig

I still believe you OP, I tend to believe people who come to ask for help, otherwise why would they be asking for help?

So tell us what happened with getting the car home, how did you/he manage that?

@Gene, post #8

andycan1

I left home at 9am to go to DVLA in Sheffield to try and get the paperwork that the police required to release the car was there untill 2.30pm and ended up with a note from them for the police.
Then had to travel to Rotherham to go to the police station there. The police hummed and aaahhd untill 4.10pm before giving us the release paperwork by which time we had to get a taxi to the pound.

We got there at 4.50pm and the car was released to me as I was the only one with a valid licence and I was on the insurance which was arranged at the weekend.

It cost a fortune in travelling but the upside was we got the car back for only £150 and we started to get DVLA looking into getting my friends licence back.

The down side was the cost and due to someone stealing signaling cable I got home at 01.25 am this morning as the trains couldn't run till the last one.

Thank you all for your input and helpfulness and I hope none of you have the same problem.:T:beer:

andycan1

For all those that think I was not telling the truth I was and that was so wierd that the proof was there DVLA had my friends money and that his licence was renewed after his ban as on the DVLA system it shows it was registered as lost within a month after they reinstated his licence so I would guess that they did not replace the reinstated licence that DVLA sent to the wrong address but because they sent it to the wrong address they cancelled it and didn't reissue it. Well that is my guess but it could have been something else.

The main thing is the car is back which is why I came here and now the reason it was taken is going to be investigated and then hopefully it will all be sorted and resolved.

Gene_Hunt_2

Paradigm wrote: »

To be honest I'm leaning this way myself.

Your "friend" must have proof of the money leaving his account so why would he have to pay again? Unless of course he's telling porkies??

The DVLA saying the licence had expired is incorrect unless he's 70 (or some other restriction was in place... medical grounds maybe?)

From what you now say the licence was revoked due to the "short ban" & not expired!

Something smells here.

He was disqualified, therefore the old licence should have been returned if the ban was more than 56 days. He would then need to re apply once the ban was up. If he has not reapplied he is driving otherwise than in accordance, but then how could he be if they sent a licence out. Or was he banned after the licence was sent out?

Gene_Hunt_2

andycan1 wrote: »

For all those that think I was not telling the truth I was and that was so wierd that the proof was there DVLA had my friends money and that his licence was renewed after his ban as on the DVLA system it shows it was registered as lost within a month after they reinstated his licence so who reported it lost? so I would guess that they did not replace who gave them the wrong address, who completed the application?but because they sent it to the wrong address they cancelled it they wouldn't remove his entitlement to drive and didn't reissue it. Well that is my guess but it could have been something else.

The main thing is the car is back which is why I came here and now the reason it was taken is going to be investigated and then hopefully it will all be sorted and resolved.

Still don't add up.