Driving License Scam: Guidance for Obtaining a Refund

Joe_Malone

Despite my leaving a step by step guide on MSE consumers are continually getting ripped off by Driving license UK Ltd (AKA Caveat Viator Ltd) at a phenomenal rate as posts on here continue to prove. Clearly some are not finding my advice and I am receiving a large number of emails asking for personal guidance, as I can not personally attend to every individual I thought I would start a thread with definitive guidance.

Caveat Viator dupe the public into paying exorbitant fee's for a license checking service. Their website is deliberately designed to look like the DVLA website so that less than vigilant consumers think they are paying for and ordering a license directly from the DVLA. Once you realise your mistake and claim a refund Caveat Viator Ltd refuse to refund on the basis that they are exempt from the 7 day cooling off period that normally applies under the distance selling regulations. There is a loophole in the distance selling regulations regarding completion of contractual performance. If you instruct a company to act on your behalf and it is reasonable to assume that the terms of the contract would be fulfilled before the normal 7 day cooling off period expires then clearly that Cooling off period cannot be applied.

The question then is whether there can be a valid contract between you the customer and Driving License UK ltd and the answer is that there is no valid contract and therefore they are not exempt from the 7 day cooling off period. That being said I am confident that you are entitled to a full refund irrespective of whether you claim it within the 7 day cooling off period or not and here is why...

Driving License UK Ltd do not actually provide a service and under contract law since there is no consideration to you the customer then there can be no valid contract.

Caveat Viator recently removed advertising from their website that duped customers into thinking this was the official DVLA website. The details are logged for September 2013 on the advertising standards authorities website and the ASA have confirmed to me by email the details of the case. Another fact that supports the view that prior to amending their website the ASA held the view that their website material did not comply with legal guidelines.

So how do you reclaim your money?

1. First write to caveat Viator Ltd requesting a full refund within 7 days and warn them that if a refund is not forthcoming within that timeframe that you will lodge a county court claim for which they will also be liable for court costs. Courts expect you to behave reasonably and to try and settle this outside of the court room, this letter is your evidence that you have done so. Make sure you send this letter via recorded delivery so they can not claim to have not received it. Don't concern yourself as to whether you manage to get this letter off within the 7 day cooling off period, Caveat Viator Ltd might claim your failure to do this as a defence but it is not a valid defence.

If you receive a refund fine, if not...

2. Lodge a small claim online at https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

The online form takes no longer than 10 minutes to fill in and costs £25. Sit back and wait for a response, Caveat Viator Ltd will either contest it or provide a full refund. To date I have not heard of them fighting a single claim in county court.

Should Caveat Viator Ltd decide to contest your claim in County Court then the basis for your case is below. Once they lose in court then their whole business model collapses and I do not believe this is a risk they will take.

1. The Recent ASA case confirms that website material was duping customers.
2. The OFT produced a 2006 guide for business relating to rules of distance selling. They are very clear in this guide that administrative work of the type provided by caveat viator ltd cannot equate to the provision of a service.
3. Contract Law... There has to be a benefit or consideration to the customer to form a valid legal contract. The OFT guidelines confirm that there is no benefit and in fact the DVLA provide precisely the same checking service as part of their fee's so in fact it can easily be claimed that caveat viators service is actually a detriment rather than a benefit since all it achieves is delaying your application at great expense. Therefore there can be no valid contract between you the customer and Caveat Viator Ltd.
All the information needed to pursue a county court claim is here.

Good Luck but to be frank if you follow this guidance to the letter you will not need it.

cookie365

We are not affiliated with DVLA, the UK government or any official body. The checking service we provide can be obtained from the DVLA directly at a reduced fee or you can apply without a checking service where there will be no checking fee payable.

George_Michael

Joe_Malone wrote: »

There is a loophole in the distance selling regulations regarding completion of contractual performance. If you instruct a company to act on your behalf and it is reasonable to assume that the terms of the contract would be fulfilled before the normal 7 day cooling off period expires then clearly that Cooling off period cannot be applied.

Wrong on two counts.
It is not a loophole,

an ambiguity, omission, etc, as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility

it is something that is specifically stated in the DSR's to enable companies to start a service immediately without the fear of a consumer changing their mind after time and expense has been incurred by the company, and there is no requirement stated or implied that the service must be completed within the 7 day period.
The DSR's are quite specific and state that it is enough that the service has begun before the end of the normal cooling off period.

If you are going to give advice, at least try to make it correct.

wealdroam

Joe_Malone wrote: »

1. The Recent ASA case confirms that website material was duping customers.

I note the word was in that statement.
Is that still the case or has the website been changed to take account of the ASA's December 2013 rulings?

Joe_Malone wrote: »

2. The OFT produced a 2006 guide for business relating to rules of distance selling. They are very clear in this guide that administrative work of the type provided by caveat viator ltd cannot equate to the provision of a service.

Is the OFT document you refer to this one:

A guide for businesses on distance selling

If so, I can find no reference to what constitutes a service.

Perhaps it is another document you mean. Can you please clarify?

Joe_Malone wrote: »

3. Contract Law... There has to be a benefit or consideration to the customer to form a valid legal contract. The OFT guidelines confirm that there is no benefit and in fact the DVLA provide precisely the same checking service as part of their fee's so in fact it can easily be claimed that caveat viators service is actually a detriment rather than a benefit since all it achieves is delaying your application at great expense. Therefore there can be no valid contract between you the customer and Caveat Viator Ltd.

Again I can find nothing in the OFT guidelines I mentioned earlier that confirms there is no benefit in the service.

Of course, as before, you may well be referring to another OFT document.

Please can you substantiate your claim.

Joe_Malone

George_Michael wrote: »

Wrong on two counts.
It is not a loophole,

it is something that is specifically stated in the DSR's to enable companies to start a service immediately without the fear of a consumer changing their mind after time and expense has been incurred by the company, and there is no requirement stated or implied that the service must be completed within the 7 day period.
The DSR's are quite specific and state that it is enough that the service has begun before the end of the normal cooling off period.

If you are going to give advice, at least try to make it correct.

Thank you for confirming my point regarding the distance selling regulations. We can argue semantics over the word 'loophole' but the fact remains that Caveat Viator Ltd avoid their obligations to the consumer by claiming that contractual performance has already been completed within the 7 day cooling off period and as such claim that it cannot be applied. The advice is correct and the point about the 7 day cooling off period is a relatively insignificant one.

One last point I will make on this thread before closing for good is that a number of unhelpful individuals will try cast doubt on the initial post. You can read it and make your own decision as to whether you want to test the advice given in your bid to obtain a refund. The worst that could happen is that you lose another £25. I personally obtained a full refund plus court costs. Perhaps to achieve balance you should question the motives of those trying to discredit this advice and further do some simple research of your own to verify the advice.

George_Michael

Joe_Malone wrote: »

Thank you for confirming my point regarding the distance selling regulations. We can argue semantics over the word 'loophole' but the fact remains that Caveat Viator Ltd avoid their obligations to the consumer by claiming that contractual performance has already been completed within the 7 day cooling off period and as such claim that it cannot be applied.

There is no argument at all over the word "loophole".
It is expressly stated in the regulations that the right of cancellation doesn't apply if the service has started and the consumer agree to the cancellation right not being in place.
No loophole, no ambiguity nothing underhand, simply a business using the regulations as they have been written.

Yet again you have the 7 day period wrong.
The service does not have to be completed within 7 days, simply started.

Perhaps to achieve balance you should question the motives of those trying to discredit this advice and further do some simple research of your own to verify the advice.

Here we go again.
People show that certain information given is incorrect and the people who posted the incorrect information immediately state that those people have ulterior motives.
Maybe the only motive they have is to ensure that factually correct info is given on these boards.

wealdroam

Joe_Malone wrote: »

One last point I will make on this thread before closing for good is that a number of unhelpful individuals will try cast doubt on the initial post. You can read it and make your own decision as to whether you want to test the advice given in your bid to obtain a refund. The worst that could happen is that you lose another £25. I personally obtained a full refund plus court costs. Perhaps to achieve balance you should question the motives of those trying to discredit this advice and further do some simple research of your own to verify the advice.

I can only assume from that comment that you consider me to be casting doubt on you initial post and trying to discredit your advice.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have done the simple research and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to backup those points I mentioned earlier.

If you could help me and others find good reason why these rogue companies should no longer be trading then that would be good, but if that information is not forthcoming from one source or another, then all we can do is moan, isn't it?

I'll ask one more time, which OFT guidance states "that administrative work of the type provided by caveat viator ltd cannot equate to the provision of a service".

As you rightly say, with that sort of evidence there should be no reason for anyone not to receive a refund, and clearly if that situation came about these companies would disappear.

Joe_Malone

wealdroam wrote: »

I note the word was in that statement.
Is that still the case or has the website been changed to take account of the ASA's December 2013 rulings?



Is the OFT document you refer to this one:

A guide for businesses on distance selling

If so, I can find no reference to what constitutes a service.

Perhaps it is another document you mean. Can you please clarify?



Again I can find nothing in the OFT guidelines I mentioned earlier that confirms there is no benefit in the service.

Of course, as before, you may well be referring to another OFT document.

Please can you substantiate your claim.

Please see section 3.18 in this document...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698cons.pdf

This is OFT guidance on the interpretation for 'administrative' or other 'preparatory' work and relates to their interpretation of the 2006 guide for businesses.

shaun_from_Africa

Joe_Malone wrote: »

Please see section 3.18 in this document...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698cons.pdf

This is OFT guidance on the interpretation for 'administrative' or other 'preparatory' work and relates to their interpretation of the 2006 guide for businesses.

But once the companies concerned have started filling out the forms as requested, this is not preparatory work is it?
They are fulfilling the service as asked for and paid for.

3.18 This would need to be considered on a case by case basis.
With many services administrative or other preparatory work (for example setting up an account to enable a service to be provided) needs to be done before a supplier is in a position to provide the service promised. Often this work is underway when a contract is being agreed. In our view this work before the service starts cannot be equated to the carrying out of a service.

Joe_Malone

Please enlighten us. If it is not administrative or preparatory what term describing the type of work best captures the completion of a form?

This particular issue was considered and it is why the guidance was issued.

bod1467

If the service is that they check details and complete a form (and perhaps send that form on), then by completing the form the service has started (if not finished) - it is not preparatory or administrative work.

(I'm not siding with such companies - they are leaches in my opinion - I'm just explaining the point of view made by several others).