Forged signature on V5C log book!

lissa_23

harveybobbles wrote: »

Sounds like they have sent off a V62 to apply for the V5 for the car..

DVLA will have written out to the current reg'd keeper (the OP) to say someone is trying to register your car and if we dont hear from you within xx (is it 14 or 28 days) days we will go ahead and issue a new V5 into the new keeper (the family member)

Sounds like the OP never got that letter or has binned it by mistake not realising what it was.

The aknowledgement letter they sent out was to say "thanks for letting us know you are no longer the keeper of the car.." and they have issued a new V5 into the family members details.

The signature is irrelevant. Anyone can sign it. They never check to make sure it matches your bank card or driving licence.

Does the OP's insurance company know it isnt kept where the car ios registered....?

We definitely didn't receive the first letter from the DVLA. And yes, the insurance co are informed.

colino

Go get your car. As long as you are not aware of any outstanding civil or criminal proceedings currently underway over it and it does indeed belong to you, no problem.
The guff about criminal damage to a krooklok securing your car without your express consent is as accurate as an assailant seeking damages from you for the tip of his broken knife that is embedded in your gut.

Spicy_McHaggis

Was the vehicle sorn or taxed?

If taxed have you got a refund?

Looking at the V62 form it would be interesting to see what they have put in section 3 and have they avoided paying a fee?

If so I would say this is entering into a theft rather than a civil matter. If the have claimed they bought the vehicle without a V5 then they have lied and signed the form and therefore have acted dishonestly. Their only get out would be if the have filled in the other box and said the OP gave them the car.

Marktheshark

Would the protection of freedoms act help ?
Ask the police to attend and assist the OP in Lawful collection of property, obviously if its not insured a tow truck, if they refuse to remove the crook lock, have this printed up
Section 54 - offence of immobilising a vehicle :
Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Spicy_McHaggis

Marktheshark wrote: »

Would the protection of freedoms act help ?
Ask the police to attend and assist the OP in Lawful collection of property, obviously if its not insured a tow truck, if they refuse to remove the crook lock, have this printed up
Section 54 - offence of immobilising a vehicle :
Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

If the relative has a V5 and has insured the vehicle the police are unlikely to assist. The PNC will suggest the OP is not the owner and as its a weekend what else can the police use to verify opposing accounts about who owns the vehicle.

lissa_23

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

If the relative has a V5 and has insured the vehicle the police are unlikely to assist. The PNC will suggest the OP is not the owner and as its a weekend what else can the police use to verify opposing accounts about who owns the vehicle.

This is why we haven't been to collect it by force, if the police get involved it would look to them as though the car is owned by the relative. Even if we towed it away, if he calls the police and say it has been stolen, the police would have to side with him. I just wish the DVLA would hurry up. If we try to call them they just say we can't speak directly with the investigations team.

Spicy_McHaggis

lissa_23 wrote: »

This is why we haven't been to collect it by force, if the police get involved it would look to them as though the car is owned by the relative. Even if we towed it away, if he calls the police and say it has been stolen, the police would have to side with him. I just wish the DVLA would hurry up. If we try to call them they just say we can't speak directly with the investigations team.

Why haven't you reported it as stolen?

colino

OP, are you losing the plot? Swansea acted as they should have done and consulted you as the RK if the recent requested keeper change was accurate. It was not, you have informed them, so you still have a valid V5C and the requester will be refused a replacement one.
IF it is your property and in your name, what is stopping you going and collecting it? The notion that the Police would rush round with their blues and twos on to sort out your families girning is laughable. Either go and get it or don't, the forum here aren't going to do it for you.

System

Marktheshark wrote: »

Would the protection of freedoms act help ?
Ask the police to attend and assist the OP in Lawful collection of property, obviously if its not insured a tow truck, if they refuse to remove the crook lock, have this printed up
Section 54 - offence of immobilising a vehicle :
Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

I agree

That is a criminal offence even if the police attempt to claim it is civil. They should take action.

Spicy_McHaggis

!!!!!! wrote: »

I agree

That is a criminal offence even if the police attempt to claim it is civil. They should take action.

If the relative has a V5 and has insured it where is the evidence they don't have lawful authority. They won't take action and rightly so.