Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>
>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>
>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>
>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>
>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>
>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>> non-compliant."
>>>
>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>
>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>
>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>> loss?
>>
>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>> first adorned.
>
> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>
>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>
> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>
> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>
>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to solve the
>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just sorting it
>> out like any normal person would.
>
> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
> vehicle).
>
> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
> I'd struggle to say exactly how.

I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of vanity
plates.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:20:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>
>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>
>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>
>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>
>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>
>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>> non-compliant."
>>>
>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>
>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>
>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>> loss?
>>
>>You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>first adorned.
>
>The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>invented the concept of retention certificates.
>
If the transfer was from a vehicle which was not currently licensed
then it was liable to be required to be produced to prove that it
existed. In the past when local offices still existed you would
occasionally see one on the back of a scrappy's vehicle having its
existence verified.
Current requirements include that a vehicle must "be able to move
under its own power" and "have been taxed or had a SORN in place
continuously for the past 5 years" thus now excluding many such
wrecks.
<snip>

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>
>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>
>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>
>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>
>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>
>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>> loss?
>>>
>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>> first adorned.
>>
>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>
>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>
>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>
>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>
>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to solve the
>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just sorting it
>>> out like any normal person would.
>>
>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>> vehicle).
>>
>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>
> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of vanity
> plates.

Yup, imagine the chagrin in City Hall when they hear that some elderly toff
from the sticks driving a Range Rover on vanity plates has exploded in
apoplectic rage because he got a couple of incorrect ULEZ tickets on a rare
visit to London.

In message <ukd85k$1vfth$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:20:36 on Fri, 1 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> According to a Telegraph article the charging/fining database is only
>>> updated every 4 weeks.
>>
>> Is that code for "once a month", and is there a date each month they do
>> it?
>>
>> Anyway that's just bizarre, as the charging scheme issues tickets (to
>> people they presume haven't paid) after only a fortnight. Sauce for the
>> goose and all that.
>>
>> But if the people running the scheme are aware of this, they should
>> rubber-stamp my appeal, even if I might have to take them to court for
>> compensation.
>>
>> ps They've sent me another PN for the following day.
>>
>> pps The PNs were issued five weeks after the plate was transferred, so
>> "4 weeks" seems a bit wonky.
>
>Please report how your court case goes.

I'm hoping they'll pay up before it gets to court. Otherwise, yes I
will.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>
>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>
>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>
>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>
>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>
>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>> loss?
>>>
>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>> first adorned.
>>
>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>
>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>
>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>
>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>
>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to solve the
>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just sorting it
>>> out like any normal person would.
>>
>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>> vehicle).
>>
>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>
>I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of vanity
>plates.

It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of mine it
would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would have made it
look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And yes, I had to go
look that up.

Meanwhile, the Government makes a tidy income from people prepared to
have a numberplate they can remember, rather than a jumble of letters
and numbers that changes every few years.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>

> It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of mine it
> would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would have made it
> look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And yes, I had to go
> look that up.
>
> Meanwhile, the Government makes a tidy income from people prepared to
> have a numberplate they can remember, rather than a jumble of letters
> and numbers that changes every few years.

Years ago a colleague at work had the same make and model of car as
myself, one day he was on the phone booking a service at a garage and
they asked his registration and he could not remember it but for some
reason it stuck in my mind and I told him.

He said afterwards that he was once stopped by the police and as usual
they asked him his registration number, without thinking he said that he
could not remember but wasn't it on the front of the car!

On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>> 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>> quite such a
>>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is
>>>>>>> broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious
>>>>>>> reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>> reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this
>>>>> might
>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>> loss?
>>>>
>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>> first adorned.
>>>
>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>
>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>
>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>
>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
>>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>
>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to solve
>>>> the
>>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just
>>>> sorting it
>>>> out like any normal person would.
>>>
>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
>>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>>> vehicle).
>>>
>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>
>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of
>> vanity
>> plates.
>
> It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of mine it
> would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would have made it
> look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And yes, I had to go
> look that up.
>

I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue on
Urinary Incontinence.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <7vikmithojmmrb0rv6dg8lnqpi0ou3p3jn@4ax.com>, at 21:28:32 on
Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:20:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>
>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>
>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>
>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>
>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>
>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>> loss?
>>>
>>>You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>first adorned.
>>
>>The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>
>If the transfer was from a vehicle which was not currently licensed
>then it was liable to be required to be produced to prove that it
>existed. In the past when local offices still existed you would
>occasionally see one on the back of a scrappy's vehicle having its
>existence verified.

I recall when it was worse than that, you had to prove the donor
vehicle was roadworthy, which meant taking it to the local office
for an inspection.

>Current requirements include that a vehicle must "be able to move
>under its own power" and "have been taxed or had a SORN in place
>continuously for the past 5 years" thus now excluding many such
>wrecks.

Can you even do a direct car-to-car transfer any more, without going via
a retention certificate? I had one of the latter for a whole day back in
October.

I'm not sure I believe the 5yrs thing, because the car I bought had a
personal number plate from the previous owner when it was sold to the
dealer (which was then put on retention, and the car had a regular one
on it for the week or two while it was the forecourt).

The car was first-registered on 8/4/2016 and let's give it the benefit
of the doubt the previous personal plate was put on soon afterwards.
Five years later is March 2021, so is it you proposition that had the
car been traded in before then (perhaps at three years old), the
personal numberplate in question would have been irrevocably attached to
that lump of metal (unless the new owner agreed to "sell" it back to the
original owner when the clock struck "5yrs").
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukepev$29p77$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:21:52 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>
>> It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of mine
>>it would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would have
>>made it look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And yes, I
>>had to go look that up.

>> Meanwhile, the Government makes a tidy income from people prepared
>>to have a numberplate they can remember, rather than a jumble of
>>letters and numbers that changes every few years.
>
>Years ago a colleague at work had the same make and model of car as
>myself, one day he was on the phone booking a service at a garage and
>they asked his registration and he could not remember it but for some
>reason it stuck in my mind and I told him.

I once had a car from new where an example of the exact same model and
colour had a plate one-different. The dealers had managed to put those
two sets of plates on the wrong cars. Caused no end of confusion later,
when taking them in for their first service (they didn't swap the
service manuals too) and of course, which car(s) had been insured for
those few months if sporting "false plates"?

>He said afterwards that he was once stopped by the police and as usual
>they asked him his registration number, without thinking he said that
>he could not remember but wasn't it on the front of the car!

Hmm, that question isn't a test of whether the real owner can remember
the plate, but is probing whether a possible thief has just driven off
in the car without first making a note of it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>14:56:10 on
>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>is broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause
>>>>>>>>much work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no
>>>>>>>>obvious reason for the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>reported in the media and in local groups:

>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like
>>>>>>this might
>>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>
>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>>> first adorned.
>>>>
>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>>
>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>
>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>
>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
>>>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>
>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>solve the
>>>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just
>>>>>sorting it
>>>>> out like any normal person would.
>>>>
>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
>>>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>>>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>>>> vehicle).
>>>>
>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of
>>>vanity plates.

>> It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>mine it would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>have made it look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And yes,
>>I had to go look that up.
>>
>
>I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue on
>Urinary Incontinence.

I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image of
that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the actual
vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But maybe
there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have a print
copy though).
--
Roland Perry

On 02/12/2023 13:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> I once had a car from new where an example of the exact same model and
> colour had a plate one-different. The dealers had managed to put those
> two sets of plates on the wrong cars. Caused no end of confusion later,
> when taking them in for their first service (they didn't swap the
> service manuals too) and of course, which car(s) had been insured for
> those few months if sporting "false plates"?
>
>
> Hmm, that question isn't a test of whether the real owner can remember
> the plate, but is probing whether a possible thief has just driven off
> in the car without first making a note of it.

I gathered that was the reason.

He used to update the registration updates that used to come from the
DVLA every night (on tape). For a time he would find he would find that
they were all London double decker buses, or all red Ford Anglia etc
etc. and have to manually correct them. They kept telling the DVL but
it was some time before they realised they had a problem, the DVLA then
asked if they give them an update of the corrected registrations - they
were told to get lost.

Later he bought a new (second-hand) car himself but when he went to
register the change, he was told them the registration number, he was
told it was already in use on another vehicle.

So back in the office, he checked himself and found it was issued to two
cars.

I think he tried to get it fixed but same answer. So he rang someone
very high at the DVLA and told them. They said that it could not happen
but he was able to talk them through the menus and screens themselves
(they were probably too high up to have ever looked at the computer
themselves :-)

They found what he was telling them and it was fixed but you do wonder
how an ordinary member of the public could have managed.

At my work, they seemed to have blocks of registrations issued to them.
One day someone was driving through London in a new Land Rover and
noticed that the bus in front had the same registration number. The DVLA
seems to have issued the same block of registrations to two organisations.

They used to get covert vehicles issued with registrations, various
mysterious companies with funny names!

In message <IOsaN.330$U4_e.134@fx08.ams1>, at 22:07:36 on Fri, 1 Dec
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec 2023,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>quite such a broken IT system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>is broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>>>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise bogus
>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few days
>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like this might
>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>> loss?
>>>>
>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still associating
>>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your plate
>>>> first adorned.
>>>
>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that make/model
>>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think they'd
>>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>
>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>
>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>
>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor* vehicle, the
>>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>
>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to solve the
>>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just sorting it
>>>> out like any normal person would.
>>>
>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in particular the
>>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>>> vehicle).
>>>
>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>
>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of vanity
>> plates.
>
>Yup, imagine the chagrin in City Hall when they hear that some elderly toff
>from the sticks driving a Range Rover on vanity plates has exploded in
>apoplectic rage because he got a couple of incorrect ULEZ tickets on a rare
>visit to London.

It's a matter of principle. They hector me about paying the ticket, only
issued because of their gross incompetence, on the threat of a £270
fine.

Actually two of them now (so that's £540), because my trips are now not
nearly so rare - which is one reason I upgraded the car.

I reckon in October/November and to the middle of December, I'll have
had perhaps a dozen days London, half by train half by car.

So once again, you are revealed as a very annoying troll who doesn't
have a clue what he's talking about.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukfbgp$2cef5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:30:01 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:

>At my work, they seemed to have blocks of registrations issued to them.
>One day someone was driving through London in a new Land Rover and
>noticed that the bus in front had the same registration number. The
>DVLA seems to have issued the same block of registrations to two
>organisations.

I was driving through Peterborough about ten years ago [previous
anecdote was from 1983] and noticed the car in front of me had a
numberplate only one-different from mine. Same make model and colour,
but a 4-door not a 2-door.
--
Roland Perry

In message <N9aDXTzosyalFAsR@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
writes
>I once had a car from new where an example of the exact same model and
>colour had a plate one-different. The dealers had managed to put those
>two sets of plates on the wrong cars. Caused no end of confusion later,
>when taking them in for their first service (they didn't swap the
>service manuals too) and of course, which car(s) had been insured for
>those few months if sporting "false plates"?
>

A friend (sadly long since RIP) bought a new car, registration was
something along the lines of x 332 xxx (the letters were unimportant),
and asked the dealer to supply an extra number plate for his lighting
board. Several years later, we were pulled up by North Wales Police (who
seemed keen on motoring anomalies) and he was asked about his
registration, and it transpired that the plates on the car were right,
but the lighting board was x 322 xxx. Well spotted by the policeman
from a road end as we drove past. I've also heard else where of this
happening but on the same vehicle (332 on one end, 322 on the other).

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

In message <Ceuwfq56NzalFAeT@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
writes
>In message <ukfbgp$2cef5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:30:01 on Sat, 2 Dec
>2023, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>
>>At my work, they seemed to have blocks of registrations issued to
>>them. One day someone was driving through London in a new Land Rover
>>and noticed that the bus in front had the same registration number.
>>The DVLA seems to have issued the same block of registrations to two
>>organisations.
>
>I was driving through Peterborough about ten years ago [previous
>anecdote was from 1983] and noticed the car in front of me had a
>numberplate only one-different from mine. Same make model and colour,
>but a 4-door not a 2-door.

We had a similar one many years ago. consecutive numbers, same model,
number of doors and colour. And about 200 miles away from where they
were issued.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On 02/12/2023 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>>>> 2023,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>> 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>> quite such a  broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>> is  broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause
>>>>>>>>> much  work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no
>>>>>>>>> obvious  reason for  the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>> reported  in the media and in local groups:
>
>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise
>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few
>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like
>>>>>>> this  might
>>>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still
>>>>>> associating
>>>>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your
>>>>>> plate
>>>>>> first adorned.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that
>>>>> make/model
>>>>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>>>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>>>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>>>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think
>>>>> they'd
>>>>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>>
>>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor*
>>>>> vehicle, the
>>>>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>> solve  the
>>>>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just
>>>>>> sorting it
>>>>>> out like any normal person would.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in
>>>>> particular the
>>>>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>>>>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>>>>> vehicle).
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of
>>>> vanity  plates.
>
>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>> mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>> have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>> yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>
>>
>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue on
>> Urinary Incontinence.
>
> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image of
> that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the actual
> vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But maybe
> there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have a print
> copy though).

I once bought an ex-demo car from the dealership. After purchase I
noticed that Motor Magazine had tested this model so I bought a back
copy to read it. Turns out that my car was the one tested - PMG43L

--
Colin

On 02/12/2023 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>>>> 2023,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>> 14:56:10 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>> quite such a  broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system
>>>>>>>>> is  broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause
>>>>>>>>> much  work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no
>>>>>>>>> obvious  reason for  the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-expa
>>>>>>>> nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>> reported  in the media and in local groups:
>
>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_c
>>>>>>>> an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to raise
>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>> issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the TfL site a few
>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>> after the plate was transferred - just in case something like
>>>>>>> this  might
>>>>>>> happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still
>>>>>> associating
>>>>>> your vanity plate with either your previous car, or the one your
>>>>>> plate
>>>>>> first adorned.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>>> vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that
>>>>> make/model
>>>>> when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until 1985, so it may
>>>>> not have even been the second vehicle to carry it at, at that point.
>>>>> Also at that time it was commonplace for people to "park"
>>>>> plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds, because I don't think
>>>>> they'd
>>>>> invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>>
>>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor*
>>>>> vehicle, the
>>>>> ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>> solve  the
>>>>>> problem, but you still keep complaining here rather than just
>>>>>> sorting it
>>>>>> out like any normal person would.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in
>>>>> particular the
>>>>> way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly not a Freelander
>>>>> (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model of a compliant
>>>>> vehicle).
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners of
>>>> vanity  plates.
>
>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>> mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>> have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>> yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>
>>
>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue on
>> Urinary Incontinence.
>
> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image of
> that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the actual
> vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But maybe
> there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have a print
> copy though).

DVLA list it as a red Lotus.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 02/12/2023 13:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> I was driving through Peterborough about ten years ago [previous
> anecdote was from 1983] and noticed the car in front of me had a
> numberplate only one-different from mine. Same make model and colour,
> but a 4-door not a 2-door.

Dealers tend to be issued blocks of registrations so quite likely
similar models with similar registrations.

On 02/12/2023 13:48, Adrian wrote:
> A friend (sadly long since RIP) bought a new car, registration was
> something along the lines of x 332 xxx (the letters were unimportant),
> and asked the dealer to supply an extra number plate for his lighting
> board. Several years later, we were pulled up by North Wales Police (who
> seemed keen on motoring anomalies) and he was asked about his
> registration, and it transpired that the plates on the car were right,
> but the lighting board was x 322 xxx.  Well spotted by the policeman
> from a road end as we drove past.  I've also heard else where of this
> happening but on the same vehicle (332 on one end, 322 on the other).

With North Wales Police you are lucky they did not book you!

Some police are good at spotting details, my friend was walking through
one town and noticed that a motorbike stopped at the side of the road
was a covert one. No idea what he noticed about it.

In message <ukfdqs$2cokd$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:09:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>>>mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>>>have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>>>yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>
>>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue
>>>on Urinary Incontinence.

>> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image
>>of that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the
>>actual vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But
>>maybe there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have
>>a print copy though).
>
>I once bought an ex-demo car from the dealership. After purchase I
>noticed that Motor Magazine had tested this model so I bought a back
>copy to read it. Turns out that my car was the one tested - PMG43L

I often seem to trip over these edge-cases. One time I bought a car
which was one of only two examples remaining unsold from the factory.

The first candidate was still in the manufacturer's showroom in
Piccadilly (London) the other they'd "lost" but was eventually found
lurking (and sadly to some extent rusting) at the far end of a parking
lot in Coventry.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ukfg2g$2d3og$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:47:44 on Sat, 2 Dec
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 02/12/2023 13:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ukes6g$2a4lm$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:32 on Sat, 2 Dec
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 02/12/2023 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ukd9gj$1vm0o$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:43:31 on Fri, 1
>>>>Dec 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <5ooaN.14$XUo2.13@fx14.ams1>, at 17:06:09 on Fri, 1
>>>>>>Dec 2023,
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>14:56:10 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB
>>>>>>>>><NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>quite such a  broken IT system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT
>>>>>>>>>>system is  broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must
>>>>>>>>>>cause much  work within TFL sorting out the mess. And,
>>>>>>>>>>there's no obvious  reason for  the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-z
>>>>>>>>>one-expa nsion-launches-london
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely
>>>>>>>>>reported  in the media and in local groups:
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private
>>>>>>>>>_plate_c an_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sadly for you narrative, that's a completely different scenario:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "When we checked the TfL vehicle checker again, the car came up as
>>>>>>>> non-compliant."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry to go on and on about it (but you seem determined to
>>>>>>>>raise bogus issues which can't go unchallenged) I checked the
>>>>>>>>TfL site a few days after the plate was transferred - just in
>>>>>>>>case something like this  might happen - and it agreed the vehicle was compliant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I checked again the other day, and it still says it's compliant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I've already said that, are you suffering from short-term memory
>>>>>>>> loss?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You car model is compliant, but the system is clearly still
>>>>>>>associating your vanity plate with either your previous car, or
>>>>>>>the one your plate first adorned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one it first adorned, I have no idea. It would have been some
>>>>>>vehicle sold new in Surrey in 1976. They don't tell you that
>>>>>>make/model when you "buy" a memory-plate. Which I didn't do until
>>>>>>1985, so it may not have even been the second vehicle to carry it
>>>>>>at, at that point. Also at that time it was commonplace for
>>>>>>people to "park" plates-for-sale on otherwise scrap mopeds,
>>>>>>because I don't think they'd invented the concept of retention certificates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the same problem as many others have reported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No No No. (Apologies to Vicar of Dibley viewers).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PN has printed on it the make/model of the **successor*
>>>>>>vehicle, the ULEZ compatible one!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I previously provide a link to an article that explains how to
>>>>>>>solve  the problem, but you still keep complaining here rather
>>>>>>>than just sorting it out like any normal person would.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've appealed the PNs the day they arrived, explaining in
>>>>>>particular the way the PN has a photo of my car, which is clearly
>>>>>>not a Freelander (plus the fact it also quotes the make and model
>>>>>> vehicle).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the Mayor could bring the whole ULEZ scheme into greater disrepute,
>>>>>> I'd struggle to say exactly how.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that the average person has much sympathy for the owners
>>>>>of vanity  plates.
>>
>>>>  It's a memory-plate, nothing to do with vanity. The first car of
>>>>mine it  would otherwise have been on, but wasn't because that would
>>>>have made it  look younger than it actually was, is BJU 199K. And
>>>>yes, I had to go  look that up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I get a choice between a site called Autoshite and a special issue
>>>on Urinary Incontinence.

>> I'd already checked to see if any search engines threw up an image
>>of that car, but they didn't. One of its claims to fame it was the
>>actual vehicle tested by "Motor Magazine" when first launched. But
>>maybe there's not an online archive of their back-numbers (I do have
>>a print copy though).
>
>DVLA list it as a red Lotus.

I'm surprised it's still listed. I sold it in around 1987 to a collector
who said he'd be exporting it to Japan. Must have found its way back.
Wonder if it's in a museum somewhere.

At the time I was glad I got rid of it, because the engine had seized
and the glass fibre body wasn't in great shape. But both of those can of
course be restored to showroom condition if you throw enough money at
it. It also needed new wheel bearings about every 5,000 miles and a new
clutch cable (Fiat van I think) every 10,000 miles.

And the pop-up headlights never worked properly.

As my current car mechanic said only last week "Lots Of Trouble, Usually
Serious".

But it was seriously fast and stuck to the road like glue.
--
Roland Perry

In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>> broken IT system.
>>
>>I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>
>>Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>the slow updates of the fine system.
>
>One word explanation: Crapita
>
>https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>expansion-launches-london
>
>>Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>
>Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>
>This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>in the media and in local groups:
>https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/

"they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"

That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
would be sufficient).

If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
it.

I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
its wider impact on personal plate holders.

As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.

And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
notices.

They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
Boxing Day).
--
Roland Perry

On 03/12/2023 07:26, Roland Perry wrote:
> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
> its wider impact on personal plate holders.

It would not seem difficult to make a further check before issuing the
penalty, it is presumably all done automatically only.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>> broken IT system.
>>>
>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>
>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>
>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>
>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>> expansion-launches-london
>>
>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>
>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>
>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>> in the media and in local groups:
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>
> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>
> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
> would be sufficient).
>
> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
> it.
>
> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>
> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>
> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
> notices.
>
> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
> Boxing Day).

Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of the
individual. Just be thankful that you’ve not been accused of a serious
criminal offence that you didn’t commit.

I’ll be interested to see if you get the compensation you are seeking.

In message <ukhdge$2phim$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:16:14 on Sun, 3 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <3gsjmihrn2o0vvos598s3pt3p069e8c08c@4ax.com>, at 14:56:10 on
>> Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:45:15 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if I had such a vote, I would not cast it to implement quite such a
>>>>> broken IT system.
>>>>
>>>> I think that everybody here agrees with you that the IT system is broken.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the annoyance to people like yourself, it must cause much
>>>> work within TFL sorting out the mess. And, there's no obvious reason for
>>>> the slow updates of the fine system.
>>>
>>> One word explanation: Crapita
>>>
>>> https://www.capita.com/news/capita-operated-ultra-low-emission-zone-
>>> expansion-launches-london
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, you are going on a bit.
>>>
>>> Indeed so, but it's all new and shocking for Roland.
>>>
>>> This has actually been going on for years, and has been widely reported
>>> in the media and in local groups:
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/owj4ll/psa_your_private_plate_
>>> can_make_you_car_seem_ulez/
>>
>> "they explained that DVLA doesn't give complete information when
>> it's a private plate so they just make the car non-compliant"
>>
>> That's nonsense because TfL got the correct vehicle make and number from
>> DVLA, which means they could also get the date of first registration,
>> which confirms automatic compliance (only by six months, but one day
>> would be sufficient).
>>
>> If it's been going on for years, then they've had plenty of time to fix
>> it.
>>
>> I note a recent FOI response from TfL confirming they only update the
>> database they check ANPR against "once a month", but failed to say when
>> in the month, or answer the second part of the enquiry which was about
>> its wider impact on personal plate holders.
>>
>> As it happens, my vehicle was issued with a V5 a month and a day before
>> the alleged offence, and their database wasn't so out of date it had the
>> wrong vehicle description. So this is a different type of glitch. If it
>> had still said "Freelander" I'd be going about this quite differently.
>>
>> And part of the issue I have is the asymmetry - they say fines must be
>> paid within 14 days (and in my case the notice spent the first 5 days in
>> the post), but they give themselves a whole month to issue invalid
>> notices.
>>
>> They also have an absolute deadline of responding to the notice by Xmas
>> Eve, and although I accept it can be done online, the default is by
>> post, and it's unclear if a proof-of-posting is evidence of "serving"
>> the appeal, rather than the date they open the letter (which in any
>> event they are stunningly unlikely to do on Xmas Eve, Xmas Day, or
>> Boxing Day).
>
>Any entanglement with authorities that have some form of legislative
>backing to their position is always asymmetric and not in favour of the
>individual. Just be thankful that you’ve not been accused of a serious
>criminal offence that you didn’t commit.

Actually, TfL is committing a criminal offence because they are holding
(and processing) needlessly inaccurate data, and that's a contravention
of GDPR.

>I’ll be interested to see if you get the compensation you are seeking.
>

--
Roland Perry