Before you jump on the "report him, jail him, crunch his car and break his legs" bandwagon please try and see things from his point of view. Owning & maintaining a car is a very expensive business and its possible hes in a bit of trouble, depressed, burying his head in the sand, trying to find a new job he doesn't need a car for, and its all getting too much. You could tip someone over the edge, and a human life is worth more than a round disk from the rip off merchants at DVLA.
It's people like you that make my blood boil.:mad:
No road tax means invalid insurance.
No MOT means invalid insurance.
Invalid insurance means no pay-out to the innocent party in an accident or worse,death.
You need to think before you write comments like this.Have you got kids? Has anyone close gt kids? What if they were hurt by an uninsured/invalid insured driver? Would you still think the same?
It's people like you that make my blood boil.:mad:
No road tax means invalid insurance.
No MOT means invalid insurance.
Invalid insurance means no pay-out to the innocent party in an accident or worse,death.
You need to think before you write comments like this.Have you got kids? Has anyone close gt kids? What if they were hurt by an uninsured/invalid insured driver? Would you still think the same?
No it doesn't.
Honestly, I really don't understand where these myths come from.
OK so what are you saying then, ignore this character at let him continue to drive around with no tax (and presumably no insurance and MOT) and continue to be danger to his children whilst they are in the car?
would you also turn a blind eye to a clearly drunk person getting into a car and driving away ?
OK so what are you saying then, ignore this character at let him continue to drive around with no tax (and presumably no insurance and MOT) and continue to be danger to his children whilst they are in the car?
would you also turn a blind eye to a clearly drunk person getting into a car and driving away ?
Oh for heaven's sake....that has got to be the worst strawman I have seen built on this forum.
I suggest you read my posts on this thread. :rolleyes:
OK so what are you saying then, ignore this character at let him continue to drive around with no tax (and presumably no insurance and MOT) and continue to be danger to his children whilst they are in the car?
would you also turn a blind eye to a clearly drunk person getting into a car and driving away ?
If it is untaxed and uninsured he will eventually get stopped by the police, most forces now do ANPR. Are you sure he just hasn't changed the tax disc to the new one. How do you know it's not insured has he verbally told you or are you just making assumptions. Report it to the DVLA and if it is as you say then they will do something about it, if after you have reported it and they haven't done anything then you just have to assume that all is correct with his car.
Not saying this is the case here, but the DVLA are so useless that there can be circumstances where I wouldn't begrudge someone driving without a tax disc.
For example, when I bought my current car they completely screwed up changing the registration over to my name. When I went to tax it the first time (about 6 months after buying) I was told I couldn't until their mistake had been corrected on the system, which took them 7 weeks to fix. I basically couldn't tax or drive my car for that time due to their error. I personally work in central London so could get the tube, but if someone needed their car for work I'd hardly expect them to take 7 weeks off just because the DVLA can't do data entry.
Oh for heaven's sake....that has got to be the worst strawman I have seen built on this forum.
I suggest you read my posts on this thread. :rolleyes:
why don't you clearly state your position on the matter then, as you haven't so far. all you've done it pick on some posts for being inaccurate and argue against certain stances.
i've clearly stated mine, time you did yours - "put up or shut up"?
I prefer the French system.
Never used to think I'd say that!
There is no useless "road tax disc"
You pay for roads through fuel tax & motorway tolls. Fuel is still cheaper than in UK
You must display, whether driving or parked in public:-
1--- an MOT disc (unless vehicle under 4 years old).
2--- an insurance token.
If stopped you must have, in the car,
3---vehicle registration document
4---the full MOT document unless 3 shows it is under 4 years old.
5-- the full insurance document.
6 --full ID for driver & passengers.
Any lack of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 attracts a 90 Euro fine, per item, payable in cash immediately or you all walk home, or may be arrested.
It is a deterrent that works, & really cuts the cackle.
I worried at first about 3 in the car, it is against UK police advice. But you have it to get a service or buy spares & stolen ones show immediately on the dealer's computer display.
David
Not saying this is the case here, but the DVLA are so useless that there can be circumstances where I wouldn't begrudge someone driving without a tax disc.
For example, when I bought my current car they completely screwed up changing the registration over to my name. When I went to tax it the first time (about 6 months after buying) I was told I couldn't until their mistake had been corrected on the system, which took them 7 weeks to fix. I basically couldn't tax or drive my car for that time due to their error. I personally work in central London so could get the tube, but if someone needed their car for work I'd hardly expect them to take 7 weeks off just because the DVLA can't do data entry.
But, in the big scheme of things, these mistakes are relatively rare. Certainly not common enough to refuse to tax your car as a protest.
why don't you clearly state your position on the matter then, as you haven't so far. all you've done it pick on some posts for being inaccurate and argue against certain stances.
i've clearly stated mine, time you did yours - "put up or shut up"?
I have sated my opinion, it is not my fault you haven't been able to understand it.
That said, I am not going to form an opinion, just because you tell me to.
Where I live the council parking enforcement officers report untaxed vehicles and subsequently the cars are clamped until the tax is paid. Maybe the car in the first post isn't in an area covered by parking restrictions, or it would doubtless have been dealt with by now. However, there should also be a safer neighbourhoods team for the area and the OP could report it to them.
Honestly, I really don't understand where these myths come from.
Yes it does. There is no myth about it. It may not specifically mentioned, in black and white, but it is mentioned.
Have a look at your insurance document. They all cover the following clause (or similar)
You are not covered for any of the following.
driven by any person not described as entitled to drive by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
used for any purpose not allowed by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
driven by someone who does not have a valid driving licence or is disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.
the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include
The vehicle must:
be registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
have a valid vehicle tax disc
hold a current test certificate (if this is required)
Having no MOT is breaking the conditions of your Driving Licence therefore you are not covered as this is excluded from cover.
I believe this is referred to as "the small print"
Yes it does. There is no myth about it. It may not specifically mentioned, in black and white, but it is mentioned.
Have a look at your insurance document. They all cover the following clause (or similar)
You are not covered for any of the following.
driven by any person not described as entitled to drive by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
used for any purpose not allowed by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
driven by someone who does not have a valid driving licence or is disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.
the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include
The vehicle must:
be registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
have a valid vehicle tax disc
hold a current test certificate (if this is required)
Having no MOT is breaking the conditions of your Driving Licence therefore you are not covered as this is excluded from cover.
I believe this is referred to as "the small print"
Not having road tax does not invalidate any insurance, there is no precedent in force to allow such a clause.
An MOT is not a default of unroadworthiness. There is no clause i insurance policies that preclude the use of a vehicle if no MOT is present. For example, it is perfectly lawful to drive a motor vehicle, to a pre-arranged test, the insurance would still be valid if the car was roadworthy.
Nonetheless, If the vehicle is not being driven in accordance etc. and insurance is attached to the vehicle, the insurers still have an obligation to pay out the minimum required by law.
There is no clause i insurance policies that preclude the use of a vehicle if no MOT is present. For example, it is perfectly lawful to drive a motor vehicle, to a pre-arranged test, the insurance would still be valid if the car was roadworthy.
As I said in my post, there is no clause that actually states no MOT, no insurance.
However it relies on sub clauses in the Driving Licence. The clause I posted was taken directly from my Insuarance policy
"you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence"
Then posted - and gave the link to the Government website - the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include holding a current test certificate (if this is required).
Now, yes, we can be pedantic a further clause in the insurance states the exceptions to the conditions of your licence are
This exception does not apply if your car is:
• with a member of the motor trade for maintenance or repair;
• stolen or taken away without your permission; or
• being parked by an employee of a hotel, restaurant or car-parking service.
And your licence also allows for you to drive to a pre booked MOT.
So, you can drive to the MOT and not invalidate your insurance, Your mechanic can drive it while it is being repaired and you are covered. BUT if you are merely driving it around, with no MOT you break the conditions we all sign up to when we pass our test and sign the driving license.
Then, the clause re "you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence" applies.
No myth - and no insurance - should they apply the T & C's
The "conditions of the driving licence" only means you must only drive the class of vehicles listed on your driving licence.
Your link to the Government Website is spurious.
Nowhere in the copious literature of my car insurance is Road Fund Licence or MOT certificate mentioned as a cause for refusal of a claim.
However it relies on sub clauses in the Driving Licence. ....
"you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence"
.....
And your licence also allows for you to drive to a pre booked MOT.
....BUT if you are merely driving it around, with no MOT you break the conditions we all sign up to when we pass our test and sign the driving license.
Then, the clause re "you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence" applies.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that these things come from clauses in your driving licence. The licence does not have anything to do with MOTs, vehicle condition, posession of insurance etc, etc.. These are obligations imposed by Road Traffic Acts and similar legislation. Sure, you can't drive unless you have MOT, insurance etc, if appropriate but not because it's anywhere in the driving licence legislation.
Conditions of your driving licence in this context covers things like wearing glasses, only driving an automatic, vehicle types and weights and the like depending on what type of licence you hold.
As I said in my post, there is no clause that actually states no MOT, no insurance.
However it relies on sub clauses in the Driving Licence. The clause I posted was taken directly from my Insuarance policy
"you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence"
Then posted - and gave the link to the Government website - the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include holding a current test certificate (if this is required).
Now, yes, we can be pedantic a further clause in the insurance states the exceptions to the conditions of your licence are
This exception does not apply if your car is:
• with a member of the motor trade for maintenance or repair;
• stolen or taken away without your permission; or
• being parked by an employee of a hotel, restaurant or car-parking service.
And your licence also allows for you to drive to a pre booked MOT.
So, you can drive to the MOT and not invalidate your insurance, Your mechanic can drive it while it is being repaired and you are covered. BUT if you are merely driving it around, with no MOT you break the conditions we all sign up to when we pass our test and sign the driving license.
Then, the clause re "you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence" applies.
No myth - and no insurance - should they apply the T & C's
There Is nothing in a driving licence that prevents you from driving a car without an MOT or tax. Driving a car without an MOT or tax is not included in "driving not in accordance with....."
The other element of the insurance terms you are missing, is the use of "you." "You" are the first party. The insurance company is the second party, however, the insurers still cover the third party. That is a legal obligation that the insurance company has, as per The Road Traffic Act.
There has been several cases where insurance companies have tried to wriggle out of their obligations, but have been thwarted by the courts.
Comments
It's people like you that make my blood boil.:mad:
No road tax means invalid insurance.
No MOT means invalid insurance.
Invalid insurance means no pay-out to the innocent party in an accident or worse,death.
You need to think before you write comments like this.Have you got kids? Has anyone close gt kids? What if they were hurt by an uninsured/invalid insured driver? Would you still think the same?
i'll take my chances
But that goes against your principle of:
but it is no reason to break the law
No it doesn't.
Honestly, I really don't understand where these myths come from.
OK so what are you saying then, ignore this character at let him continue to drive around with no tax (and presumably no insurance and MOT) and continue to be danger to his children whilst they are in the car?
would you also turn a blind eye to a clearly drunk person getting into a car and driving away ?
Oh for heaven's sake....that has got to be the worst strawman I have seen built on this forum.
I suggest you read my posts on this thread. :rolleyes:
I don't think Nessun is saying that.
For example, when I bought my current car they completely screwed up changing the registration over to my name. When I went to tax it the first time (about 6 months after buying) I was told I couldn't until their mistake had been corrected on the system, which took them 7 weeks to fix. I basically couldn't tax or drive my car for that time due to their error. I personally work in central London so could get the tube, but if someone needed their car for work I'd hardly expect them to take 7 weeks off just because the DVLA can't do data entry.
why don't you clearly state your position on the matter then, as you haven't so far. all you've done it pick on some posts for being inaccurate and argue against certain stances.
i've clearly stated mine, time you did yours - "put up or shut up"?
Never used to think I'd say that!
There is no useless "road tax disc"
You pay for roads through fuel tax & motorway tolls. Fuel is still cheaper than in UK
You must display, whether driving or parked in public:-
1--- an MOT disc (unless vehicle under 4 years old).
2--- an insurance token.
If stopped you must have, in the car,
3---vehicle registration document
4---the full MOT document unless 3 shows it is under 4 years old.
5-- the full insurance document.
6 --full ID for driver & passengers.
Any lack of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 attracts a 90 Euro fine, per item, payable in cash immediately or you all walk home, or may be arrested.
It is a deterrent that works, & really cuts the cackle.
I worried at first about 3 in the car, it is against UK police advice. But you have it to get a service or buy spares & stolen ones show immediately on the dealer's computer display.
David
But, in the big scheme of things, these mistakes are relatively rare. Certainly not common enough to refuse to tax your car as a protest.
I have sated my opinion, it is not my fault you haven't been able to understand it.
That said, I am not going to form an opinion, just because you tell me to.
Yes it does. There is no myth about it. It may not specifically mentioned, in black and white, but it is mentioned.
Have a look at your insurance document. They all cover the following clause (or similar)
You are not covered for any of the following.
driven by any person not described as entitled to drive by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
used for any purpose not allowed by the certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
driven by someone who does not have a valid driving licence or is disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.
A quick Google of the DirectGov site shows that
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/DG_4022406
the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include
The vehicle must:
be registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
have a valid vehicle tax disc
hold a current test certificate (if this is required)
Having no MOT is breaking the conditions of your Driving Licence therefore you are not covered as this is excluded from cover.
I believe this is referred to as "the small print"
Not having road tax does not invalidate any insurance, there is no precedent in force to allow such a clause.
An MOT is not a default of unroadworthiness. There is no clause i insurance policies that preclude the use of a vehicle if no MOT is present. For example, it is perfectly lawful to drive a motor vehicle, to a pre-arranged test, the insurance would still be valid if the car was roadworthy.
Nonetheless, If the vehicle is not being driven in accordance etc. and insurance is attached to the vehicle, the insurers still have an obligation to pay out the minimum required by law.
As I said in my post, there is no clause that actually states no MOT, no insurance.
However it relies on sub clauses in the Driving Licence. The clause I posted was taken directly from my Insuarance policy
"you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence"
Then posted - and gave the link to the Government website - the Legal obligations of drivers and keepers of vehicles include holding a current test certificate (if this is required).
Now, yes, we can be pedantic a further clause in the insurance states the exceptions to the conditions of your licence are
This exception does not apply if your car is:
• with a member of the motor trade for maintenance or repair;
• stolen or taken away without your permission; or
• being parked by an employee of a hotel, restaurant or car-parking service.
And your licence also allows for you to drive to a pre booked MOT.
So, you can drive to the MOT and not invalidate your insurance, Your mechanic can drive it while it is being repaired and you are covered. BUT if you are merely driving it around, with no MOT you break the conditions we all sign up to when we pass our test and sign the driving license.
Then, the clause re "you are not covered if you are driving a vehicle while breaking the conditions of your driving licence" applies.
No myth - and no insurance - should they apply the T & C's
Your link to the Government Website is spurious.
Nowhere in the copious literature of my car insurance is Road Fund Licence or MOT certificate mentioned as a cause for refusal of a claim.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that these things come from clauses in your driving licence. The licence does not have anything to do with MOTs, vehicle condition, posession of insurance etc, etc.. These are obligations imposed by Road Traffic Acts and similar legislation. Sure, you can't drive unless you have MOT, insurance etc, if appropriate but not because it's anywhere in the driving licence legislation.
Conditions of your driving licence in this context covers things like wearing glasses, only driving an automatic, vehicle types and weights and the like depending on what type of licence you hold.
So your argument doesn't hold up.
If the car isn't taxed,or got a SORN, then the owner is automatically fined £80.
it still needs to be taxed (and insured i believe) even to just sit on the road side.
There Is nothing in a driving licence that prevents you from driving a car without an MOT or tax. Driving a car without an MOT or tax is not included in "driving not in accordance with....."
The other element of the insurance terms you are missing, is the use of "you." "You" are the first party. The insurance company is the second party, however, the insurers still cover the third party. That is a legal obligation that the insurance company has, as per The Road Traffic Act.
There has been several cases where insurance companies have tried to wriggle out of their obligations, but have been thwarted by the courts.
Now's the chance to let the DVLA know that it is stationary. They might be able to catch him now.