Car tax evasion adverts

[Yugguy]

Oh just fk off will you. You can't keep the streets safe, or our old people, or our children, you sure as hell can't run a fking economy, but you can at least find all the heinously evil car-tax dodgers.

Well:

[L1OFF]

Yugguy said:

Oh just fk off will you. You can't keep the streets safe, or our old people, or our children, you sure as hell can't run a fking economy, but you can at least find all the heinously evil car-tax dodgers.

Well:

you will usually find that cars that are untaxed are also uninsured etc.

Alan

[randomman]

L1OFF said:

Yugguy said:

Oh just fk off will you. You can't keep the streets safe, or our old people, or our children, you sure as hell can't run a fking economy, but you can at least find all the heinously evil car-tax dodgers.

Well:

you will usually find that cars that are untaxed are also uninsured etc.

Alan

So why not focus on insurance dodgers. I see where your coming from, but surely its better to get an insurance database that actually works, then just use ANPRs?

[jezzaaa]

Yugguy said:

Oh just fk off will you. You can't keep the streets safe, or our old people, or our children, you sure as hell can't run a fking economy, but you can at least find all the heinously evil car-tax dodgers.

Well:

I don't disagree with you. it's typical new Labour spin and threaten. Since the majority of the public are law abiding and pay their (inflated) VED every year, it seems inappropriate to threaten everyone.

[Yugguy]

I don't object to the idea of catching tax dodgers, just the way they put it across - it is NOT the most important thing to be concentrating on.

[r11co]

L1OFF said:

you will usually find that cars that are untaxed are also uninsured etc.

Last time I checked I was sure that it was still DRIVERS that were legally obliged to be insured, not cars.

The 'link' between VED evasion and insurance dodging is a fallacious one, but it is conveniently exploited/spun/lied about by the government to garner support for their legislative measures. To not support their crackdown on VED dodgers immediately implies to some people that you support insurance dodging, which isn't the case.

[kambites]

r11co said:

L1OFF said:

you will usually find that cars that are untaxed are also uninsured etc.

Last time I checked I was sure that it was still DRIVERS that were legally obliged to be insured, not cars.

The 'link' between VED evasion and insurance dodging is a fallacious one, but it is conveniently exploited/spun/lied about by the government to garner support for their legislative measures. To not support their crackdown on VED dodgers immediately implies to some people that you support insurance dodging, which isn't the case.

I thought both driver and car had to be insured? My "drive any car" clause certainly states that he car must be named on a third party policy, I assumed this was a legal requirement?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't buy a tax disk without proof that there is an insurance contract on the car, can you?

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 6th January 12:36

[james_tigerwoods]

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

[kambites]

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

Check your policy. I'd be very surprised if it didn't say the other car has to be insured.

[exper]

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

As the no insurance laws have been ammended recently (not sure when exactly) you would stand having gained 6 points and a IN10 conviction - some officers might let you off depending on the wording of the policy but wont be so lucky with traffic and also if you check your policy pretty sure most state the car most be insured as well

As for the original post, agree completely - kind of like the TV license adverts way OTT

Edited by exper on Tuesday 6th January 12:45

[elfer]

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

I thought it went like this. You trigger the police car's ANPR. You get stopped. You have 5 days to produce your certificate of insurance at a police station you nominate. End of story.

The only 'driving other cars' restriction on my policy (renewed 5 days ago) is the certificate can't be used to reclaim a seized 'other owner' car.

[kambites]

elfer said:

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

I thought it went like this. You trigger the police car's ANPR. You get stopped. You have 5 days to produce your certificate of insurance at a police station you nominate. End of story.

The only 'driving other cars' restriction on my policy (renewed 5 days ago) is the certificate can't be used to reclaim a seized 'other owner' car.

So your policy lets you drive other cars that you own as well? That's very unusual.

[elfer]

kambites said:

elfer said:

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

I thought it went like this. You trigger the police car's ANPR. You get stopped. You have 5 days to produce your certificate of insurance at a police station you nominate. End of story.

The only 'driving other cars' restriction on my policy (renewed 5 days ago) is the certificate can't be used to reclaim a seized 'other owner' car.

So your policy lets you drive other cars that you own as well? That's very unusual.

Sorry, should have written 'driving other cars...' i.e other cars not owned by me or leased to me under a hire purchase agreement (or whatever the full wording is).

My point was is it covers me to drive these other cars regardless of whether or not they're insured.

[shakotan]

elfer said:

kambites said:

elfer said:

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

I thought it went like this. You trigger the police car's ANPR. You get stopped. You have 5 days to produce your certificate of insurance at a police station you nominate. End of story.

The only 'driving other cars' restriction on my policy (renewed 5 days ago) is the certificate can't be used to reclaim a seized 'other owner' car.

So your policy lets you drive other cars that you own as well? That's very unusual.

Sorry, should have written 'driving other cars...' i.e other cars not owned by me or leased to me under a hire purchase agreement (or whatever the full wording is).

My point was is it covers me to drive these other cars regardless of whether or not they're insured.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

If you have a 'drive other cars not owned/leased to you' clause on your Fully Comp insurance, there still has to be a valid Insurance Policy allocated to the car you are driving.

You CANNOT drive another car under your own Fully Comp policy unless the other car has at least a valid Third Party Only policy allocated to it.

Edited by shakotan on Tuesday 6th January 13:17

[Daston]

Yep the car you are driving must be insured if not by you then a third party (ie garage, family member, business, friend etc etc)

Other wise I would be insuring my Micra fully comp and have a fleet of supercars insurance free!!

[shakotan]

Daston said:

Yep the car you are driving must be insured if not by you then a third party (ie garage, family member, business, friend etc etc)

Other wise I would be insuring my Micra fully comp and have a fleet of supercars insurance free!!

Well, not really, unless you registered all the supercars to friends/family!

[elfer]

shakotan said:

elfer said:

kambites said:

elfer said:

james_tigerwoods said:

Incidentally, where would I stand if I (a fully comp insured driver) drove a car that was registered as having no insurance?

I thought it went like this. You trigger the police car's ANPR. You get stopped. You have 5 days to produce your certificate of insurance at a police station you nominate. End of story.

The only 'driving other cars' restriction on my policy (renewed 5 days ago) is the certificate can't be used to reclaim a seized 'other owner' car.

So your policy lets you drive other cars that you own as well? That's very unusual.

Sorry, should have written 'driving other cars...' i.e other cars not owned by me or leased to me under a hire purchase agreement (or whatever the full wording is).

My point was is it covers me to drive these other cars regardless of whether or not they're insured.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

If you have a 'drive other cars not owned/leased to you' clause on your Fully Comp insurance, there still has to be a valid Insurance Policy allocated to the car you are driving.

You CANNOT drive another car under your own Fully Comp policy unless the other car has at least a valid Third Party Only policy allocated to it.

Edited by shakotan on Tuesday 6th January 13:17

Could you provide a link to, or quote, of the legislation that says this?

My insurance company indemnifies me against third party claims arising from my driving someone elses' car. How can I be breaking the law?

Road Traffic Act 1988 Part VI section 143.1.a said:

a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act

Full act here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988005...

[Yugguy]

I think you need to check your insurance mate. My fully comp, like most every other, gives me third party cover on other cars provided those cars themselves are covered by a policy.

[james_tigerwoods]

I'm of course assuming that ignorance of the insurance state of a car is no argument - if "your mate" has a car that he has said you can borrow for the day (if yours was, say, in the shop), why would you ask if he has insurance as I already do?

[matt0677]

shakotan said:

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

If you have a 'drive other cars not owned/leased to you' clause on your Fully Comp insurance, there still has to be a valid Insurance Policy allocated to the car you are driving.

You CANNOT drive another car under your own Fully Comp policy unless the other car has at least a valid Third Party Only policy allocated to it.

Edited by shakotan on Tuesday 6th January 13:17

My mate got a producer a few years ago because he was driving a car that wasn't insured by the owner. When he took his insurance certificate in and spoke to an officer, they agreed that the wording on the policy did not specify that the car must be insured, just that they would cover him third-party only. The police agreed that he seemed to be covered and dropped the matter. I believe they did contact the insurer and all partied agreed that the wording covered him, whether or not it was the intention of his insurer.

I'm sure that insurer's wording is different now...