Drive SORN'd car to new house

[Pip1968]

B'stard Child said:

Breadvan72 said:

V40TC said:

Pay up the VED for a month insure for a day and rest easy,
Sods law someone will crash into you or something will happen.
and then you'll be is a shed load of aggro to save a few ££.

I am taking my car to trade in on Monday and considered for a few secs saving £15 VED by Sorn'ing the car on Sunday
then realised I am not 17 and skint nor a Tight git.

The first sensible post on a thread which is otherwise the Whamster Scamster Thieving Toerag Convention 2014.

Clicks PH Like button for both posts

Ditto that. There should be a separate sister site PistonheadScumbags.com that could highlight best schemes for avoiding tax, duties, insurance et al. They could all pay (not sure that would be possible as all would use stolen credit cards and bank details or some other avoidance scam) a fee to join and then when they get run over or have their car hit by a member payments could be made from the site's funds (read nil.

Alternatively over insure it and then burn it on the day of moving. Claim on the insurance and buy a replacement and get it delivered to your new address. You may even make a few quid. Genius.

Pip

[jeremydb9]

My merc broke down ( gearbox) and i went to my mums house got collect a 911 that i had had for some 20 years to use whilst it was being repaired.

I collected it and got done on the way home.

There was no intention to avoid tax etc, I simply moved it first.

For the hassle and money it caused, just pay it.

There is nil excuse that will ever get you off.

[Red Devil]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If their DOC extension didn't insist the car had to be insured in it's own right (mine doesn't) then the car would not be impounded as uninsured. You may get pulled, as the car isn't on the MID basis, but the MID database is a guide, not the final word. If the DOC insurance is valid, the car is insured, and wouldn't be impounded.

I think it's massively unclear, and there have been cases reported of cars being impounded in such circumstances.

The post by Cat suggests they shouldn't have been.
Is there cover for THIS driver in THIS car on THIS occasion?
Presumably this still holds good then? - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...

It helps to have the relevant certificate with you.
And that the officer contacts the insurer to verify if they still have a concern.
Of course it depends on whether there is someone there to answer at that hour.
Plus that if there is, the call handler does not relay back a load of bs.

[robinessex]

£30 cash in hand to local garage or guy with a recovery truck on his drive. That's what my brother in law did to move his SORN car 3 miles down the road.

[Cat]

Walford said:

Cat said:

This thread must be looking at some sort of record for the amount of incorrect nonsense in the fewest posts.

The use of trade plates to move the car would not be legal as they do not provide carte blanche to use untaxed vehicles on the road (whether it is likely you'd be found out is another question).

Cat

https://www.gov.uk/trade-licence-plates

,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by posting that link. The fact that motor traders can obtain and use trade plates doesn't alter the fact that it would be illegal to use them to move the OP's untaxed car between his old and new address as has been suggested.

Cat

[Cat]

Red Devil said:

The post by Cat suggests they shouldn't have been.
Is there cover for THIS driver in THIS car on THIS occasion?
Presumably this still holds good then? - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...

It helps to have the relevant certificate with you.
And that the officer contacts the insurer to verify if they still have a concern.
Of course it depends on whether there is someone there to answer at that hour.
Plus that if there is, the call handler does not relay back a load of bs.

What I pointed out was that, contrary to the claims of some posters, CIE legislation has no bearing on whether or not a car is insured for use on a road/public place and therefore is of no relevance as to whether it can be seized under s165.

The case law you have linked to makes no reference to CIE as it is irrelevant to the point in question.

Cat

[Red Devil]

Cat said:

The case law you have linked to makes no reference to CIE as it is irrelevant to the point in question.

I know that. Nowhere did I suggest that it did, so I'm not sure why you are calling me out on it when I'm in your corner. I was responding to the specific point made by another poster about the position re DOC being unclear. AFAIK Pryor is the leading case on the subject. If I'm wrong about then I'm all ears.

[Cat]

Red Devil said:

I know that. Nowhere did I suggest that it did, so I'm not sure why you are calling me out on it when I'm in your corner. I was responding to the specific point made by another poster about the position re DOC being unclear. AFAIK Pryor is the leading case on the subject. If I'm wrong about then I'm all ears.

I had presumed from your first post which in which you refer to CIE/SORN and "dg" about with insurance resulting points/fines/IN10 endorsements that you believed they were somehow connected, if this is not the case apologies.

The Pryor case doesn't really address the issue of DOC cover it deals with the legality or otherwise of seizing a vehicle under section 165A where a certificate of insurance has been produced.

Cat

[BobSaunders]

Speak to a local garage and get them to lift and shift.

The amount of time it will take messing around with insurance and tax, to then cancel it (administration charge on insurance! circa £30-40), will not meet the cost or effort required to just get the local garage/recovery people to move it for you.

My spare time is very limited hence throwing money at the problem.

[Walford]

Cat said:

Walford said:

Cat said:

This thread must be looking at some sort of record for the amount of incorrect nonsense in the fewest posts.

The use of trade plates to move the car would not be legal as they do not provide carte blanche to use untaxed vehicles on the road (whether it is likely you'd be found out is another question).

Cat

https://www.gov.uk/trade-licence-plates

,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by posting that link. The fact that motor traders can obtain and use trade plates doesn't alter the fact that it would be illegal to use them to move the OP's untaxed car between his old and new address as has been suggested.

Cat

why

[Cat]

Walford said:

why

Presumably by "why" you mean "Why would it be illegal?". Trade plates can only be used for certain permitted activities e.g. testing following repairs, demonstrating to a customer. Moving a vehicle between two addresses for someone isn't a permitted use. Also a motor trader can only use trade plates on a vehicle if it is temporarily in their possession in the course of their business - as this car belongs to the OP, even if he was a motor trader with access to trade plates, it wouldn't meet this test so would be illegal regardless of the purpose of the journey.

Cat

[Walford]

Cat said:

Walford said:

why

Presumably by "why" you mean "Why would it be illegal?". Trade plates can only be used for certain permitted activities e.g. testing following repairs, demonstrating to a customer. Moving a vehicle between two addresses for someone isn't a permitted use. Also a motor trader can only use trade plates on a vehicle if it is temporarily in their possession in the course of their business - as this car belongs to the OP, even if he was a motor trader with access to trade plates, it wouldn't meet this test so would be illegal regardless of the purpose of the journey.

Cat

Was told by DVLA we could do this,

[Cat]

Walford said:

Was told by DVLA we could do this,

In which case the DVLA told you wrong. The permitted purposes for using a trade licence are given in paragraph 12 of part 2 of schedule 6 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 as follows:

(a)for its test or trial or the test or trial of its accessories or equipment, in either case in the ordinary course of construction, modification or repair or after completion;

(b)for proceeding to or from a public weighbridge for ascertaining its weight or to or from any place for its registration or inspection by a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State;

(c)for its test or trial for the benefit of a prospective purchaser, for proceeding at the instance of a prospective purchaser to any place for the purpose of such test or trial, or for returning after such test or trial;

(d)for its test or trial for the benefit of a person interested in promoting publicity in regard to it, for proceeding at the instance of such a person to any place for the purpose of such test or trial, or for returning after such test or trial;

(e)for delivering it to the place where the purchaser intends to keep it;

(f)for demonstrating its operation or the operation of its accessories or equipment when it is being handed over to the purchaser;

(g)for delivering it from one part of the licence holder’s premises to another part of his premises, or for delivering it from his premises to premises of, or between parts of premises of, another manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles or removing it from the premises of another manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles direct to his own premises;

(h)for proceeding to or returning from a workshop in which a body or a special type of equipment or accessory is to be or has been fitted to it or in which it is to be or has been painted, valeted or repaired;

(i)for proceeding from the premises of a manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles to a place from which it is to be transported by train, ship or aircraft or for proceeding to the premises of such a manufacturer, repairer or dealer from a place to which it has been so transported;

(j)for proceeding to or returning from any garage, auction room or other place at which vehicles are usually stored or usually or periodically offered for sale and at which it is to be or has been stored or is to be or has been offered for sale as the case may be;

(k)for proceeding to or returning from a place where it is to be or has been inspected or tested; or

(l)for proceeding to a place where it is to be broken up or otherwise dismantled.

None of them cover moving a vehicle between two address for someone.

Cat

[Walford]

Cat said:

Walford said:

Was told by DVLA we could do this,

In which case the DVLA told you wrong. The permitted purposes for using a trade licence are given in paragraph 12 of part 2 of schedule 6 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 as follows:

(a)for its test or trial or the test or trial of its accessories or equipment, in either case in the ordinary course of construction, modification or repair or after completion;

(b)for proceeding to or from a public weighbridge for ascertaining its weight or to or from any place for its registration or inspection by a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State;

(c)for its test or trial for the benefit of a prospective purchaser, for proceeding at the instance of a prospective purchaser to any place for the purpose of such test or trial, or for returning after such test or trial;

(d)for its test or trial for the benefit of a person interested in promoting publicity in regard to it, for proceeding at the instance of such a person to any place for the purpose of such test or trial, or for returning after such test or trial;

(e)for delivering it to the place where the purchaser intends to keep it;

(f)for demonstrating its operation or the operation of its accessories or equipment when it is being handed over to the purchaser;

(g)for delivering it from one part of the licence holder’s premises to another part of his premises, or for delivering it from his premises to premises of, or between parts of premises of, another manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles or removing it from the premises of another manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles direct to his own premises;

(h)for proceeding to or returning from a workshop in which a body or a special type of equipment or accessory is to be or has been fitted to it or in which it is to be or has been painted, valeted or repaired;

(i)for proceeding from the premises of a manufacturer or repairer of or dealer in vehicles to a place from which it is to be transported by train, ship or aircraft or for proceeding to the premises of such a manufacturer, repairer or dealer from a place to which it has been so transported;

(j)for proceeding to or returning from any garage, auction room or other place at which vehicles are usually stored or usually or periodically offered for sale and at which it is to be or has been stored or is to be or has been offered for sale as the case may be;

(k)for proceeding to or returning from a place where it is to be or has been inspected or tested; or

(l)for proceeding to a place where it is to be broken up or otherwise dismantled.

None of them cover moving a vehicle between two address for someone.

Cat

OK,

[Red Devil]

Cat said:

Red Devil said:

I know that. Nowhere did I suggest that it did, so I'm not sure why you are calling me out on it when I'm in your corner. I was responding to the specific point made by another poster about the position re DOC being unclear. AFAIK Pryor is the leading case on the subject. If I'm wrong about then I'm all ears.

I had presumed from your first post which in which you refer to CIE/SORN and "dg" about with insurance resulting points/fines/IN10 endorsements that you believed they were somehow connected, if this is not the case apologies.

No worries.

Cat said:

The Pryor case doesn't really address the issue of DOC cover it deals with the legality or otherwise of seizing a vehicle under section 165A where a certificate of insurance has been produced.

Cat

Agreed, but wasn't the whole point in Pryor that valid DOC cover on another policy was being used therefore no offence was being committed? It certainly didn't help that the insurance company call handler provided additional duff information thereby compounding the initial mistake by the GMP officer that the certificate was invalid per se.

[Cat]

Red Devil said:

Agreed, but wasn't the whole point in Pryor that valid DOC cover on another policy was being used therefore no offence was being committed? It certainly didn't help that the insurance company call handler provided additional duff information thereby compounding the initial mistake by the GMP officer that the certificate was invalid per se.

The point of the Pryor judgement was that if a "relevant certificate" is produced, whether it relates to the vehicle itself, DOC, or is a trade policy etc. Then the seizure of the vehicle cannot be lawful regardless of any other suspicions the officers may have.

Cat

[winshent]

Managed to get a quote of £30 for 1 day of insurance.. Bit of a piss take given my 12 month renewal is £400, but still probably my cheapest option.

My current insurance runs out in the next few days.. Car is still taxed, but will be off the road when current insurance runs out (if I don't renew)...

[V8Dom]

Pothole said:

A 'friend' recently drove his untaxed, un MOTed, SORNed vehicle 9 miles to its current resting place. Said it was the slowest, tensest drive he's ever done. Passed 3 traffic cars and a layby MOT check, which was luckily full of its 3 cars at a time quota!!

Edited by Pothole on Monday 1st December 14:22

he might find he gets something in the post... traffic cars have reg detectors inside.....:0(