Reads like a spoof to me , I'm sure losta risin is an anagram ,but I don't have the patience to work it out any thoughts ?
Lost horizon.
|
|
|
No, 'tony g',
I am genuine. I used to be on the forum as 'AllFumbs' till something went awry and I had to re-register under a new name. (No, I wasn't barred, or anything like that.) What I've reported happened precisely as described. The driver was (and, alas, remains) unknown to me: this is not a personal grudge. I would like to see the cheat prosecuted because I find his driving a hugely-expensive luxury-car without road-tax offensive (as well as its being an offence).
In case you don't believe my claim of 200 medical-appointments for my injuries [it's now 203] I was injured at work nearly four years ago; continued to work for two years thereafter (apart from two month-long leaves of absence because of my unwellness); and would have carried-on working as best I could had my client not terminated my freelance-contract. I'd worked for him for ten years, helping him build his company up from one-man-in-a-glorified-shed to a thriving concern employing 25.
It was my client who injured me due to negligence. But I think what prompted his decision to no longer require my services was the arrival of my solicitor's Letter of Claim.
Now may we get on with the matter at hand: suggesting ways to go about finding a road-tax cheat when one might've only got a partially-correct note of his registration-number? Oh, and to spell it out, he was in the disabled bay on Lewsey Road, outside the Luton & Dunstable Hospital, on Tuesday, 29th January. The delay in posting was because only today did I find the blimmin' piece of paper on which I wrote-down his reg-no. as he ghosted away.
L.R.
Edited by Losta Risin' on 21/03/2013 at 22:06
|
|
Why do people assume that you have to have a tax disc on a car to validate the insurance?
Here is the news to all that believe this - NO YOU DON'T!!!!!!!
I
|
Hello, 'focussed',
No, the fact is that insurers can decide to invalidate cover in the event of a claim arising from the vehicle's being driven on the public road without a then-current tax-disc: their stance on the matter can be an express term of the contract, in the terms and conditions. Yes, different insurers do vary on that point. It's wise to check; and wiser, not to do it.
But the overarching point I made was that a man was driving his car with a long-expired tax-disc, far outside any period of grace [details of which are widely available on the 'web]; and that that is an offence.
Again genuinely, I'd be interested to know when one may lawfully drive a car without a tax-disc. The sole instance of which I know is when you've booked an MoT-test in advance and the car is taking you to (and later, presumably, from) it. The vehicle has to be insured.
L.R.
|
Oh drearie me....
It is possible I didn't get the first part of the reg'-no quite right<<<<
There are ways of reporting untaxed vehicles to DVLA which are explained on their site but unless you can correctly ID the vehicle then no one is going to take any action. So...........keep you eyes open on your perambulations to see if you spot it again.
You also may lawfully drive an untaxed vehicle and Sorned vehicle anywhere that is not a road repairable at public expense or public place i.e. around a farmer's field etc.
dvd
|
|
Or to a pre booked MOT I believe.
|
Or to a pre booked MOT I believe.
And back again afterwards, even if it fails.
|
|
and another one, to a place of scrapage
|
and another one, to a place of scrapage
Will you supply proof of that please?
|
|
Hello Tom
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q360.htm
Actually only from an MoT station to prearranged place of scrappage.
|
|
Cris_on_the_gas
Thanks, I never knew that.
|
|
|
There is no possibility of any insurer being able to invalidate or wriggle out of the third-party element of the vehicle insurance because a vehicle is not taxed, as long as the premium has been paid an insurance contract exists. This is covered by EU insurance law, the insurance companies may not like it, but that is the law.
|
Hello, 'focussed',
Thank you for that clarification. I take it, though, that if Mr Expired-Tax-Disc gets his Bentley bent his insurer can reject his claim (unless in its t's & c's it states otherwise)?
Really, it hardly seems worth the risk.
And to the correspondent who was somewhat snide about my perhaps not noting the registration correctly, there's no call for that. I did my best. I'd not seen the front number-plate and it was only as I drew level with the tax-disc that its wrongness caught my eye: last year's colour. Immediately thereafter and without indicating, causing a double-decker bus to have to brake sharply, the car veered into traffic, crashed a traffic-light long since on red and was gone. Of its rear number-plate all I got was a glimpse.
L.R.
|
|
|
There is no possibility of any insurer being able to invalidate or wriggle out of the third-party element of the vehicle insurance because a vehicle is not taxed, as long as the premium has been paid an insurance contract exists. This is covered by EU insurance law, the insurance companies may not like it, but that is the law.
Is that not third party only or do they have to comply with whatever cover you have taken out.
|
There is no possibility of any insurer being able to invalidate or wriggle out of the third-party element of the vehicle insurance because a vehicle is not taxed, as long as the premium has been paid an insurance contract exists. This is covered by EU insurance law, the insurance companies may not like it, but that is the law.
Is that not third party only or do they have to comply with whatever cover you have taken out.
It's the third-party element that's being referred to - there is a process for an insurer to withdraw cover by giving 7 days written notice if the contract terms have been breached.
It's nowt to do with the EC, it was always that way before we joined.
The fire, theft and fully comp parts of an insurance may have contract conditions but the third-party can't.
|
|
Thought so, thanks for that
|
|
|
There is no possibility of any insurer being able to invalidate or wriggle out of the third-party element of the vehicle insurance because a vehicle is not taxed, as long as the premium has been paid an insurance contract exists. This is covered by EU insurance law, the insurance companies may not like it, but that is the law.
Is that not third party only or do they have to comply with whatever cover you have taken out.
It's the third-party element that's being referred to - there is a process for an insurer to withdraw cover by giving 7 days written notice if the contract terms have been breached.
It's nowt to do with the EC, it was always that way before we joined.
The fire, theft and fully comp parts of an insurance may have contract conditions but the third-party can't.
It certainly is a lot to do with the jolly old EU whether you like it or not, have look at this
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:...F
Bit of bedtime reading for you!
|
It's nowt to do with the EC, it was always that way before we joined.
The fire, theft and fully comp parts of an insurance may have contract conditions but the third-party can't.
It certainly is a lot to do with the jolly old EU whether you like it or not, have look at this
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:...F
That was a EU "law" replacing an existing UK law, although no doubt with other provisions as well - it's always been a concept of UK law that the third part element of compulsory vehicle insurance has no terms and conditions - the insurer must pay out even in the case of reckless behaviour by the insured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
