iansheff Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 No it is illegal, the number plate recognition tells the police it is uninsured so if they drove past with the scanner van it would flag up. Imagine if for some reason it went up in flames and exploded causing serious damage to property and the road, where would the money come from for the repairs if it is uninsured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy007 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Thank you Foxy Lady, seems trying to get it into the head of cyclone is hard work that insurance, if a motor vehicle (car) is Parked anywhere on the public highway ( road , footpath, layby, public footpath, overbridge. if joe public ( you and me) have access to it and pay for it's upkeep ( between the hedges or fences of PRIVATE PROPERTY) You will need insurance to keep it there whether you drive it or not. If you drive a car on the road you USE it. If you let someone else use it You CAUSE it to be used and if it is stationary is is PERMITTED to be there. God Cyclone, you are hard work pal if this does'nt get it in your head then nothing will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayne67 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Very interesting, BUT why did the police officer have to tell you it needed to be insured what had you done wrong for him to need to see your insurance documents ?. He was actually at a neighbours house, and noticed that my car had a flat tyre. Like I said it had not been on the road for a while, and I assume he just did a random check. He actually knocked on my door, I was pregnant with my son at the time, and was gutted. Jayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Utter tripe. It is better not to give advice rather than incorrect advice. Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate. Case Law... Pumbien v Vines (1995) The Times June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy. The Court so held in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Andee Pumbien against his conviction of offences of using a motor vehicle on a road without either a valid test certificate or insurance policy contrary to sections 47(1) and 143(1) of the 1988 act. I'm happy to be corrected, but it was hardly 'utter tripe' if someone attempted to use it as a defence in court, and not everyone has access to case law. I made a reasonable interpretation of the statute, it so happens that the courts have made another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Thank you Foxy Lady, seems trying to get it into the head of cyclone is hard work that insurance, if a motor vehicle (car) is Parked anywhere on the public highway ( road , footpath, layby, public footpath, overbridge. if joe public ( you and me) have access to it and pay for it's upkeep ( between the hedges or fences of PRIVATE PROPERTY) You will need insurance to keep it there whether you drive it or not. If you drive a car on the road you USE it. If you let someone else use it You CAUSE it to be used and if it is stationary is is PERMITTED to be there. God Cyclone, you are hard work pal if this does'nt get it in your head then nothing will. Foxy ladies post at least presents some evidence, if it were just this post then I'd be tempted to just ignore it as lacking basic punctuation and grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I'm happy to be corrected, but it was hardly 'utter tripe' if someone attempted to use it as a defence in court, and not everyone has access to case law. I made a reasonable interpretation of the statute, it so happens that the courts have made another one. Perhaps adding to your posting that you have no actual knowledge of the subject would be helpful to people. Posting utter tripe isn't. The case law was established 15 years ago because it had not been tested in the courts until then. It has been a firmly established aspect of law since that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Foxy ladies post at least presents some evidence, if it were just this post then I'd be tempted to just ignore it as lacking basic punctuation and grammar. By the way the word is lady's if you are that bothered about punctuation and grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brus Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Not really correct Emily, if someone OTHER than the owner drives a car then, if they have the owners permission they can drive it on their own policy BUT it will be on third party only if you have a Fully Comprehensive policy. If you are third party only forget it because you'll have nothing to drive another car unless you contact the company to get it swapped over ( fully Comp. or third party) and that will cost you money. If our friend wants to keep the car on the Public highway the car NEEDS insurance wheteher it moves or not, if it has no MOT then the insurance could be termed either void or voidable ie. the car is considered unroadworthy by the insurance company and they may either not pay if the car is involved in any accident or pay up the other party involved in the accident but turn round and sue the owner of the car who they are insuring for losses. All the three documents , insurance, MOT and tax are interlinked over this. Beg to differ but a friend has just been in court for using someone elses car that was not insured in its own right, he thought his comprehensive policy covered him to use it but it did not, a fine. points plus a ban was the result, so Emily is quite correct in her post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Perhaps adding to your posting that you have no actual knowledge of the subject would be helpful to people. Posting utter tripe isn't. The case law was established 15 years ago because it had not been tested in the courts until then. It has been a firmly established aspect of law since that case. Fine, but that doesn't make the statute utter tripe. Did the words utter tripe pass the judges lips when it was tested in court? Since your clearly very angry about this for some reason, I thought I'd repost the 'utter tripe' just so that you can read it again. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...pt6-pb1-l1g143 It would appear that only 'using' the car is an offence without insurance, unlike tax where it's an offence for it merely to be on the road. See those three words at the start? Were you too busy frothing at the mouth to notice them when you replied before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PC Brigade Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You bet your ase it is. They get money out of anything to do with the car so will throw resouses at it, its not like your visa running out and you staying, or not bothering to even bothering to let anyone know you in the country. If they earned money out of imigration rarther than it costing then they would be on the ball but as its just insurance and they have invested into data bases and systems to check you out well Im sorry but its sell the thing or have the full force of the law drag your wallet from you. Ignorant, stupid, Daily Mail nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.