Taxing a car for sale with no insurance

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

Which says the car must be being driven - without insurance/licence - which brings us right back to the beggining, but certainly does not apply to a parked car.

No it doesn't!

"165 (1) (c) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),"

"Use" includes a vehicle parked in the road. See Elliot v Grey and Plumbien v Vines.

raskazz

Premier wrote: »

What was that you said? "Somewhat ridiculous" ? :cool:

You might want to avoid selectively quoting me as it makes you look, er, somewhat ridiculous.

What I actually posted was "It would be somewhat ridiculous for the Government to insist on the purchase of insurance for such vehicles from the private sector".

This does not imply that all Councils self-insure, merely that they are not compelled to insure under legislation.

Premier_2

raskazz wrote: »

You might want to avoid selectively quoting me as it makes you look, er, somewhat ridiculous.

What I actually posted was "It would be somewhat ridiculous for the Government to insist on the purchase of insurance for such vehicles from the private sector".

This does not imply that all Councils self-insure, merely that they are not compelled to insure under legislation.

Your post was in response to my question

Premier wrote:

Are you suggesting local authorities, police & ambulance vehicles are all driving around uninsured?

Given your response, isn't it, er... "somewhat ridiculous" that local authorities and police services are wasting taxpayers money purchasing insurance?
Perhaps the government should insist they don't if the government are happy to foot the bill for those local authorities and police services that you suggest don't purchase insurance cover.

Andy_L

AIUI local gov are obliged to have the legal minimum (ie 3rd party) and can make a commercial dicision to go fully comp or not whilst central gov can use crown immunity to ignore the legal minimum & go totally self insured

BFG_2

!!!!!! stop bickering and get back on topic...or go to the Arms and start your own 'Local authorities are self-insured, no they're not, yes they are, you said, no I didn't' thread

bryanb

mrbadexample wrote: »

I would think that's a vehicle in the public service of the Crown.

Mostly county council owned, but there are also many privately owned.

Chippy_Minton_2

Premier wrote: »

Are you suggesting local authorities, police & ambulance vehicles are all driving around uninsured?

Alot of Police forces don't bother as the cost to reapir vehicles is often cheaper than the yearly policy plus excess.

Chippy_Minton_2

When someone is charged with the offence of no insurance one of the main elements of the charge is the vehicle was driven without any suirity to 3rd party risks. See #46 .2.

There is no requirement to have a minimum of 3rd party insurance providing that you can afford to deposit a large some of cash.

So even when refering to the general public the phrase "you can't ever drive a car without insurance" is wrong.

raskazz

Premier wrote: »

Your post was in response to my question

Given your response, isn't it, er... "somewhat ridiculous" that local authorities and police services are wasting taxpayers money purchasing insurance?

Perhaps the government should insist they don't if the government are happy to foot the bill for those local authorities and police services that you suggest don't purchase insurance cover.

I'm not particularly interested in debating local authorities purchasing decisions but the point still stands that it would make no sense to compel them to purchase insurance as defined in the Road Traffic Act. This is not equivalent to saying that local authorities should not purchase insurance at all, and as such I haven't made such a claim.

What the exemption allows, for example, is the authority to self-insure, say, up to £250,000 of each loss but then purchase insurance against calamitous losses over £250,000 (effectively stop loss reinsurance) from an insurer who is not an authorised insurer under the RTA (i.e. is not a member of the MIB, which a lot of reinsurers aren't).

raskazz

Andy_L wrote: »

AIUI local gov are obliged to have the legal minimum (ie 3rd party) and can make a commercial dicision to go fully comp or not whilst central gov can use crown immunity to ignore the legal minimum & go totally self insured

Can you provide any evidence to back this up? The statute is clear:

"(2) Section 143 does not apply—
(a) to a vehicle owned—
(i) by the council of a county or county district in England and Wales, the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a London borough, the Inner London Education Authority, or a joint authority (other than a police authority) established by Part IV of the [1985 c. 51.] Local Government Act 1985,"