Interview with insurance our car was stolen..

dunstonh

That was later admitted to be just dunstonh's "impression", and was incorrect.

or correct if you go by road traffic act

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

or correct if you go by road traffic act

The RTA does not require married women to either take their husband's surname or get a new licence after they are married.

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

The RTA does not require married women to either take their husband's surname or get a new licence after they are married.

No, but if the woman does take their husband's surname (which I assume the OP did as she refers to her 'maiden name') they are required to notify the DVLA.

Quentin

Where does it say tha in the RTA? (It doesn't - rhetorical question)

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

Where does it say tha in the RTA? (It doesn't - rhetorical question)

Well, what is does say is:

"(4) Where the name or address of the licence holder as specified in a licence ceases to be correct, its holder must forthwith surrender the licence to the Secretary of State and provide him with particulars of the alterations falling to be made in the name or address and, in the case of a provisional licence as respects which the prescribed conditions are satisfied, with a statement of his sex and date of birth.

(5) A person who fails to comply with the duty under subsection (4) above is guilty of an offence."

I interpret the situation as follows: If a woman gets married and if she chooses to take her husband's name (which everyone knows she is not obliged to, and nobody in this thread has suggested otherwise), then the (maiden) name on the licence ceases to be correct. If the DVLA are not notified that the driver has taken her husband's name then an offence has been committed.

Can you please explain your interpretation of the above Section of the statute if you disagree with my reasoning?

Quentin

A woman is perfectly entitled to both retain her maiden name and use her husband's name (or any other). The maiden name is legal. (Any other name but the married one could still be used, but would need deed poll to be legal). (Your original post that the bride's name was changed on marriage and shown in the marriage certificate meant the change had taken place, is just not true - a marriage certificate does not show this)

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

A woman is perfectly entitled to both retain her maiden name and use her husband's name (or any other).

So you are saying that an individual can legally use two different names at will without ever having to notify the DVLA of this? If that is correct, please explain why the Government would pass legislation which would be unenforceable?

Quentin wrote: »

(Your original post that the bride's name was changed on marriage and shown in the marriage certificate meant the change had taken place, is just not true - a marriage certificate does not show this)

Well, if we're being pedantic it wasn't my original post but I accept that one sentence was incorrect.

Quentin

raskazz wrote: »

So you are saying that an individual can legally use two different names at will without ever having to notify the DVLA of this? If that is correct, please explain why the Government would pass legislation which would be unenforceable?

You ask too much of me!

But Harriet Dromey could be a starting point for your campaign to get legislation to help your (pointless) campaign to justify dunston scaring the OP!

DrScotsman

Quentin wrote: »

A woman is perfectly entitled to both retain her maiden name and use her husband's name (or any other).

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that one (in the UK) can have two legal names at any one time?

(Your original post that the bride's name was changed on marriage and shown in the marriage certificate meant the change had taken place, is just not true - a marriage certificate does not show this)

Why have you brought this up again? I already explained how it has no relevance to the matter at hand. Do you think if you prove part of what he says wrong then everything he says is automatically wrong?

Quentin wrote: »

But Harriet Dromey could be a starting point for your campaign to get legislation to help your (pointless) campaign to justify dunston scaring the OP!

More strawman. No one's trying to scare the OP.