Scrapping Cars - Is This Allowed?

lucy_w86

Apples2 wrote: »

It does sound harsh but what about the renewal reminders?

Are you saying none were received?

How long had it been uninsured for?

No reminder was sent and it was temp cover. It has been uninsured for a few days.

Apples2

What do you mean "it was temp cover"?

That can only mean a cover note so it would have only been obtained recently so not a chance he could forget.

A Cover Note is issued as a temporary measure until payment is received, schedule compiled etc. where the full documents are received shortly after.

It sounds like he arranged cover and got the Cover Note, but didn't pay.

Is there more to this??

custardy

lucy_w86 wrote: »

His mum lost the log book as she was the last to use the paperwork and it was a genuine mistake with regards to dates and insurance. Yes, he had been in contact with the company about sending off for a new log book. I am not saying they shouldnt be punished but scrapping the car completely?

why would his mother have and be dealing with the V5 for his car?

System

And why did he have to wait for a new V5? You don't need it to get insurance or do you mean he had no tax either?

Apples2

I think the OP means he needed the V5 to prove ownership at the compound with the crusher in

moonrakerz

My son nearly lost his pick-up because of this 14 day rule.

He was taxed, licenced, insured, MoTd - totally legal - when the police stopped him because his Licence had been revoked. They impounded his truck.
He got on to DVLA who immediately admitted that they had made a ****-up.

This is where it got really silly............
The police took him off the road because of what the DVLA computer said, but wouldn't release the vehicle until he had a new licence in his hand !!!!They now wouldn't believe the DVLA computer - only a new licence - but they wouldn't believe his licence when he was stopped.
DVLA then said it would take 3 weeks to issue a new licence !!!!!!

I 'phoned his MP's office who got things sorted with about 2 days to spare.

When he went to collect his truck it wasn't even at the pound where the police had told him it was !!!!
Plus, all this happened in Liverpool - he lives in the South of England.

DVLA got it wrong, but did own up fairly quickly - I thought the police were completely and utterly pathetic ! No one seemed capable of exercising any common sense whatsoever.

No wonder the police are treated with complete disdain by more and more people............

My son's comment, afterwards:- "I wouldn't even p*** on a policeman if I saw one on fire". I really do have to agree with his sentiment !

custardy

moonrakerz wrote: »

My son nearly lost his pick-up because of this 14 day rule.

He was taxed, licenced, insured, MoTd - totally legal - when the police stopped him because his Licence had been revoked. They impounded his truck.
He got on to DVLA who immediately admitted that they had made a ****-up.

This is where it got really silly............
The police took him off the road because of what the DVLA computer said, but wouldn't release the vehicle until he had a new licence in his hand !!!!They now wouldn't believe the DVLA computer - only a new licence - but they wouldn't believe his licence when he was stopped.
DVLA then said it would take 3 weeks to issue a new licence !!!!!!

I 'phoned his MP's office who got things sorted with about 2 days to spare.

When he went to collect his truck it wasn't even at the pound where the police had told him it was !!!!
Plus, all this happened in Liverpool - he lives in the South of England.

DVLA got it wrong, but did own up fairly quickly - I thought the police were completely and utterly pathetic ! No one seemed capable of exercising any common sense whatsoever.

No wonder the police are treated with complete disdain by more and more people............

My son's comment, afterwards:- "I wouldn't even p*** on a policeman if I saw one on fire". I really do have to agree with his sentiment !

yes,but in this case there was no issue with the DVLA

Hammyman

moonrakerz wrote: »

My son's comment, afterwards:- "I wouldn't even p*** on a policeman if I saw one on fire". I really do have to agree with his sentiment !

But you can bet they'll be the first people he rings when his house gets burgled.

Hypocrite.

PsiDOC

It was uninsured. It shouldn't have been on the public road end of story. Oversight or not it's your other half's fault. If the car was on a temporary cover for a few days then surely him, or you would have known it was up, as it was only insured for a small amount of time, not for 12 months.
The reggo document thing? His mummy lost the reggo docs? Oh come on! Is he not capable and responsible enough to look after his own important paperwork?
Either way. It's another uninsured car off the road so that's a win in my book.
Sympathy? Sorry none from here.
You can get insurance anywhere these days, even in the supermarkets. There's no excuse not to have it if you have a car on a public road.
QED.

moonrakerz

Hammyman wrote: »

But you can bet they'll be the first people he rings when his house gets burgled.

Hypocrite.

True - but they will do absolutely zilch - the ONLY reason for ringing the police is to get a crime number for the insurance company.

Not a hypocrite - just a realist !

"CID officers visited the scene of 36 per cent of all burglaries and collected useful information from witnesses in 16 per cent (or 6 per cent of all burglaries).
On average, one or two detectives visited the burglary sites two weeks after the incident, and spent 22 minutes there................ This does not appear to be cost-effective."

http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume1/005.pdf