Road tax is it a joke? Where can I complain.

Wig

Lirin wrote: »

NI may be different then to England- mine runs for a straight 12 months, and was bought on the 22nd of the month. Went back through older ones, they're the same- I get 12 months regardless of when I buy it.
We have a slightly different tax system though to rest of UK, this looks like another oddity.
Ta for the reply!

So you bought it on the 22nd
when does it say it expires?

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

You know that you aren't allowed to display the new disc until it is valid,

AFAIK there is no law saying you can't put a 'future' disc in your windscreen. If you have no current disc you will still be committing failing to display, but there's no problem displaying the future one if you want to. Many people put both on display so they won't forget to change them over at the stroke of midnight on the 31st.

And you can't get a refund for a month of tax that has started, so you would have to get it sent off pretty sharpish.

He doesn't have a disc to refund.

bigjl

Paradigm wrote: »

Errr...you kind of inferred it here along with

Pretty misleading I would have said.



You've lost me?? Not having a MOT does not invalidate motor insurance so why would anyone be charged?



But the ombudsman is the real world & has ruled on this subject... as has been pointed out several times recently.

There really are a few on this forum that live in online cukoo land, what a copper choses to charge or report you for has absolutely nothing to do with the Insurance Ombudsman, or the CPS or the Court or the Judge. A copper will report you for offences that he believes you may have commited, he won't phone a friend, or Google it, or check on MSE, he will just report you for it, or arrest you.

Do you ever see a copper phoning the Ombudsman at the side of the road? No.

You can even see it on some of the reality TV programmes, Police Interceptors, or something like that, is one.

When somebody gets pulled over and gets their car impounded, as in the coppers opinion they feel that not having an MOT and not being enroute to the MOT station for a test etc. Could possibly invalidate the Insurance policy, the Insurance Ombudsman can only rule on what it feels is an unfair decision or unfair T&C included in a policy, this may work in getting the payout from a claim, but would it work in a court of law when the court might just take the view that it does invalidate the policy for the sake of the road traffic act, but not for the third party liability.

It may also infer that the car is not properly maintained. Is there a clause in the policy which states that the car must be maintained properly, part of this could be ensuring that the car is MOTed.

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

When exactly did I say that?

I said that I have known people who have been nicked for two specific reasons and had the car impounded by the old bill, remember that what happens in court is very different to what happens at the side of the road, if a copper pulls you over for no MOT then he may just charge you with no Insurance, that doesn't mean the charge will stick or the CPS will or won't drop the case, but it surely means that you will have to walk home and you will have a large bill for the impound and tow.

Lets not confuse case law or the opinion of the ombudsman with what actually happens in the real world, after all not many people that are arrested and charged with crimes actually make it to court.

I think you make a good point. We should all realise that police are sometimes not very clever and make mistakes. Just look at the OP who was advised by the police that his insurance would not be valid if he has no tax disc. However maybe this was a civilian staffed call centre or a policeperson who does not go out on patrol very much. I have seen one of these cops on cameras shows where a female cop said "no MOT = No Insurance" it was the one with an Irish guy driving his dads white transit van, I think it's on youtube. We discussed it here in a thread I think.

One can only hope that if faced with such a situation:
A) it will be in 'business hours' and you can phone your insurer, but even the insurers don't know the rules on this one. But if the insurer withdrew cover you could haul the insurer over the coals with ombudsman to get compensation.

out of hours, you could ask to speak to the police inspector on duty and hopefully the police station higher ranking officers would know the laws better.

C) If it did get towed, you could fight the police for a refund, as it was towed incorrectly.

bigjl

Wig wrote: »

AFAIK there is no law saying you can't put a 'future' disc in your windscreen. If you have no current disc you will still be committing failing to display, but there's no problem displaying the future one if you want to. Many people put both on display so they won't forget to change them over at the stroke of midnight on the 31st.


He doesn't have a disc to refund.

The second bit was a bit of general information that you can't get a refund for partly used months.

And, yes, you aren't allowed to put the taxdisc on the vehicle before it becomes valid, as the car isn't taxed. It could be thought that the disc was being used fraudulently, as by displaying the disc before the day it is due to start wrongly infers that the car has a current taxdisc.

And no, I can't be bothered to look up the information, but after driving for over 25 years and having to live without Google, some things you learn by experience.

And yes I know somebody that got caught out doing just that, as he wanted to try and get a bit of extra tax, though this was before the database of road tax being established.

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

You can even see it on some of the reality TV programmes, Police Interceptors, or something like that, is one.

I've only seen it once on cops with cams shows and even that one my memory is hazy. On the contrary I have seen many times on cops with cams shows where the copper got it right, and checked for MOT found no MOT, but then checked for insurance found to be insured, and then let the driver go with a FPN for no MOT.

this may work in getting the payout from a claim, but would it work in a court of law when the court might just take the view that it does invalidate the policy for the sake of the road traffic act, but not for the third party liability.

Any court would have to IMHO abide by the ombudsman's ruling which insurers are bound by. Remember that insurers are not allowed to withdraw cover for no MOT, if they are not allowed to withdraw cover then the driver is insured, and any court would have to accept that.

It may also infer that the car is not properly maintained. Is there a clause in the policy which states that the car must be maintained properly, part of this could be ensuring that the car is MOTed.

No, a court would never make that leap. To show a car is unroadworthy evidence would have to be shown to the court that it actually was unroadworthy not merely the fact that it hadn't been taken for some obscure test within the last 12 months.

olly300

SUESMITH wrote: »

can i just ask why the dealer you bought it off didn't tax it for you? did i miss something as this would have been the most obvious thing to do.

Seems to be:
1. Private Sale
2. Unplanned purchase

As any sensible person would ask if the car came with a tax disc and if not how to obtain one if they needed to drive the car that day.

Wig

bigjl wrote: »

And, yes, you aren't allowed to put the taxdisc on the vehicle before it becomes valid, as the car isn't taxed. It could be thought that the disc was being used fraudulently, as by displaying the disc before the day it is due to start wrongly infers that the car has a current taxdisc.

And no, I can't be bothered to look up the information, but after driving for over 25 years and having to live without Google, some things you learn by experience.

And yes I know somebody that got caught out doing just that, as he wanted to try and get a bit of extra tax, though this was before the database of road tax being established.

I am of the opinion that no law exists that says you cannot put a future disc on display per se. and hence, no law exists that stops you from putting two discs side by side. As to the argument that a single disc on display that was a future disc, could be seen as attempted fraud....... I don't think they could have any chance of making that stick in court as the disc clearly says the start date and the finish date. The only offence is failing to display. I know what you're saying, I just don't think there would be any chance of making such a charge stick in court.

Wig

Ever heard of shifts?

Deleted_User wrote: »

Post Office is not a factory.

It was my understanding that the comment 'ever heard of shifts' was supposed to refer to the people who work nights and cannot get to a PO because they are usually asleep.

[Deleted User]

Wig wrote: »

Ever heard of shifts?


It was my understanding that the comment 'ever heard of shifts' was supposed to refer to the people who work nights and cannot get to a PO because they are usually asleep.

But they'll still have days off where they can do errants like taxing cars.

Anyway I already posted a solution above where by allowing road tax to be bought over the PayPoint network. The same way as you can buy TV tax this way now.