Do I need insurance?

Inactive

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Good news all round for 2011. Train fares up too.

:rotfl::rotfl::D

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Go and read the RTA the offence is use not drive.

if the OP isnt USEING it or permitting anyone to use that doesnt apply! the act doesnt specify that a vehicle must be kept off road if no third party risk cover is in place.

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. E+W+S
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2)If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

like i said if he isnt useing or permitting anyone to drive it and its soley sat outside the house waisting away, it can be kept on the road outside his property as that what he paid tax (untill tax runs out) for if he intended to keep it and still not use it then surrendering the tax and declairing sorn and kept off the road would be his only choice. but he's not he's scrapping the car in 2 days. its tax and tested, he can cancel the policy if he wishes as long as NO ONE USES the vehicle.

where would there be proof in court for a police officer if he knocked the OP's door and said i'm giving you a FPN for that vehicle outside your home because i suspect your useing it. and it would only be suspicion and curcumstantial evidence.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

atrixblue.-MFR-. has gone quiet for some reason.

thats because im not as loud as you.

Gene_Hunt_2

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

if the OP isnt USEING it or permitting anyone to use that doesnt apply! the act doesnt specify that a vehicle must be kept off road if no third party risk cover is in place.

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. E+W+S
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2)If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

like i said if he isnt useing or permitting anyone to drive it and its soley sat outside the house waisting away, it can be kept on the road outside his property as that what he paid tax (untill tax runs out) for if he intended to keep it and still not use it then surrendering the tax and declairing sorn and kept off the road would be his only choice. but he's not he's scrapping the car in 2 days. its tax and tested, he can cancel the policy if he wishes as long as NO ONE USES the vehicle.

where would there be proof in court for a police officer if he knocked the OP's door and said i'm giving you a FPN for that vehicle outside your home because i suspect your useing it. and it would only be suspicion and curcumstantial evidence.

I put the offence in red for you.;)

Gene_Hunt_2

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

thats because im not as loud as you.

Get broadband your dial up is too slow for google.

Inactive

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

I put the offence in red for you.;)

He doesn't understand what " use " means.

cyclonebri1

Inactive wrote: »

He is more likely to remind you.. :rotfl::D

I have no grudge with Inactive as he well knows.;)

Genie, you however I find ill imformed, a tad too offensive but most of all just too dam nausiating.

But like I said in a previous post, you can't ignore dog crup on your shoe:rotfl:

Gene_Hunt_2

Inactive wrote: »

He doesn't understand what " use " means.

Obviously.

I did tell him it said use and not drive.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Inactive wrote: »

....and things are getting even tighter;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

when this law is intriduced, then it will be compulsory to surrender the tax and declair SORN to prevent USE. but as it stands you would have to use a vehicle in order to be done with no insurance. they (the police) connot issue a FPN and prosecute for IN10 if you are not using it or permitting to use it and the car is sat firmly outside the door step. first of all they would have to prove in court you drove it or permitted someone else to drive it by catching it being driven, USED, on a public highway!! not like you guys are saying that it need to be insured to be sat outside the house NOT being used

Gene_Hunt_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I have no grudge with Inactive as he well knows.;)

Genie, you however I find ill imformed, a tad too offensive but most of all just too dam nausiating.

But like I said in a previous post, you can't ignore dog crup on your shoe:rotfl:

Hello bri:wave:I knew you'd be along soon.

But even you know atrixblue.-MFR-. is wrong don't you?;);)