Trade plate rules

dacouch

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Even you highlighted the fact she said they carry the same insurance cover as a trade policy.

They don't they cover the fact the vehicle is not registered or taxed.

I highlighted those sentence in reply to your post.

What she said was

Sally_A wrote: »

The trade plates are on the MID, so they do carry the same insurance cover as the Motor Trade policy. A trade plate is costed on the policy as an average car the said motor trader would deal in. {

I've highlighted the relevant word which gives context to her post.

If she had said "The trade plates are on the MID, so they do carry the same insurance cover as a Motor Trade policy". then you might have an arguement.

colino

Whether a traders stock is on MID or not, if they have proper Traders Insurance, it is covered. Your average bobby won't know the difference, but their white-cap pals will. It so happens that a lot of trade insurers are now asking for all stock to be listed within 48 hours, but most of them asked for that notification to them anyway, but it still doesn't make MID the absolute point of record.
I'm amazed at the abuse of trade plates though, I bet a penny to a pound it's not the owner of them (the pair) that's at it though. They both have to be used and visible and used for the trade. Anything else will be a lazy employee risking his bosses livelihood.

skivenov

To be fair, abuse of trade plates refers more to using them for purposes other than their intended use (eg to save taxing a personal vehicle) than failing to display the rear plate.

I routinely don't put my back plate in if I'm driving a vehicle with numberplates. It's not laziness, it's just mitigating the risk of losing the back one, which would stop me moving unreg'd vehicles.

In three years as a plate driver, I've passed traffic and normal police cars most days, and been pulled by traffic officers more than once, and I don't recall any of them evening mentioning the lack of a back plate.

306chris

skivenov wrote: »

Sally A - Convoying between a pair of plates is a bit of a grey area legally, but I suspect that if you intentionally drove into a car in convoy, you would still be charged with dangerous driving.

The police generally cast a blind eye to convoying, as the drivers would be insured on a traders policy with or without the plates, and generally it's registerred cars that get convoyed, so the biggest offence would be no road tax, which they'd probably not be bothered about. I have driven past a police traffic car whilst leading a convoy and they barely batted an eyelid.

Not a grey area at all, It's a very naughty thing to be doing.

I spent three years as a trade plate driver and the only time people do the convoying is to save on the number of trade plates.

Sometimes the police just aren't on the ball. I once picked up a transit (not registered) and forgot to put a plate on the back and was followed by ANPR car which I'm assuming didn't set off any bells and whistles as there wasnt a plate for it to pick up on.

When moving cars without tax they should have a plate on front (technically it should cover the front number plate) and a plate on the rear. There really isn't an excuse for not putting a plate on the rear other than being poorly equipped e.g. not carrying bungees or window suckers with you.

If you were in a convoy and the middle vehicle got hit I'd like to see you explain it to the insurance company.

Sally_A

Agree 306Chris, I'm not condoning it, just mentioning something I have seen. Hence me mentioning in post #10, I'd love to pull out and hit a middle vehicle just for the hell of it (but I would still end up as at fault), however a multi vehicle shunt could take some explaining on the claim form.

Sally_A

Leftinamess - age 25 to 70 is standard on the Unaccompanied Demo endorsement, however I have arranged it for 21 - 70, and even 18 - 70 (although 18 - 70 tends to be more for motorcycle dealers).

Chopper_Read

Sally_A wrote: »

Agree 306Chris, I'm not condoning it, just mentioning something I have seen. Hence me mentioning in post #10, I'd love to pull out and hit a middle vehicle just for the hell of it (but I would still end up as at fault), however a multi vehicle shunt could take some explaining on the claim form.

Wouldn't take much explaining at all. Phone your company up and claim direct from them. Do you think in those circumstances your company would be bothered the vehicles have no tax?

Sally_A

Chopper Read - if I hit someone parked on double yellows, it would be my fault. So pulling out into the side of a possibly insured/untaxed vehicle, it would still be my fault.

Can't believe I've just wasted 30 seconds of my life responding.

You seem to comment a lot on motoring/insurance - may I ask what your job/qualifications/knowledge is/are?