Bad surprise - untaxed vehicle

Gadfium

JohnBravo wrote: »

This pattern is too obvious too me and don't tell me that there is no conspiracies when it comes to money.

Tinfoil hat time!

JohnBravo wrote: »

They should scrap their reminders as well if this is unreliable and if they do not take any responsibility.

The responsibility is yours, not theirs. part of owning and using a vehicle is the responsibility of adhering to maintenance schedules, MOT schedules, tax schedules. You surely wouldn't blame Kwik Fit if you got a ticket for having a bald tyre, would you?

JohnBravo wrote: »

Also I am sure the number of scrapped cars in result of pounding has increased and someone is doing this dodgy thing in untraceable manner, geographically random. My car is old and who knows if they haven't marked it as perfect for pounding, so it can get scrapped. "Lets freeze reminders of these poor people!"
Someone at DVLA is able to pull these levers.

Sorry but many drivers do not release their cars once pounded, because sometimes it is more than £600 and if the car is worth £1200 it makes 50% of the value. More scrapped cars, a bigger sale of new cars, more people with car mortgages.

Now you're descending deep into woo-woo territory. The DVLA is in a conspiracy with scrap metal merchants and are targetting older cars? Prove it, rather than making wild accusations to deter yourself from admitting that you got your dates wrong.

bazster

JohnBravo wrote: »

This is about something else that happened as a coincidence. With a tax disk still on my windscreen probably I would not miss that date.
And tax discs have been scrapped the same year the remainders have been lost.

I'm sure some reminders have been lost every year for the decades that reminders have been in use. If you send out that much mail inevitably some will get lost.

You are being paranoid. Your lost reminder is no evidence of a deliberate failure to issue them, particularly since the rest of us, it seems, have been receiving them.

Gadfium

Quentin wrote: »

You think wrong

You don't invalidate your insurance just by no mot or no tax.

Correct. The Insco still has to cover third-party losses. If the incident could be shown to be related to poor maintenance, then the Insco can refuse to cover your losses and can take court action to recover the amount paid to the third-party from you.
Also, the small print of the insurance policy may make it a condition that a valid MOT is in place. That can be used to invalidate a policy.

Quentin

Gadfium wrote: »

Correct. The Insco still has to cover third-party losses. If the incident could be shown to be related to poor maintenance, then the Insco can refuse to cover your losses and can take court action to recover the amount paid to the third-party from you.
Also, the small print of the insurance policy may make it a condition that a valid MOT is in place. That can be used to invalidate a policy.

Lots wrong!


1) They cannot "refuse cover" and chase you to reimburse them if they discover poor maintenance of the car. (The only circumstances where they can do this is if the car is found to be not roadworthy in relation to the incident - far cry from "poor maintenance"


2) It makes no difference what the small print says about having a valid MOT. Such a condition is unenforceable.


Insurers know this, but it doesn't stop unscrupulous ones trying it on by including such a condition to use against the gullible.

Gadfium

Quentin wrote: »

Lots wrong!


1) They cannot "refuse cover" and chase you to reimburse them if they discover poor maintenance of the car. (The only circumstances where they can do this is if the car is found to be not roadworthy in relation to the incident - far cry from "poor maintenance"

That was my (badly made!:o) point. If the incident was as a direct result of something that would have caused an MOT failure, then the Insco could follow the OP for their costs. An example would be bald tyres or excessively worn brake linings- both are examples of poor maintenance and would be MOT failures. If the OP had to make a claim and the cause of the incident could be shown to be bald tyres or bad brakes, then he would be on a very sticky wicket.

All in all, its a bit of a distraction to the OP's assertion though that he is not responsible for ensuring that he pays his tax and MOTs his car on time, and that it is down to the DVLA to constantly nag him to do so.

Quentin

Gadfium wrote: »

That was my (badly made!:o) point. If the incident was as a direct result of something that would have caused an MOT failure, then the Insco could follow the OP for their costs. An example would be bald tyres or excessively worn brake linings- both are examples of poor maintenance and would be MOT failures. If the OP had to make a claim and the cause of the incident could be shown to be bald tyres or bad brakes, then he would be on a very sticky wicket.

The point you seem to be missing is that having/not having a valid MOT is irrelevant to your examples.


(You can have an unroadworthy car which has a valid MOT!)


And your other point also needed correction (the myth that insurers can invalidate your policy for no MOT certificate if they say so in the "small print")

Gadfium

Quentin wrote: »

The point you seem to be missing is that having/not having a valid MOT is irrelevant to your examples.
(You can have an unroadworthy car which has a valid MOT!)

I think that we are going round in circles here.
An MOT would have picked up on the examples used, especially if the MOT due date was close to the date of the incident.

Quentin wrote: »

And your other point also needed correction (the myth that insurers can invalidate your policy for no MOT certificate if they say so in the "small print")

Well, it's a clause in some contracts that you are free to enter into or not as is your choice.
You are free to try and boil the oceans here if you wish:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=no+mot+invalidate+insurance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=SjOuVdjpEOTZ7gb_4YyABA

Back to the OP point, it's his responsibility to check on the due dates. Driving without an MOT can net you a £1K fine. Ignoring the insurance question, its not worth not getting a calendar and marking on it when it's due

Quentin

Gadfium wrote: »

I think that we are going round in circles here.
An MOT would have picked up on the examples used, especially if the MOT due date was close to the date of the incident.



Well, it's a clause in some contracts that you are free to enter into or not as is your choice.
You are free to try and boil the oceans here if you wish:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=no+mot+invalidate+insurance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=SjOuVdjpEOTZ7gb_4YyABA

Back to the OP point, it's his responsibility to check on the due dates. Driving without an MOT can net you a £1K fine. Ignoring the insurance question, its not worth not getting a calendar and marking on it when it's due

You misunderstand the situation regarding the MOT test - it only shows that the vehicle is compliant at the time of the test. Nothing else. It certainly doesn't prove a vehicle is roadworthy days/weeks/months later.


I am not attempting to boil oceans, merely stop others taking on board your ill advised "advice".


Your link to Octagon insurance is just an example of an unscrupulous company as previously mentioned.


The FOS will not uphold that clause. Thus it is unenforceable. They know it, but still try it on and no doubt gullible people meekly accept it!


The penalty for no MOT is irrelevant. The point is that you wrongly contest no MOT eguals insurance invalidated. It doesn't.

JohnBravo

Whatever lets scrap DVLA reminders. They send I think about 50 millions of letters every year to fail to notify the owners.
I am not making this up.
The car industry is going this way and in the very next decade you will be replacing cars like iPhones every 6 months and you will continue singing your legal bla bla.

Scrap metal merchants are actually small fishes in this ecosystem.

Just picked up my car from a car pound with damaged (bend and scratched) wheel arches. I am sure these guys already assumed that this car is going to be crashed.

bazster

JohnBravo wrote: »

Whatever lets scrap DVLA reminders. They send I think about 50 millions of letters every year to fail to notify the owners.
I am not making this up.

I think you are.

JohnBravo wrote: »

Just picked up my car from a car pound with damaged (bend and scratched) wheel arches. I am sure these guys already assumed that this car is going to be crashed.

So stop whining and sue them.