Car declared SORN but....

Tilt

Is this argument answering the OP's question? I think not.

Silver-Surfer_2

Tilt wrote: »

Is this argument answering the OP's question? I think not.

Can anyone answer the OPs question? It's not about what anyone else would do, it's a matter for them whether they report it or not.

sharalee99

I'm sorry I seem to have created a heated debate here.
I think if I see them in it again, deliberately breaking the law, I will report them.
Blooming annoys me that we have to pay, and they think they're exempt for some reason.

Tilt

sharalee99 wrote: »

I'm sorry I seem to have created a heated debate here.
I think if I see them in it again, deliberately breaking the law, I will report them.
Blooming annoys me that we have to pay, and they think they're exempt for some reason.

No you havn't. It's quite common for a few members to de-rail a thread by trying to point score with each other in a "i'm right, your wrong" type of fashion. The 'debate' about who's insurance policy says what in relation to road worthiness was quite irrelevant to the thread as it's highly likely the car isn't insured at all if it's been un-taxed for so long.

My advice would be to pass on your concerns about the insurance status to the police as well as reporting the car to the DVLA through the links I provided earlier.

Do let us know how it pans out though.

pauln1

As usual DPA being cited incorrectly:

The Act's definition of "personal data" covers any data that can be used to identify a living individual. Anonymised or aggregated data is not regulated by the Act, providing the anonymisation or aggregation has not been done in a reversible way. Individuals can be identified by various means including their name and address, telephone number or Email address. The Act applies only to data which is held, or intended to be held, on computers ('equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose'), or held in a 'relevant filing system'.[3]

..whether a vehicle is insured is not data that can be used to identify a living individual - therefore not covered by DPA.

They just want you to cough up £4 to look up another vehicle.

Silver-Surfer_2

pauln1 wrote: »

As usual DPA being cited incorrectly:

The Act's definition of "personal data" covers any data that can be used to identify a living individual. Anonymised or aggregated data is not regulated by the Act, providing the anonymisation or aggregation has not been done in a reversible way. Individuals can be identified by various means including their name and address, telephone number or Email address. The Act applies only to data which is held, or intended to be held, on computers ('equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose'), or held in a 'relevant filing system'.[3]

..whether a vehicle is insured is not data that can be used to identify a living individual - therefore not covered by DPA.

They just want you to cough up £4 to look up another vehicle.

Very nice of you to join up to tell us.

arcon5

What's the reg number and I'll click the naughty box?

Joe_Horner

pauln1 wrote: »

As usual DPA being cited incorrectly:

The Act's definition of "personal data" covers any data that can be used to identify a living individual. Anonymised or aggregated data is not regulated by the Act, providing the anonymisation or aggregation has not been done in a reversible way. Individuals can be identified by various means including their name and address, telephone number or Email address. The Act applies only to data which is held, or intended to be held, on computers ('equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose'), or held in a 'relevant filing system'.[3]

..whether a vehicle is insured is not data that can be used to identify a living individual - therefore not covered by DPA.

They just want you to cough up £4 to look up another vehicle.

True but it's not quite that straightforward.

By posting that notice on the site they're denying permission for anyone to access their system for cars belonging to others. They're perfectly entitled to do that and don't actually have to give a reason, so the validity of the reason doesn't matter.

Having been told that you're not allowed access by that notice (reason given is irrelevant) the simple act of going ahead without permission becomes an offence under the Computer Misuse Act.

sharalee99

Just a quick update. This problem seems to partially resolved itself. One of the cars has been sold-hooray! The second car, (and 2 others belonging to other residents in the same boat but not being driven) had notices put on them saying they had been abandoned and HAD to be removed. They are still here tho. He is still deliberately driving one of them. He has bought an MR2 which only has 2 seats-they are a family of three. So when they all have to go out together he is still using the clunker. It does not have insurance, my husband checked.
I'm not going to do anything I've decided as I think someone else on the street got there before me, and wheels (a wee joke there) seem to be in motion

Tilt

sharalee99 wrote: »

Just a quick update. This problem seems to partially resolved itself. One of the cars has been sold-hooray! The second car, (and 2 others belonging to other residents in the same boat but not being driven) had notices put on them saying they had been abandoned and HAD to be removed. They are still here tho. He is still deliberately driving one of them. He has bought an MR2 which only has 2 seats-they are a family of three. So when they all have to go out together he is still using the clunker. It does not have insurance, my husband checked.
I'm not going to do anything I've decided as I think someone else on the street got there before me, and wheels (a wee joke there) seem to be in motion

Let's hope that he dosn't crash into some other poor innocent road user before he finally get's caught.