No fault accident to my parked car no tax

caprikid1

TooManyPoints said:

Why would they?

Why would they what ? 
Almost certainly they will have to pay out, they slammed into someones property through their negligence, not much getting out of it, No Tax does not devalue a vehicle, no MOT does but it does not prevent liability.

The_Fat_Controller

Just playing Devil's Advocate.
The council vehicle hit an untaxed vehicle on a public road, which by virtue of not having any tax should not have been there in the first place.
SORN should have been declared and it should have been on private property.

caprikid1

The_Fat_Controller said:

Just playing Devil's Advocate.
The council vehicle hit an untaxed vehicle on a public road, which by virtue of not having any tax should not have been there in the first place.
SORN should have been declared and it should have been on private property.

Good luck with arguing that in court next time you hit and untaxed parked car.

The_Fat_Controller

It's known as the Middle East or Thailand defence.
The accident wouldn't have happened if the foreigner (substitute untaxed car) wasn't there.

Sandtree

The_Fat_Controller said:

Just playing Devil's Advocate.
The council vehicle hit an untaxed vehicle on a public road, which by virtue of not having any tax should not have been there in the first place.
SORN should have been declared and it should have been on private property.

Its a static object that is there to be seen and avoided irrespective if it should be there or not doesnt give you an excuse to drive into it.

When doing liability training many years ago one of the test cases they gave us at the end was a case where a guy was driving up hill in winter and as blinded by the sun he claimed to be doing circa 20mph in a 30mph zone. He hit a lamp post that was sited about 1m into the road.

It turns out the council had asked its contractors to cut the pavement back and widen the road by 1.25m and to facilitate this resite 11 lampposts which they had done to the letter and so had left the 12th in its original position even though it meant it was now 1m into the road.

The court, from memory decided the driver was 90% to blame and the council 10% to blame for the accident and explicitly stated that the only reason the council has been held to blame at all is because of the heightened duty of care that they have over the average person. 

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

The_Fat_Controller said:

Just playing Devil's Advocate.
The council vehicle hit an untaxed vehicle on a public road, which by virtue of not having any tax should not have been there in the first place.
SORN should have been declared and it should have been on private property.

Its a static object that is there to be seen and avoided irrespective if it should be there or not doesnt give you an excuse to drive into it.

When doing liability training many years ago one of the test cases they gave us at the end was a case where a guy was driving up hill in winter and as blinded by the sun he claimed to be doing circa 20mph in a 30mph zone. He hit a lamp post that was sited about 1m into the road.

It turns out the council had asked its contractors to cut the pavement back and widen the road by 1.25m and to facilitate this resite 11 lampposts which they had done to the letter and so had left the 12th in its original position even though it meant it was now 1m into the road.

The court, from memory decided the driver was 90% to blame and the council 10% to blame for the accident and explicitly stated that the only reason the council has been held to blame at all is because of the heightened duty of care that they have over the average person. 

Do you have a link to that court case?
If not it's no use and it's just some random saying it on the interweb. 

Sandtree

williamgriffin said:
Do you have a link to that court case?

If not it's no use and it's just some random saying it on the interweb. 

Take it, and everything else stated on this thread and forum, as the second... I'm sure its somewhere in the attic but havent done motor claims for many years

TooManyPoints

Why would they what ? 

See the post immediately above, i.e. "If they find out the vehicle wasn't taxed and on a public road they may get a little more interested."

KimJongUn88

The_Fat_Controller said:

It's known as the Middle East or Thailand defence.
The accident wouldn't have happened if the foreigner (substitute untaxed car) wasn't there.

It’s not a valid defence. Same as hitting an uninsured car. If you’re at fault, you can’t escape liability merely because the vehicle is untaxed or uninsured.

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

williamgriffin said:
Do you have a link to that court case?

If not it's no use and it's just some random saying it on the interweb. 

Take it, and everything else stated on this thread and forum, as the second... I'm sure its somewhere in the attic but havent done motor claims for many years

Is that take everyone you say with a pinch of salt?