Police, Road Tax/ Works Van

MarkyMarkD

Chesnut1 wrote: »

how many people in my OH situation on the hard shoulder could honestly say that the tax disc would be on their mind?

Loading goods from one vehicle to another on the motorway hard shoulder is illegal, dangerous and stupid.

He should not have been changing vehicles on the hard shoulder at all - he should have waited until the vehicle was recovered and done the transfer off the motorway in a safe place.

Conor_3

mrbadexample wrote: »

You'll notice that our perfect motorist Conor goes a bit quiet when his "facts" are completely dispelled.

So because I actually aren't a friendless chump who is tied to their computer 24/7 and therefore haven't answered immediately, I'm accused of avoiding something?

I was posting from the point of a HGV driver who is taught that the driver is fully responsible for the vehicle. I guess car drivers think they're exempt from the law.

And excuse me if I don't take what someone posts in a forum as gospel. Quite a lot of the information you find on the internet is wrong. Regarding the MOT and insurance, its certainly different from what other HGV drivers have found as they've been hauled up before a Magistrate.

mrbadexample

Conor wrote: »

I was posting from the point of a HGV driver who is taught that the driver is fully responsible for the vehicle. I guess car drivers think they're exempt from the law.

1. It wasn't an HGV.
2. The driver of an HGV vehicle is not fully responsible for it. (I'll come back to this.)

Conor wrote: »

And excuse me if I don't take what someone posts in a forum as gospel. Quite a lot of the information you find on the internet is wrong.

Yes, yours, mostly. :rolleyes:

Conor wrote: »

Regarding the MOT and insurance, its certainly different from what other HGV drivers have found as they've been hauled up before a Magistrate.

Can you substantiate this with any further details? As I said previously, it is a legitimate defence if the driver has no reason to believe the vehicle is not tested or insured, and is not in a position to be able to MOT / insure it. The example of the warehouseman I gave earlier is accurate. Obviously, if it were the transport manager who popped out to do an urgent delivery, then he could be expected to know that the MOT had expired, and is in a position to have the vehicle MOTd. He would be liable. The same would apply to an HGV owner/driver.

Let's consider your earlier post:

Conor wrote: »

That's 100% correct, wazza. The driver is responsible for EVERYTHING to do with the vehicle they are driving, regardless of who owns it and whether it's a company vehicle or not. The driver is responsible for ensuring it is taxed, MOT'd, insured, roadworthy and not overloaded and meets all requirements under the "Construction and Use" and "Road Traffic Act". It is nobody else's responsibility except the driver and if the driver cannot meet the requirements, it is they who must refuse to drive the vehicle. The "my boss told me I had to or I'd lose my job" is no defence.

When I said that's not entirely accurate, I was being very generous. Actually, there are holes in this big enough to drive your truck through. The driver is not necessarily "responsible for EVERYTHING to do with the vehicle they are driving." We have already discussed the MOT / tax / insurance - let's move on to: "meets all requirements under the "Construction and Use"."

Take your truck for example. When you first use the vehicle, on any given day, being the perfect driver you first perform your walk-round check. You check the lights, tyres, wipers, fluid levels etc. You are NOT expected to be a mechanic. You are NOT expected to crawl under the vehicle and check underneath. It is a walk-round check, nothing more. Everything appears to be in order, so you dutifully complete your defect report - nil defects.

Later in the day you are pulled over for an inspection. This reveals that you have a cracked brake disc, and are therefore not complying with The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. You are given a prohibition notice. Is it your fault?

Conor wrote: »

It is nobody else's responsibility except the driver

This is quite simply not true. You are a driver, not a mechanic (although you're probably both :rolleyes:). This is the purpose of the 6-weekly maintenance inspections that your company put the vehicle through. A driver would not necessarily be expected to recognise this defect, and is not responsible for it. The company, however, is responsible. Of course, this is just one example. There are many defects which a driver could not reasonably be expected to notice - hence the 6-weekly inspections an HGV is required to undergo.

The only accurate statement in your post was that the driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is not overloaded. At least, it was accurate until you wrote: "It is nobody else's responsibility except the driver" because that isn't true either. It is also the responsibility of the company.

The company say: "Go and collect 6 pallets from Fred Smith"; the driver takes it upon himself to collect 8, and is subsequently found to be overloaded. As well as the driver, the company is liable for the offence (although not necessarily culpable in this example).

Let me know if I can assist you further.

the_big_fact_hunt

as far as as i am aware, the offence of having no road tax is sod all to do with the police, it is a customs and excise fine that you recieve for back duty

MarkyMarkD

That's rubbish. It's a criminal offence to drive an unlicensed vehicle.

cajef

mrbadexample wrote: »

That's not entirely accurate. In the case of no MOT or insurance when driving a company vehicle, it is a legitimate defence if you had no reason to believe it was not MOTd / insured, and you were not in a position to MOT / insure the vehicle.

While not disputing this, could you explain why on a recent TV police programme, they stopped a vehicle as it had come up as not taxed or insured, the driver claimed it was his bosses vehicle and he had just been told to use it that day, the police impounded the vehicle, called the owner and explained, and then the driver was told it was his responsibility as he was driving the vehicle and he had a sixty pound fine and points on his license for driving it.

the_big_fact_hunt

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

That's rubbish. It's a criminal offence to drive an unlicensed vehicle.

then why do they put red prosecution warning notices on the windscreen threatening to report you to Customs and Excise?????

mrbadexample

cajef wrote: »

While not disputing this, could you explain why on a recent TV police programme, they stopped a vehicle as it had come up as not taxed or insured, the driver claimed it was his bosses vehicle and he had just been told to use it that day, the police impounded the vehicle, called the owner and explained, and then the driver was told it was his responsibility as he was driving the vehicle and he had a sixty pound fine and points on his license for driving it.

I don't know. It's not possible to say without being in possession of the full facts of the exact circumstance in question.

cajef

mrbadexample wrote: »

It's not possible to say without being in possession of the full facts of the exact circumstance in question.

Hmm it does seem to very ambiguous, just out of interest I have trawled through various sites trying to find a definitive answer but not appears forthcoming, I reckon we need a lawyer with knowledge of the road traffic act or a specific court judgement to find the exact legal position.:)

flutterbyuk25

the_big_fact_hunt wrote: »

as far as as i am aware, the offence of having no road tax is sod all to do with the police, it is a customs and excise fine that you recieve for back duty

It is a police offence to keep/use an unlicensed vehicle on the public highway.

It is a DVLA offence to not purchase road tax or SORN a vehicle.

Absolutely nothing to do with Customs & Excise!