New Car No Tax Disc

jrrowleyws

Wig wrote: »

No, most say, just "roadworthy", and that does not mean MOT. I just checked Endslieghs policy and they do say roadworthy and where regulations require a valid MOT.

Did you really not believe me? :rolleyes:

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

it depends on the PO.
i know of a few dealers who can do this as they are known to their local PO.
however a PO is within their rights to refuse a home printed covernote/policy

Don't be silly, the PO have no 'right' to refuse to accept a valid certificate. If an insurance certificate is valid the PO must accept it.

If the PO have any doubts over the validity of a certificate, then they have procedures to follow, which do not include telling someone to go away. If a PO clerk is doing that, then it is just that they are not trained or cannot be bothered to follow the correct procedure.

Wig

harz99 wrote: »

And even if one accepts your logic, which I don't, the law abiding motorist will end up paying for all this via the portion of his/her insurance that goes to fund the MIB claims...so thanks very much, again!

What part of the logic don't you agree with?

I'm also trying to work out what your problem is? I condoned driving a newly purchased vehicle home WITH insurance, WITH an MOT, and WITHOUT VED.

And you think this somehow will affect your insurance premiums?

I only mentioned uninsured drivers because you did. I wasn't talking about uninsured drivers. I just wanted to show your overly emotive position on being hit by uninsured drivers was misplaced. When you started talking about being hit by an uninsured driver, as if it was reallly any different (for the victim) from being hit by an insured driver.

Perhaps you would want an insurance system which does not protect innocent people from being hit by uninsured drivers just so you can keep your premiums down? I certainly don't.

Wig

jrrowleyws wrote: »

Did you really not believe me? :rolleyes:

I was curious to see the exact wording.

adouglasmhor

anewman wrote: »

Go at crack of dawn, buy the car, give money, get the keys, get the V5 new owners portion and fill in the v5 form for seller to send away, get yourself on the internet and print out the covernote and hot foot it to the post office with the MOT and covernote - go back to car and collect it.

Only possible problem I can think would be the post office rejecting the self-printed covernote? I am not sure on that issue.

I have never had any problem with that in the past.

harz99

Wig wrote: »

What part of the logic don't you agree with?

I'm also trying to work out what your problem is? I condoned driving a newly purchased vehicle home WITH insurance, WITH an MOT, and WITHOUT VED.

And you think this somehow will affect your insurance premiums?

I only mentioned uninsured drivers because you did. I wasn't talking about uninsured drivers. I just wanted to show your overly emotive position on being hit by uninsured drivers was misplaced. When you started talking about being hit by an uninsured driver, as if it was reallly any different (for the victim) from being hit by an insured driver.

Perhaps you would want an insurance system which does not protect innocent people from being hit by uninsured drivers just so you can keep your premiums down? I certainly don't.

Thank for the benefit of your wisdom once again.

So you condone breaking the laws of this country then, "WITHOUT VED"; of course their is no difference for a victim at the time of an accident as to whether or not the other person was insured - but there can be considerable difference after the event in terms of recovering losses, continued medical care etc.

I have taken the time to read through many of your posts on other threads and you seem to have set yourself up as a font of considerable knowledge regarding motoring law/legislation, yet your own posts indicate you don't know everything.

Perhaps you could share with us the basis of your wisdom, for instance are you a solictor specialising in this area or are you simply giving your opinion; and if you are simply giving a personal opinion it may be better to put that for all to see.

Wig

harz99 wrote: »

So you condone breaking the laws of this country then, "WITHOUT VED";!!

Yes!....... next question

of course their is no difference for a victim at the time of an accident as to whether or not the other person was insured - but there can be considerable difference after the event in terms of recovering losses, continued medical care etc.

There's no difference what so ever(IMHO/IANAL (happy now?)). Take a case to court, you are awarded a settlement by a judge, the judge does not care who is picking up the bill, the award will be the same and will be based on the awards for similar cases that have gone before.

I have taken the time to read through many of your posts on other threads and you seem to have set yourself up as a font of considerable knowledge regarding motoring law/legislation, yet your own posts indicate you don't know everything.

Great, When I'm wrong I say so, when I don't know I like to say so, when I think I do know it would be better to always say IANAL all the time but read on....

Perhaps you could share with us the basis of your wisdom, for instance are you a solictor specialising in this area or are you simply giving your opinion; and if you are simply giving a personal opinion it may be better to put that for all to see.

It's personal opinion. I think you will find that the great majority of internet posters are posting based on personal opinion backed up with a little experience and research, and/or a link with a profession or hobby.

If everyone kept saying on internet forums after every post what their qualifications were or were not, it could be seen as beneficial for all, it could be seen as tiresome waste of time. And as MOST people don't do this I don't see why I should.

Anyone with any amount of common sense would treat anything they read in an internet forum as nothing more than initial advice. They should always either then do more reseach or take real professional advice.

harz99

Wig wrote: »

It's personal opinion. I think you will find that the great majority of internet posters are posting based on personal opinion backed up with a little experience and research, and/or a link with a profession or hobby.............


Anyone with any amount of common sense would treat anything they read in an internet forum as nothing more than initial advice. They should always either then do more reseach or take real professional advice.

Thanks for the reply and clarifying your position. I would hope that common sense does prevail as you suggest, and that people take your recommendation to take real professional advice, especially before breaking the law.

Tozer

Wig wrote: »

Yes!....... next question

There's no difference what so ever(IMHO/IANAL (happy now?)). Take a case to court, you are awarded a settlement by a judge, the judge does not care who is picking up the bill, the award will be the same and will be based on the awards for similar cases that have gone before.

Great, When I'm wrong I say so, when I don't know I like to say so, when I think I do know it would be better to always say IANAL all the time but read on....

It's personal opinion. I think you will find that the great majority of internet posters are posting based on personal opinion backed up with a little experience and research, and/or a link with a profession or hobby.

If everyone kept saying on internet forums after every post what their qualifications were or were not, it could be seen as beneficial for all, it could be seen as tiresome waste of time. And as MOST people don't do this I don't see why I should.

Anyone with any amount of common sense would treat anything they read in an internet forum as nothing more than initial advice. They should always either then do more reseach or take real professional advice.

Wig - a lot of what you say is very sensible. But when you talk about breaking the law because you disagree, you make yourself look a tad silly.

Wig

I disagree.

If I think a law is stupid, I have no qualms about breaking it. I will obviously take steps to not get caught, but if I do get caught, at least I knew what I was doing I was taking a considered risk. MIllions of drivers break the laws of the road everyday deliberately - speeding -.

Tax discs are stupid, they no longer serve the dubious purpose they used to do in the past. That does not mean I drive around in a SORN car, no, that would be stupid because the risk would be too great. However driving home a newly purchased car with a buddy behind you, and at night, is not so great a risk. You tax it in a couple of days and then you have paid tax from the beginning of the month anyway.

Does the government listen and give us legal ways of doing this such like
"It is legal to drive an untaxed unregistered imported car from a port of entry to a place of storage" - yes
"it is legal to drive an untaxed car for an MOT" - yes
Why not
"It is legal to drive an untaxed vehicle newly purchased from a point of purchase to a place of storage" or sell 3 -7 day -unconditional- tax discs in the PO refundable if you subsequently tax your car within 1 week???? NO

Why do they force us to pay out for expensive trailer hire to do it legally? Assuming you have access to a vehicle with a towhook and capable of pulling a bigcar on a trailer.

If a stupid law (which when broken hurts no-one) prevents me from doing something which should be a simple task I have no problem breaking it or telling others to consider for themselves about breaking it.