DVLA clamped my car- Can i appeal ?

vaio

ben500 wrote: »

Glad you had the good sense to enlist some help on this Vaio………

Not me, I think raskazz has a detector system for when nonsense is being talked about void insurance due to MOT/Tax status. I’m surprised (s)he didn’t arrive sooner

ben500 wrote: »

……. can you see the difference between raskazz's response and yours?

Not sure about differences, we both say you are completely wrong when you say that an insurance policy can be voided for failure to have valid MOT and/or tax.

I suppose Raskazz “urban myth” is slightly different from my “most wrong post of the month” but that’s just a matter of degree, both mean your original post was completely wrong. Hopefully nobody placed any reliance on it.

ben500

vaio wrote: »

Not me, I think raskazz has a detector system for when nonsense is being talked about void insurance due to MOT/Tax status. I’m surprised (s)he didn’t arrive sooner



Not sure about differences, we both say you are completely wrong when you say that an insurance policy can be voided for failure to have valid MOT and/or tax.

I suppose Raskazz “urban myth” is slightly different from my “most wrong post of the month” but that’s just a matter of degree, both mean your original post was completely wrong. Hopefully nobody placed any reliance on it.

Wrong again Vaio, you were right your comprehension skills really aren't up to much are they.

Wig

ben500 wrote: »

With regards to this section it would be difficult to settle for scrap value in the case of complete loss I concede, but in the event of damage one would assume the vehicle would be available for inspection and could then possibly be deemed unroadworthy and of scrap value..

I don't see the difference between the two scenarios.

If damged, the car would be inspected, and if found to be unroadworthy, in a particular area, it would have to be shown that aspect of the car (e.g. bald tyres) contributed to the accident in order for them to not pay anything.

If they found anything unroadworthy that did not contribute to the accident they would have to value the car as it was before the accident.

When you buy a car without MOT the value is deminished, if for example it also had a known and declared fault of something like 2 bald tyres, then the value of the car would be it's normal value in good condition less an amount for no mot let's say £500 on a £2000 car (an arbitrary figure I admit but not an unrealistic one IMHO) then the value would be further diminished by the cost of fitting 2 new tyres- £100 - £150 this still leaves a remaining value of £1,350 if the repairs cost less than this amount the vehicle will be repaired at the insurers cost, if the repairs are more than this amount the vehicle will be written off and a settlement figure of 1350 would be agreed upon.

ben500

Wig wrote: »

I don't see the difference between the two scenarios.

If damged, the car would be inspected, and if found to be unroadworthy, in a particular area, it would have to be shown that aspect of the car (e.g. bald tyres) contributed to the accident in order for them to not pay anything.

If they found anything unroadworthy that did not contribute to the accident they would have to value the car as it was before the accident.

When you buy a car without MOT the value is deminished, if for example it also had a known and declared fault of something like 2 bald tyres, then the value of the car would be it's normal value in good condition less an amount for no mot let's say £500 on a £2000 car (an arbitrary figure I admit but not an unrealistic one IMHO) then the value would be further diminished by the cost of fitting 2 new tyres- £100 - £150 this still leaves a remaining value of £1,350 if the repairs cost less than this amount the vehicle will be repaired at the insurers cost, if the repairs are more than this amount the vehicle will be written off and a settlement figure of 1350 would be agreed upon.

Quite right Wig that's why I was carefull to use the word could rather than would.

MarkyMarkD

Wig wrote:

Dustangle wrote:

Are you a grocer?

I don't get it

It was because ben500 said "mean't". Greengrocers (not grocers) are renowned for incorrect use of apostrophes.

krisreardon

The same thing has happened to me today, i was waiting for my insurance to come in same as you. What really gets on my tits tho is that the likes of us that pay our tax & insurance, get stung waiting a day or two for some paper work while others that dont care & drive around in cars not fit for the road with no tax or insurance get away with it!!

dacouch

You can renew your tax online or over the phone