DVLA clamped my car- Can i appeal ?

vaio

ben500 wrote: »

If you check your own insurance policy you will see that it requires the vehicle to be taxed if on the public highway or the policy can be declared void this also applies to MOT certification. Incidentally if even if your vehicle is taxed/untaxed but not carrying a current valid MOT certificate your insurance company can if they deem appropriate settle for it's scrap value in the event it is stolen or damaged.

Shall we start a “most wrong post of the month” competition?

ben500

Be my guest Vaio

Pound

I thought that if you didn't have tax your insurance wasn't? And if your insurance wasn't valid the police could have seized your vehicle, fined you and given you 6 points on your license.

Unless I'm mistaken why isn't the op being grateful that the worst didn't happen instead?

vaio

ben500 wrote: »

Be my guest Vaio

Apart from the fact that I’ve never seen a policy which says No MOT = No insurance even if such a policy condition did exist it would be unenforceable under FSA regulations.

Details posted by raskazz a while ago…….

……….Under FSA regulation (The Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook, rule 8.1.2 to be precise) an insurer can only repudiate a claim from a consumer on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the breach actually caused or contributed to the loss (unless there is an element of fraud). Thus an insurer can only reject a claim on the grounds of a car being unroadworthy if that unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the accident or loss. To do that they would have to prove (i) that the car was unroadworthy and (ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident or loss. A lack of MOT will not help them prove this either way, for the reasons given previously……..

MX5huggy

How can anyone think you need Tax for your insurance to be valid, which do you have to have to get the other? Yes you buy the insurance then the tax.

Wig

Smi1er wrote: »

I don't really see the problem.

If buying privately ask the seller to pop down the PO with you to tax it for you (you paying of course).

You're assuming the seller has valid insurance for the car.

had all the necessary forms on me so if I was stopped I could clearly demonstrate I was enroute to the nearest PO to tax it.

Which would help to persuade a copper that you were not a chav. But would not be 100% protection from the law.

Wig

Pound wrote: »

I thought that if you didn't have tax your insurance wasn't valid?

No, it doesn't work like that.

And if your insurance wasn't valid the police could have seized your vehicle, fined you and given you 6 points on your license.

Can only seize the vehicle if it was seen being driven, and would need to have reasonable grounds to believe it was not insured, no tax no MOT not good enough grounds.

Unless I'm mistaken why isn't the op being grateful that the worst didn't happen instead?

No comment as I have yet to read or re-read the OP.

Wig

DapperSammy wrote: »

I got home today to discover that my car has been clamped outside the house. I have declared it sorn and have been carrying out repair works on it. I just bought 2 new tyres on sunday and got the windscreen changed this morning, all for MOT. Is there anything I can do?

You could try to remove the clamp without damaging it

Pay the release fee

Or if you don't want the car, remove the 2 new tyred wheels, if they are not clamped.

Wig

Poppy9 wrote: »

No you don't have even 1 day's grace. The offence is not displaying a valid tax disc so the police can report you for summons if the disc isn't showing, even if you have a valid one in your wallet.

OH is PO and he's a stickler for taxing cars. Just so happened that the last two cars we bought we purchased 3 weeks into the month. He didn't want to wait another 7 days to collect his car so he wasted 3 weeks tax.

There is now a special set of circumstances that allows for a grace period of 5 working days on failing to display a valid tax disc. It was not in existence when you wrote that post but came into force about 1 month after you wrote it.

edit - ooopps not RTA but VERA
VERA 1994 S.33(1B) <<< this does not mean VERA 1994 S.33(1)(b) they are different references.

(1B) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (1A) by
using or keeping a vehicle on a public road during any of the 5 working
days following the time when a licence or nil licence for the vehicle, or
a relevant declaration applying to the vehicle, ceases to be in force, if an
application for a licence or nil licence for or in respect of the vehicle to
run from that time has been received before that time.

ben500

vaio wrote: »

Apart from the fact that I’ve never seen a policy which says No MOT = No insurance even if such a policy condition did exist it would be unenforceable under FSA regulations.

Details posted by raskazz a while ago…….

……….Under FSA regulation (The Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook, rule 8.1.2 to be precise) an insurer can only repudiate a claim from a consumer on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the breach actually caused or contributed to the loss (unless there is an element of fraud). Thus an insurer can only reject a claim on the grounds of a car being unroadworthy if that unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the accident or loss. To do that they would have to prove (i) that the car was unroadworthy and (ii) that the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the accident or loss. A lack of MOT will not help them prove this either way, for the reasons given previously……..

My post made no mention of repudiation of the claim, perhaps you'd like to read the post again.