DVLA clamped my car- Can i appeal ?

vaio

ben500 wrote: »

Sorry but Dustangle jumped the gun on you there, second time round it's neither clever nor funny………..

It was just an other failed attempt to get a straight answer to a straight question

ben500 wrote: »

……….Have you read the post and consulted with your text books yet?

I'd offer to help you out if you hadn't been so rude in the first instance.......

Sadly my text book days are long gone but my reading is still quite good so please don’t feel bad that my initial perceived rudeness prevents you from offering to help me out, I’m sure I’ll cope somehow.

I guess we’ll never know what you meant when you said

……..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…..

but whatever you actually meant it doesn’t alter the fact that MOT, tax & insurance are completely separate and failure to have one DOESN’T in any way shape or form affect the validity of the others.

Any attempt by an insurance company to link validity of policy to MOT or tax status either as part of T&C or by attempting to repudiate an otherwise valid claim is against FSA rules. (raskazz wrote a very good post covering this on one of the many previous occasions when the fallacy of insurance being linked to tax and/or MOT has been advanced)

ben500

Keep reading I'll pop back in an hour or two to see if you have actually understood the statement I've made and the irrelevance of your responses feel free to enlist the help of others to this end.

Wig

Dustangle wrote: »

Are you a grocer?

I don't get it

vaio

Wig wrote: »

I don't get it

It might be a reference to his sig (about Mr T and the defunked R&R policy) or it might just a vain attempt by someone else to get a straight answer to a straight question.

I wasn’t sure but re-used it to see if I could get a straight answer (with sadly predictable results).

It’s a real shame !!!!wit doesn’t get past the rude words filter.

Pssst

Thomas99 wrote: »

How about doing your Public duty & reporting it?

I have used the DVLA website to report untaxed cars in my area. Its a waste of time. They are still there weeks later. All the authorities rely on is scare tactics to get the honest majority mugs to cough up. This lady/chap although committing an absolute offence,has been very unlucky to get caught in such a short time. The guy must have just been in the area.

I can confirm that Post offices need to see original docs.

I once tried to tax my GFs motor with the original docs and the guy swore blind it was a photocopy,that i was trying to blag him,and refused. I took it to another PO and they didnt question it. Mind you,some individuals would be good at spotting fakes as they are no strangers to fraud themselves..;)

DCFC79

Cant believe the OP was querying the clamping, it was an untaxed car on the road what do you expect

Wig

vaio wrote: »

It might be a reference to his sig (about Mr T and the defunked R&R policy) or it might just a vain attempt by someone else to get a straight answer to a straight question.

* That would make the question very funny, I like that :rotfl: Appeals to my sense of humour.

raskazz

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.

Ah, my favourite urban myth has reared its ugly head once more.

1) Hardly any policies specify that the vehicle must be MOT'd for the policy to be valid. Even fewer specify that the vehicle must be taxed.

2) Even if the policy does contain a general condition that the vehicle must be MOT'd, any attempt by the insurer to utilise that condition will be unenforceable because of the FSA Insurance Conduct of Business rule that vaio kindly posted. The insurer cannot 'void' a policy due to lack of MOT or a lack of road tax - they can only void a policy on grounds of a breach of utmost good faith, i.e. the policyholder failing to disclose material facts or misrepresenting material facts, or if there is an element of fraud.

3) The insurer cannot settle for scrap value just because the car is not MOT'd at the time of the loss. That would be a clear breach of the FSA's principle of 'Treating Customers Fairly'. Normally it will result in a reduction in the settlement, but the reduction will usually only be in the region of 10%.

PS, I am a motor insurance underwriter.

PPS, if you want to talk textbooks, I suggest that you consult Chapter 3, Section E5 of the Chartered Insurance Institute's Advanced Diploma course on Motor Insurance. That will enlighten you.

ben500

Glad you had the good sense to enlist some help on this Vaio can you see the difference between raskazz's response and yours?

ben500

raskazz wrote: »

Ah, my favourite urban myth has reared its ugly head once more.

1) Hardly any policies specify that the vehicle must be MOT'd for the policy to be valid. Even fewer specify that the vehicle must be taxed.

2) Even if the policy does contain a general condition that the vehicle must be MOT'd, any attempt by the insurer to utilise that condition will be unenforceable because of the FSA Insurance Conduct of Business rule that vaio kindly posted. The insurer cannot 'void' a policy due to lack of MOT or a lack of road tax - they can only void a policy on grounds of a breach of utmost good faith, i.e. the policyholder failing to disclose material facts or misrepresenting material facts, or if there is an element of fraud.

3) The insurer cannot settle for scrap value just because the car is not MOT'd at the time of the loss. That would be a clear breach of the FSA's principle of 'Treating Customers Fairly'. Normally it will result in a reduction in the settlement, but the reduction will usually only be in the region of 10%.

PS, I am a motor insurance underwriter.

PPS, if you want to talk textbooks, I suggest that you consult Chapter 3, Section E5 of the Chartered Insurance Institute's Advanced Diploma course on Motor Insurance. That will enlighten you.

IIRC this is in specific reference to the voiding of a policy subject to claim, I was careful NOT to make reference to a claim in this part of my response something Viao sadly did not pick up on before she decided to insult me rather than ask the pertinent question.


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.


As for textbooks I wouldn't presume to make such a suggestion to someone who appears to actually know what they are talking about and capable of reason.