Winseer:
I feel sad that you took the trouble to look that up, just to try and make me look like … “Not a lawyer”■■
I looked it up for the greater good so other drivers can be left without doubt about the position as of 1 October 2014. Although I did feel a simple link to the gov.uk wouldn’t have been enough, so I backed it up with supporting facts. Now I accept you said “To my knowledge,” that fine, but then you also had to continue with a couple of capitalised "NOT"s, a “repealed” and a “obliged” as if you knew what you were talking about.
Winseer:
Thing is, erring my own way costs nothing to myself or anyone else.
No problem, carry on, there’s no law against it.
Winseer:
Going for the “rip it off the windscreen approach because the law text says so” leaves one open to a nasty surprise if the law was badly worded, and consequently lands some unsuspecting mug in hot water…
Here we go again…you were fine with the first point, but follow it with nonsense as that is “leaves one open to a nasty surprise”. There are no nasty surprises, no shocks, no bogey men hiding in the dark. The law isn’t badly worded, it is now not worded at all. The requirement to display a disc is to be removed and therefore will no longer an offence.
Winseer:
I did need a good reminder of what backbiting I left behind when I left full time though, so thanks for that at least.
All part of the service sir. Thank you and have a nice day
the maoster:
I’d imagine that come October that any driver driving a company vehicle that is untaxed would be treated the same way as currently for an out of MOT vehicle, ie the onus is upon the operator, not driver.
I’d love to see some confirmation of that.
It’s not satisfactory to expect drivers to look up a vehicles tax status on a website. What if you don’t have a smartphone? What if there is poor internet coverage where you are? No data left? Office staff aren’t going to want to be hassled with drivers asking to use the conputer to run a check.
Clearly there are going to be instances where penalising a driver for driving an untaxed vehicle is going to be unfair. We should be relieved of responsibility for it.
the maoster:
I’d imagine that come October that any driver driving a company vehicle that is untaxed would be treated the same way as currently for an out of MOT vehicle, ie the onus is upon the operator, not driver.
I’d love to see some confirmation of that.
VERA 1994 S29(1) - “If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.”
That still stands as far as I can see. Both driver and register keeper responsible.
the maoster:
I’d imagine that come October that any driver driving a company vehicle that is untaxed would be treated the same way as currently for an out of MOT vehicle, ie the onus is upon the operator, not driver.
I’d love to see some confirmation of that.
VERA 1994 S29(1) - “If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.”
That still stands as far as I can see. Both driver and register keeper responsible.
Well I can see some disputed fines from drivers for lack of tax on the horizon. Can’t penalise somebody for something they may not have had the reasonable means to check, surely? I have come accross plenty of technophobe drivers who don’t have internet phones and wouldn’t be able to work them anyway. Is it going to become procedure for drivers to have to ask office staff to check the computer and show them? We all know that’s barmy.
the maoster:
I’d imagine that come October that any driver driving a company vehicle that is untaxed would be treated the same way as currently for an out of MOT vehicle, ie the onus is upon the operator, not driver.
I’d love to see some confirmation of that.
VERA 1994 S29(1) - “If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.”
That still stands as far as I can see. Both driver and register keeper responsible.
Well I can see some disputed fines from drivers for lack of tax on the horizon. Can’t penalise somebody for something they may not have had the reasonable means to check, surely? I have come accross plenty of technophobe drivers who don’t have internet phones and wouldn’t be able to work them anyway. Is it going to become procedure for drivers to have to ask office staff to check the computer and show them? We all know that’s barmy.
Driver’s don’t tend to ask office staff to check online and show them the vehicle is insured or has a valid MOT. Just seeing the certificate doesn’t prove anything any more than a tax disc proves it is taxed so why is this a big issue because the outdated paper disc is going?
People don’t like change, people regard change with suspicion but the fact is from the first of October the requirement to display a valid tax disc is no longer in law and the disc can be removed with no fear of prosecution. If people want to leave it stuck to the window they can but they aren’t protecting themselves because there is nothing to protect themselves from. I’ll be taking mine out even though it has several months to run because I prefer a completely clear windscreen.
Roymondo:
Websites work just as well at 4am on a crappy wet Tuesday as they do at any other time, day or weather conditions…
Not if you dont have the kiddies comfort blanket eg an iphone or “tablet”
And what happens if its on a public road and your loads in the back already!
Or the tax disc ran out the day before just when you checked it was
If you had checked it the day before then you would know when it was taxed until because when you check it tells you. And that scenario will only happen if you check on the last day of the month and that is the day it runs out, so not really an issue.
Correct me, but my understanding here is that if a road side check finds you with no insurance or MOT, the buck stops with the operator/keeper of the vehicle who should have an insured and MOT’d fleet. With tax on the other hand you as the driver can also land a fine, seeing as you have means to check through a soon to be defunct license plate, or the app they have gone to the effort of making.
If I am wrong then scrap everything I’ve said and we will move on. But I will maintain that you shouldn’t ever been in danger of being penalised for something you cannot reasonably check.
My understanding, (which I’ve yet to look up to cross-check - it’ll be in the Road Traffic Act, 1988) is that no MOT and no Insurance is also a driver problem (as well as a keeper/operator problem)
There’s lots of things that aren’t fair, but that’s just the way it is.
macplaxton:
My understanding, (which I’ve yet to look up to cross-check - it’ll be in the Road Traffic Act, 1988) is that no MOT and no Insurance is also a driver problem (as well as a keeper/operator problem)
There’s lots of things that aren’t fair, but that’s just the way it is.
I don’t for one minute doubt your understanding of it, but I have to say that as an employed driver if I was caught out with any of the above I wouldn’t roll over and take it, I’d be having my day in court.
They aren’t endorsable. The company should pay the fines - if they don’t a tribunal would force them to and you should be looking for another employer in any case.
It would take a particular nobhead copper to try and force a fixed penalty personally on to an employed driver that is not the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Okay, on the no insurance on a company vehicle bit -
Statutory defence, all three items below:
S143(3) RTA 1988:
(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
Prove all three of the above and the driver is out of the ■■■■.
I thought the “whole” idea of this scam was to cut down on uninsured drivers eg you got to retax a vehicle when you buy it so you have to have insurance to get the tax.
Problem is that if a vehicle has cloned plates at least when the vehicle was pulled or parked up the tax disc matched the number plates.
Now no disc to match the plates too.
macplaxton:
Okay, on the no insurance on a company vehicle bit -
Statutory defence, all three items below:
S143(3) RTA 1988:
(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
[/quote
Prove all three of the above and the driver is out of the [zb]
.
There doesn’t seem to be the same get-out clause for no MOT though or tax, but as OAD says, they aren’t endorsable.
Oh thats ok then.Half the folk on here just about scrape 7 quid an hour,so a 50 quid fine robs them of 7 hours work but at least they dont get an “endorsement”
The operator should be made to pay the fine not the poor bugger working for minimum wage who in good faith is doing the job.
Bloody poor carrying the rich again.
