Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a 'witness' to it not arriving till the 15th is sadly immaterial too. regardless to the above anyway, the PCN remains valid. 
    • Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless... "A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." My question there is really what might constitute proof? Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.
    • I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee.  However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest.  It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases.  I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway
    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Insurance and ANPR vans


Guest 10110001
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5823 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest 10110001

I have insurance on my car and that policy allows me to drive anyone else’s car, What if the car im driving has no insurance and I am 'hit' by an ANPR van?

 

I would be stopped because ANPR assumes I have no insurance because the car doesn't.

 

Design flaw with ANPR, or has the Road Traffic Act been changed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The RTA has not been changed in regard to this.

 

ANPR will compare with the MID, which lists all insured cars by VRM. The data is supplied by the insurance companies.

 

If you are hit' by ANPR and stopped then you have to produce your insurance certificate that allows driving other cars (DOC). The Police may then phone your insurer to confirm this.

 

BTW, it is an urban myth that a car must have its own insurance on it to allow DOC usage

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

This means that for DOC policy drivers ANPR is merely a public nuisance, and is somewhat ineffective against vehicle crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

This means that for DOC policy drivers ANPR is merely a public nuisance, and is somewhat ineffective against vehicle crime.

 

Er... Yep.

 

At least as far as insurance is concerned (until the continuous insurance rules kick in)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001
Er... Yep.

 

At least as far as insurance is concerned (until the continuous insurance rules kick in)

 

That's already in force?

 

What is SORN then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

.

 

If you have reported the car stolen and a stolen report has been placed on it then it will generate a hit on ANPR, assuming the number plates haven't been changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

Continuous insurance, can anyone explain what that is?

 

It sounds like the same rules as now - you have to have insurance to drive a car. Road Traffic Act.

 

Does it mean that a SORN car now has to have insurance?

 

Does it mean a motor dealer has to have a policy on all their stock?

 

Owners of more than one vehicle (business with fleets of vans?) insure each & every and block-policies not allowed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that any vehicle, including those on SORN will need to be insured. This has been driven by the insurance industry mainly.

 

Motor traders have a dispensation top both VED/SORN and have a trader's motor policy covering any vehicle.

 

Businesses with block insurances still have to supply vehicle details tot he insurance company at the moment - so this is not a problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

When are they due to come into effect Pat?

 

 

AFAIK, it is a part of the recent Road Traffic Act, but has not been put into force - it is still being consulted on.

 

There are all sorts of wrinkles that need to be worked through. At the moment, in the UK we insure the driver; not the vehicle. There is no requirement for a Registered Keeper to be old enough to drive; never mind hold a licence. So how could such a vehicle be insured without making changes to other Acts? What happens when the RK is banned for a short period? Many insurance policies require the vehicle to be roadworthy or the policy is voided - how is that going to work for a SORN car in pieces?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001

I can this as a pretext to introduce some of the most draconian motoring laws on the planet - even surpassing Calcutta and Ho Chi Minh City.

 

Forcing motorists to insure thair cars off-road contributes nothing for road safety, and spending our tax pounds on placing ANPR cameras every 100 yards of road as common as street lights seems to be a pointless government War on Motorists. It just converts Britains community of normal citizens into a de-facto nation of criminals.

 

I came accross a friends son who MOT'd his car with plenty of unexpired time remaining on his current MOT, and it failed - the rear wiper wasnt working - the current MOT was revoked and the car was immediately condemned off the road and he would be made a criminal if he drove his car. As far as motoring goes, Britain is becoming a police state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

 

That is the only level of cover that the law requires for any vehicle.

 

Another thing, you do not have to insure a vehicle to drive it on the road. Under the law, you may deposit a pre-determined sum (£ 500,000) with HM Government and this allows you to drive any car on UK roads. (RTA1998 S.144 & RTA 1991 s.20))

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

 

Can't see this happening. If in the above case the motorcycle is already insured on a general household policy, then to insure that motorcycle will be to have duplicate insurance which I believe is illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

No, motor traders are ok. Any untaxed vehicle bought in as a stock vehicle must at all times when used on the public highway display trade plates. The trade plate number becomes the registration number of the vehicle for the duration of the journey, and the trader will have the trade plate number covered under his insurance policy so it is on the insurance database. When a trader buys a vehicle for resale that is taxed, because he will not be registering the car to himself, and it won't require trade plates he must by law put the vehicle on the insurance database himself. Insurance companies allow us to do it over the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I came accross a friends son who MOT'd his car with plenty of unexpired time remaining on his current MOT, and it failed - the rear wiper wasnt working - the current MOT was revoked and the car was immediately condemned off the road and he would be made a criminal if he drove his car. As far as motoring goes, Britain is becoming a police state.

 

This is not true

 

AFAIK, and I have had the debate on Police forums, an MoT failure does not revoke the old certificate. An MoT test only certifies that the vehicle is OK at the time of the test.

 

Even it it did, it is still perfectly legal to drive the vehicle to/from a test appointment or a repair appointment.

 

A rear wiper is not part of the MoT test anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat is correct, the failure of a test does not revoke the current certificate. Who revoked it?

 

Also, any remaining days left on your old certificate (up to 30 days) will be transfered to your new certificate, so you could have a certificate valid for up to 13 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest 10110001
Pat is correct, the failure of a test does not revoke the current certificate. Who revoked it?

 

I'd love to name names but this forum has become over-moderated and there's a propensity for posts being deleted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just discovered today, that on trying to renew my Road Tax on-line, that the DVLA refused to allow this because I had no 'valid insurance for the vehicle'. Being naturally concerned, I contacted my insurer who advised these cock-ups were common and I was indeed fully covered.

 

Tried again, nope - no valid insurance. Back at the insurer, I asked them to escalate the matter with the Motor Insurer's Register (which the DVLA interrogate to confirm insurance status, along with the police and (presumably) ANPR mobile and fixed. Strange that I had never been stopped or even queried whilst my vehicle was on the road since ANPR is supposedly so prevalent.

 

In the last 12 months I've driven an estimated 25,000 miles passing ANPR cameras and the rest with gay abandon, yet I was never challenged for not having valid insurance - however as the tax disc was up to date, perhaps there are still teething problems?

 

After a call back from my insurer it transpired that someone had input my registration details inappropriately, by transposing '0' and 'O'. Since this could also happen with '1' (numeric) and 'l' (lower case L), I am now even more convinced at the general uselessness - in the real world - of such systems. Whilst the DVLA isn;t perfect, they at least can appreciate Registration Mark syntax, however a bored clerk in one of the many insurance companies can make these mistakes with impunity, whilst down the line the hapless driver hasn;t a leg to stand on. Just as well ANPR, like the much-touted ID card system, isn't living up to its promise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as well ANPR, like the much-touted ID card system, isn't living up to its promise.

 

Presumably you have the hard evidence for ANPR not living up expectations (and saying "I've driven 25000 miles and not been challenged" isn't hard evidence)? [edit]

 

And the ID card system hasn't even been introduced yet, so how can you say it's not living up to the promises made? I'm sure you could make such a statement if the cards had been issued and there were problems with them, but not before the system has been put in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...