See now if that was true, i'd agree, but no tax does not mean no insurance, it means, ummmmm no tax.
Tax dodgers - rant and questions
- Thread starter baldzone
- Start date
See now if that was true, i'd agree, but no tax does not mean no insurance, it means, ummmmm no tax.
I know the law, I know the 7 years. It is **** and should not be that way.
I am not wrong, but thanks anyway...
I am also not arguing with you or against your opinion. I was commenting on the fact that this tax is wrong.
Last edited:
listen, once and for all everyone can believe this or not, no mot or no tax is not going to invalidate an insured car involved in a 3rd party accident. its just not going to happen but feel free to not believe that 
in fact if the man had had 30 vodkas, 2 gram of coke 2 gram of smak and 9 e's, be banned from driving and a fat ginger bosnian with a mustache and a limp as well as no tax and mot they are still goming to pay a 3rd party claim if the car is insured.
in fact if the man had had 30 vodkas, 2 gram of coke 2 gram of smak and 9 e's, be banned from driving and a fat ginger bosnian with a mustache and a limp as well as no tax and mot they are still goming to pay a 3rd party claim if the car is insured.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,319
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The tax was created by the very people us the public put in office.
The insurance company would pay 3rd party costs and then try to claim back from the policy holder would they not?
And it won't change any time soon, not in our life time.
I'm sure we all know that.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,319
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
listen, once and for all everyone can believe this or not, no mot or no tax is not going to invalidate an insured car involved in a 3rd party accident. its just not going to happen but feel free to not believe that
Not completely no.
Article 75
Not completely no.
Article 75
What's that?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,319
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
dammit, lol, 75 is about breaking the T&C of the policy, using the vehicle in an illegal manner. (i.e. run someone over on purpose)
I think!
Your right but they will pay out the 3rd party, sod the bloke whos insured.
everyone on here is banging on about but what if he drives into my car with no tax, well great, they pay out sod the idiot with no tax, you get where im going here
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,319
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Your right but they will pay out the 3rd party, sod the bloke whos insured.
everyone on here is banging on about but what if he drives into my car with no tax, well great, they pay out sod the idiot with no tax, you get where im going here
Trust me, they will fight as far as they could not to pay, but so far, the caselaw isn't on the Defendant's side so it's hard to turn the tide.
ok i'l tell my little story, a few years ago 5 maybe 6 years ago a few of us are having a drink, in fact we are hammered in a pub in keston.
Anyway the night ends and a car dealer mate of mine, lets call him Bob gets in a fiesta,no tax, no mot, on the way home he knocks down a lamp post by bromley south station then smashes into the back of a parked car, i cant remember the car.
Anyway bob wakes up in bromley nick under the blue blanket and gets a 12 month ban.
The lamp post and mr parked car both get paid out, and that was on a traders policy, which believe you me they wriggle 100 times more than a normal policy to get out of paying anything.
Anyway the night ends and a car dealer mate of mine, lets call him Bob gets in a fiesta,no tax, no mot, on the way home he knocks down a lamp post by bromley south station then smashes into the back of a parked car, i cant remember the car.
Anyway bob wakes up in bromley nick under the blue blanket and gets a 12 month ban.
The lamp post and mr parked car both get paid out, and that was on a traders policy, which believe you me they wriggle 100 times more than a normal policy to get out of paying anything.
Why is it so difficult for people to just accept that your circumstances (with regard to tax, MOT and Insurance) make absolutely NO difference should someone damage your property? I could be violating every single term and condition of my own policy but if a third party damaged my property, they must pay! The fact they have damaged it in a car which is covered by an insurance policy which covers damage caused to third parties is largely irrelevant here - the party doing the damage has an obligation to correct the damage!!! They happened to have taken out an insurance policy which covers that obligation and it WILL pay out to rectify that damage.
Lets take "my" car out of the equation, because cars seem to make even the seemingly intelligent spout utter crap. Imagine a car was driving along and smashed into my fence. My fence isn't insured, but their insurance will still pay out. Same liability as if anyone damages anyone elses property, only made simpler by the fact that in the case of a car, the lliability for damage to other people's property is covered by an insurance policy which is required by law.
If you still disagree with this you simply need to accept that you are wrong, that you will never understand this and, most importantly, stop spreading misinformation about the subject.
Lets take "my" car out of the equation, because cars seem to make even the seemingly intelligent spout utter crap. Imagine a car was driving along and smashed into my fence. My fence isn't insured, but their insurance will still pay out. Same liability as if anyone damages anyone elses property, only made simpler by the fact that in the case of a car, the lliability for damage to other people's property is covered by an insurance policy which is required by law.
If you still disagree with this you simply need to accept that you are wrong, that you will never understand this and, most importantly, stop spreading misinformation about the subject.
DRZ, because until threads like these people don't know.
To be fair the copper wasn't too wrong, for the policy holder it only covers travel for MOT, she failed to mention it would still pay out 3rd party costs should it need to though.
A kinda related question. If you have legal cover but fall foul of no tax and MOT while insured, does this mean than the legal cover is withdrawn along with the validity of the insurance? I'd guess it does, but never read anything abot it.
To be fair the copper wasn't too wrong, for the policy holder it only covers travel for MOT, she failed to mention it would still pay out 3rd party costs should it need to though.
A kinda related question. If you have legal cover but fall foul of no tax and MOT while insured, does this mean than the legal cover is withdrawn along with the validity of the insurance? I'd guess it does, but never read anything abot it.
Is anyone actually disagreeing that third party liability is always paid out no matter what?
I must admit I haven't read the whole thread - I was rather taken aback when it started turning into a "Well good luck to them, they have managed to avoid the tax" direction.
I thought everyone, well most people are aware that no matter what you do in a car the third party is always protected.
If I'm so drunk I can hardly keep awake and hit half a dozen cars - they will all be repaired under my insurance, even though the T&C's will state that I'm certainly not allowed to be drunk and in charge of my vehicle.
Insruance can be invalidated for lots of reasons, but the third party liability will always remain.
It's just that firstly your own vehicle will not be repaired.
Secondly there is nothing to stop the insurance company taking you to court in an attempt to reclaim their out of pocket expenses.
So in the example above, I get blind drunk and take out vehicles and cost my insurance company £15k in damages, which they have to pay out due to third party liability.
My own car is not repaired.
The insurance company see me in court in an attempt to reclaim the £15k.
I must admit I haven't read the whole thread - I was rather taken aback when it started turning into a "Well good luck to them, they have managed to avoid the tax" direction.
I thought everyone, well most people are aware that no matter what you do in a car the third party is always protected.
If I'm so drunk I can hardly keep awake and hit half a dozen cars - they will all be repaired under my insurance, even though the T&C's will state that I'm certainly not allowed to be drunk and in charge of my vehicle.
Insruance can be invalidated for lots of reasons, but the third party liability will always remain.
It's just that firstly your own vehicle will not be repaired.
Secondly there is nothing to stop the insurance company taking you to court in an attempt to reclaim their out of pocket expenses.
So in the example above, I get blind drunk and take out vehicles and cost my insurance company £15k in damages, which they have to pay out due to third party liability.
My own car is not repaired.
The insurance company see me in court in an attempt to reclaim the £15k.
Its not so much about people not knowing, but people spreading ignorant and uninformed opinions as fact thats the crusher here. Despite their being a wealth of information on the internet, despite it being discussed to death in the other thread, despite it becoming a perennial question much like TV licencing, people will still come out with unadulterated **** as fact and then proceed to throw their toys out of the pram when proved wrong. Even then, they will resort to pointing out petty spelling and grammatical errors to try and restore a point, which is getting beyond a joke.
As to your question, third party liability won't be waived. You won't be able to claim for your own car and your insurer may try to recover costs from you. It will be in your insurance documents and as Raymond pointed out above.