You don't own your car!!

[jc denton]

If you don't pay your car tax the dvla have the legal right to tow & crush your car!!

Question: If YOU where the legal OWNER of your car, would they be able to legally do this?

The answer is no. Because towing & crushing it would legally be classed as Theft & Vandalism!!

If someone nicks your car because it has no tax they are still a theif!!

Question 2: Do you have any Legal documents refering to YOU as the legal OWNER of your car?? If you have I'd like to know. Certainly you'll never get the dvla to refer to you as the owner, as far as they're concerned your the keeper...They are the legal owner.

Conclusion: The next time you get a parking ticket FAO the Owner, send it to the "REAL" Owner!!

 

[old-git]

The V5C states who the keeper is.
The bill of sale states who the owner is.

 

[obi_waynne]

This might annoy a few people out there but it is my opinion which I am entitled to and one which a lot of others share.

I think if a car isn't taxed or insured then it should be towed and crushed. I get wound up that people try to dodge these things and they are generally also the ones driving round without insurance.

The "DVLA/LAW" can consficate anything they see fit if they have reason. The penalties and warnings are quite clear about the consequences so people are not suprised that their cars get crushed.

 

[T9 man]

This might annoy a few people out there but it is my opinion which I am entitled to and one which a lot of others share.

I think if a car isn't taxed or insured then it should be towed and crushed. I get wound up that people try to dodge these things and they are generally also the ones driving round without insurance.

The "DVLA/LAW" can consficate anything they see fit if they have reason. The penalties and warnings are quite clear about the consequences so people are not suprised that their cars get crushed.

I share the same view! even if a car is being rebuilt or worked on for a long period of time, then I think it should be insured anyway if only for protection against theft, fire etc and kept only on a private driveway or in a suitable garage and it should still be taxed for the road.

A friend of mine had his pride & joy hit by a man who had absolutely nothing! not even a current driving license :sad2:

 

[old-git]

I share the same view! even if a car is being rebuilt or worked on for a long period of time, then I think it should be insured anyway if only for protection against theft, fire etc and kept only on a private driveway or in a suitable garage and it should still be taxed for the road. :sad2:

Are you saying that a car should be taxed even if it is off the maintainable highway? If so, why?

 

[T9 man]

Are you saying that a car should be taxed even if it is off the maintainable highway? If so, why?

Well purely from a witness point of view OG! Those cars that are alledgedly off the road are still on ocassion driven back on to it.
Whether it is to just pop over to the garage or Halfords to pick up that certain part etc. Have seen this from two different chaps one of whom is a mate! The temptation is always there!

If the car has been off the road for a considerable length of time for example, the journey to the MOT center for instance will still require a trip along the highway which would legally require a road tax on the vehicle, unless of course you are lucky enough to know someone with a low loader!

The Road tax as well as the insurance premium should be made to be considerably lower than current rates I grant you, purely because of the infrequent use of the car on the actual road and the minimised risk to the insurance company involved because 95% plus of the time, it will be in a static place or position.

Merely my own thoughts OG, be they good, bad or totally misguided

 

[jc denton]

I've always kept my cars legal anyway, its just a loophole in the law that I thought I'd share.

I tried to get the dvla to pay for six months tax on their car (which I was the keeper of) once. I still haven't heard back from them.

But the fact remains that if you where the legal owner, the dvla or any other legal body would have as much right to touch your car as your local friendly car theif.

 

[herb]

Well purely from a witness point of view OG! Those cars that are alledgedly off the road are still on ocassion driven back on to it.
Whether it is to just pop over to the garage or Halfords to pick up that certain part etc. Have seen this from two different chaps one of whom is a mate! The temptation is always there!

If the car has been off the road for a considerable length of time for example, the journey to the MOT center for instance will still require a trip along the highway which would legally require a road tax on the vehicle, unless of course you are lucky enough to know someone with a low loader!

The Road tax as well as the insurance premium should be made to be considerably lower than current rates I grant you, purely because of the infrequent use of the car on the actual road and the minimised risk to the insurance company involved because 95% plus of the time, it will be in a static place or position.

Merely my own thoughts OG, be they good, bad or totally misguided

yes but og has a car in a garage with no engine in plus lots of parts to finish to make it road legal. so to get tax for his vehicle he would have to get it mot'd. and in present form it could never pass an mot (unless he has a very very very lenient tester:amuse so therefore no tax

 

[T9 man]

yes but og has a car in a garage with no engine in plus lots of parts to finish to make it road legal. so to get tax for his vehicle he would have to get it mot'd. and in present form it could never pass an mot (unless he has a very very very lenient tester:amuse so therefore no tax

Yes I know Herb! merely mentioned an example as witnessed by me!

I know diehard enthusiasts like OG will have their chariot off the road for some considerable length of time while the car is undergoing a huge transformation! This is why I said that a special consideration of costs should be taken into account for these chaps!

But OG is special - and there are a lot more P-takers out there than there are genuine enthusiasts like OG! I hope you agree with me on that point Herb?

Once again, these are merely my own thoughts! I promise you that I am not going to make it the law in the morning :bigsmile:

 

[geraint13]

thats what SORNs are for arent they ? so you dont have to pay tax for the time it was off the road.

there are always going to be uninsured drivers and p/takers the world over, thats why insurance companies are now giving protected NCB and payouts if the 'other' party are not legal. this is imo, the only thing insurance companies have done too help legal drivers in the last 12 years of myself driving.

can anyone else think of ways insurance companies have done anything to help the premium payers ?

 

[turbonutter69]

thats what SORNs are for arent they ? so you dont have to pay tax for the time it was off the road.

there are always going to be uninsured drivers and p/takers the world over, thats why insurance companies are now giving protected NCB and payouts if the 'other' party are not legal. this is imo, the only thing insurance companies have done too help legal drivers in the last 12 years of myself driving.

can anyone else think of ways insurance companies have done anything to help the premium payers ?

There has always been a system that pays out for uninsured drivers.

The DVLA are in no way the legal owner of your car.
The logbook only states keeper as the registered name on the logbook may not be the actual legal owner.
The DVLA have the right to remove your car if you have no tax etc because it's the law to have them.