Insured or not insured…that is the question!

[welshlaner]

The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.

If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue.  The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue.  How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins.  Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.

Good point, some legal advice was taken but raised other issues if the road unadopted ie not maintened then the whole lot considered a private drive way although the pubic have access.

[Yoshi]

The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.

If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue.  The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue.  How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins.  Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.

I am not so sure about that bit now tbh, the more i think about it the more i think could be answered in court as it is his land and used for moving around his land.

That one i think might be a 50/50

[redhand]

just to keep this thread dragging on at the beginning someone said they thought it was illegal to offer a car for sale at the side of the road. Only if another car withineither 50 or 500 yards (can't remember which) is also been offered for sale. to stop homebased 2nd hand car lots springing up.

With regards to insurance there must be a valid certificate insurance on the car before anyone can drive it on their insurance. If you get a producer off the plod it says on the back, that producing your insurance alone is not enough and you must produce a valid policy for the car as well.

[Wireless]

If the farmer owns the road, whether it's an ORPA or not, he can store and drive his own vehicles on his own land, including parking on the road that he owns without paying road tax or having it insured, all he has to do by law these days is SORN it.

These plonkers that want to close the route to motorised traffic have to realise that he is entitled to spread muck down both hedges of the lane twice a day if he wants to, it's his land.

Especially if they are causing a bit of a stink over his Landy.

[Yoshi]

just to keep this thread dragging on at the beginning someone said they thought it was illegal to offer a car for sale at the side of the road. Only if another car withineither 50 or 500 yards (can't remember which) is also been offered for sale. to stop homebased 2nd hand car lots springing up.

With regards to insurance there must be a valid certificate insurance on the car before anyone can drive it on their insurance. If you get a producer off the plod it says on the back, that producing your insurance alone is not enough and you must produce a valid policy for the car as well.

I beg to differ.  This was confirmed by the police officer himself when he checked it out when i was pulled over.  The vehicle itself does not have to carry valid insurance in order for the third party provision to drive other cars is being used as the vehicle is adequately insured for the road.

[welshlaner]

If the farmer owns the road, whether it's an ORPA or not, he can store and drive his own vehicles on his own land, including parking on the road that he owns without paying road tax or having it insured, all he has to do by law these days is SORN it.

These plonkers that want to close the route to motorised traffic have to realise that he is entitled to spread muck down both hedges of the lane twice a day if he wants to, it's his land.

Especially if they are causing a bit of a stink over his Landy.

Interesting cause I know of a case were a untaxed, uninsured sorn'ed vechicle was towed away on private land yet parked next to a right of way, an unsurfaced UCR.

Course the person complained, it was towed away by the council acting on a request from the police.

I've seen the place in question the exact spot, the UCR is tarmaced up to a certain point then becomes a gravel track but still a row, the vechicle for years parked outside a small house but off the track, still got towed away.

[Wireless]

What was the result?

Police request to Council?

What possible right had the Council to interfere with a legally sorned vehicle parked on private land?

Sounds like a legal precursor for the NCP lot, but this time it was sorned!

I presume the vehicle/land owner is taking the Council to court?

[welshlaner]

What was the result?

Police request to Council?

What possible right had the Council to interfere with a legally sorned vehicle parked on private land?

Sounds like a legal precursor for the NCP lot, but this time it was sorned!

I presume the vehicle/land owner is taking the Council to court?

Sorry for not getting back sooner, I needed to check the final outcome

The incident happened in a North Wales town, a SORN'ed vechicle was parked down the side of a private road that was unadopted.

Police/local authority have the powers under new ABSO laws to remove any vechicle not showing a in date tac disc thats parked on the public highway and they did so. In this case a Police Notice of removal was placed on the windscreen, the owner noticed it and next day contacted the council to say it was private land. But in the mean time council contractors removed it under the new 24 hour rule, prevoius to that it was 7 days. The vechicle was  deamed to worth less than £100 and damaged in transit current where abouts unknown.

Now the owner complained both to the Police and the local authority, both claim they were within there rights. He's been to the council and showed his property deeds which out lines the boundarys and the vechicle was parked on such, but to no effect. The person at the council (not got a name) pointed out they believe highways consider a right of way to be 18 feet and that included any private land.

The land was a grass verge next to a tarmac/rough road about 9 feet across, the other side has a brick wall and behind someones garden, before the properties were built that was a back lane running along these houses. Now its become, according to the council a legal right of way under some 20 year rule (implied use) but "unadopted".

I spoke to the owner not long ago, he given up taking any action as he been told the most he could claim is £100 and legal costs if he to win or lose could be more, course he is bitter as the motor might have been road worthy and also the council never maintained the patch of land, it was him who used to mow the grass etc

[Yoshi]

This is why this country sucks.  Where your private land is no longer private :(

The other thing i hate is that if the council want to regenerate an area, they can force you to sell your house by getting a compulsory purchase order.  So it means even if you own your house basically at the end of the day you dont :(

[welshlaner]

This is why this country sucks.  Where your private land is no longer private :(

The other thing i hate is that if the council want to regenerate an area, they can force you to sell your house by getting a compulsory purchase order.  So it means even if you own your house basically at the end of the day you dont :(

Its not just councils, any private developer can get planning permission to knock down your's and everyone elses house, then once they have planning permission get the council to enforce it and knock your house down to make way for there development.

Tesco have done it to get rid of businesses on land they do not own so they can build a new superstore

[Tommo]

To my knowledge there is only one policy that will allow you to drive any car, even if it has no insurance and that it a trade policy and it should be accompanied with trade plates.

right, i got to about page 2 in this thread and it was going round in circles.

First rule is know what your talking about. I know pleanty of people with traders policys and believe me they would be very annoyed f you told them they had to put trade plates on their car everytime they drove it. Trade plates are for cars that arent registered or are not legal to drive on the road in some other way.

To my knowlege the 3rd party cover does not require thge other vehicle to be insured, otherwise it would say in the legal documentation, and it doesent. cant argue with that. you can say you rang up and the woman on the phone said whatever, but in court would you like to say that whatever you were doing was ok cos the woman on the phone said so? In the document it states you are covered 3rd party on vehicles not belonging to or hired to you. full stop. that is a legal contract which will stand up in court.

[welshlaner]

try this site to check

www.askmid.com

[Sooty]

To put another nettle in the flower bed BE WARNED if you let another driver drive your car on the grounds that his insurance covers him TPO and he is not insured to do this in the event of an incident your insurance is duty bound to pay the claim as they insure the vehicle under the road traffic act and you will loose your no claims bonus.
Also seeing the policy is not a guarantee that it is currant and I think that only the police have the authority to check so be sure you trust the person is telling the truth.
Therefore if it is Jo Public come to test drive the car you are playing with fire.
Having said that I do not know the answer to the problem other than insuring it yourself and you are still risking loosing your no claims bonus on all the policies you have as if you claim on one policy you are legally bound to declare it to all the other policies.
The bottom line is no matter what happens if you are stopped by the plod or try to help out a friend you will be the one that pays.

[muddy4x4]

I`ve got a headache  :(mad):

[barnhill4x4]

I agree that the vehicle does not have to be  insured. If it did it would say so on the policy. There is no clause number linked to the fine print. Regardless of what people say the police have said, what the insurance co's have said. If it is not written down on your paperwork then its bull!
 
  I have a trade policy so dont really care anyhow. BTW I do not need to use trade plates unless the car has no tax in the window. I can drive any vehicle upto a certain value, fully comp.