Police tow away BMW in Oxford for lacking valid tax disc

The car loaded on a tow-truck

The car loaded on a tow-truck

First published in News

A BMW was towed away from Oxford's Botley Road when police found it did not have valid tax.

The car was seized during a lunchtime police check on Tuesday.

Officers fined 12 drivers who were using mobile phones and seven for not wearing seatbelts.

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone's contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.

Send your Letter to the Editor

11:20am Monday 28th July 2014

What do you think? We welcome letters from our readers on a wide variety of subjects and you can send us a letter through the blue headline above.

Our top stories

Cyclists warned: Don't be dimwits

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Saturday 25th October 2014

BIKE safety campaigners have warned that cyclists are risking their lives, after an Oxford Mail survey found more than half of them were riding without lights.

Football match in Banbury stopped after bottle was thrown towards the referee

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

5:18pm Saturday 25th October 2014

A FOOTBALL match was abandoned this afternoon after a bottle was thrown onto the pitch.

Extra hour tonight! Celebrate with top bands at unique Oxford gig

Oxford Mail:

1:40pm Saturday 25th October 2014

With an extra hour to enjoy - or recover with - tonight is the perfect night to celebrate one of Oxford's biggest nights of music

FOOTBALL: Rose wants to keep Oxford United climbing

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Saturday 25th October 2014

Danny Rose is targeting a move into mid-table today as Oxford United visit Carlisle United in search of a third win in eight days.

Shhh... silent film is a reel hit with movie buffs

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Saturday 25th October 2014

FILM buffs were given a taste of how movies used to be watched as they turned out for a silent screening in Witney.

Update: Oxford University student Isobel Priest is found safe and well

Oxford Mail:

8:49am Saturday 25th October 2014

Police have said the 21-year-old Oxford University student who was reported missing has been found safe and well.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:48am Thu 14 Aug 14

tinsel84 says...

A little extreme !
A little extreme ! tinsel84
  • Score: -31

8:39am Thu 14 Aug 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 40

8:41am Thu 14 Aug 14

tinsel84 says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth. tinsel84
  • Score: -24

9:29am Thu 14 Aug 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

PMSL
PMSL Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 1

9:36am Thu 14 Aug 14

docs says...

I know it's August, but this is scraping the barrel. And with a photo, too.
I know it's August, but this is scraping the barrel. And with a photo, too. docs
  • Score: -1

1:14pm Thu 14 Aug 14

The New Private Eye says...

Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions
Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions The New Private Eye
  • Score: -26

1:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Doctor69 says...

OMG - Big news!
OMG - Big news! Doctor69
  • Score: -2

1:29pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Sid Hunt says...

tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement Sid Hunt
  • Score: -17

5:27pm Thu 14 Aug 14

H.J.Harris says...

Although no Tax disc was showing, the story does not tell us whether or not the car is taxed.
A disc holder could easily have come unstuck but the Police can easily access the DVLA to see if the vehicle is taxed so , hopefully, the offence was more to do with there being no tax rather than merely not displaying.
I read recently that Tax Discs are to be done away wealth soon.
Although no Tax disc was showing, the story does not tell us whether or not the car is taxed. A disc holder could easily have come unstuck but the Police can easily access the DVLA to see if the vehicle is taxed so , hopefully, the offence was more to do with there being no tax rather than merely not displaying. I read recently that Tax Discs are to be done away wealth soon. H.J.Harris
  • Score: -5

6:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

CtrlAltTab says...

Sid Hunt wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth).

Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid.

'common urban myth' rebutted!

Over to you.................
......
[quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement[/p][/quote]Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth). Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid. 'common urban myth' rebutted! Over to you................. ...... CtrlAltTab
  • Score: 18

6:48pm Thu 14 Aug 14

robbo81 says...

how do you know the person who owned this was hard working and had saved for it? could've been on HP and they'd missed payments or stolen etc.

Also as of 1st of October tax discs will no longer exists - personally i think this is a bad thing as I've reported and had removed and crushed at least 4 vehicles in oxford after noticing they'd been abandoned and were without tax.
how do you know the person who owned this was hard working and had saved for it? could've been on HP and they'd missed payments or stolen etc. Also as of 1st of October tax discs will no longer exists - personally i think this is a bad thing as I've reported and had removed and crushed at least 4 vehicles in oxford after noticing they'd been abandoned and were without tax. robbo81
  • Score: 16

8:11am Fri 15 Aug 14

the wizard says...

The fact is the message hasn't got home to those who think they are above the law.

Firstly the law says that you must wear a seat belt, you had to wear one on your test, and secondly, the law says you must not use a mobile phone while driving a vehicle. Its as easy and as simple as that.

Obviously the law is not stringent enough and nor are the penalties, so they need increasing. It seems to me that both offenses are committed by a hard core of individuals who think they are above the law, so I would up the penalty for driving unbelted to a years ban and 500 fine and a retest to regain the license. For the mobile phone offense I would up the penalty to 2 year ban, confiscation of the vehicle ( to be sold at auction and funds into the public pot) 2000 fine, a two year ban, and banned from taking a retest for a further year, and then to sit a retest after a minimum of ten lessons due to time elapsed not driving. A bit draconian maybe but when will these people learn. The weight of the penalty has to make the offense a non starter.

Please note, I'm informed that no new tax discs will be issued from October, you will still pay the same but no disc, as the relevant authorities have every vehicles details now on a data base the police and various camera set ups know if a vehicle is taxed, insured or MOT'd almost instantly.
The fact is the message hasn't got home to those who think they are above the law. Firstly the law says that you must wear a seat belt, you had to wear one on your test, and secondly, the law says you must not use a mobile phone while driving a vehicle. Its as easy and as simple as that. Obviously the law is not stringent enough and nor are the penalties, so they need increasing. It seems to me that both offenses are committed by a hard core of individuals who think they are above the law, so I would up the penalty for driving unbelted to a years ban and 500 fine and a retest to regain the license. For the mobile phone offense I would up the penalty to 2 year ban, confiscation of the vehicle ( to be sold at auction and funds into the public pot) 2000 fine, a two year ban, and banned from taking a retest for a further year, and then to sit a retest after a minimum of ten lessons due to time elapsed not driving. A bit draconian maybe but when will these people learn. The weight of the penalty has to make the offense a non starter. Please note, I'm informed that no new tax discs will be issued from October, you will still pay the same but no disc, as the relevant authorities have every vehicles details now on a data base the police and various camera set ups know if a vehicle is taxed, insured or MOT'd almost instantly. the wizard
  • Score: 13

9:06am Fri 15 Aug 14

Sid Hunt says...

CtrlAltTab wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth).

Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid.

'common urban myth' rebutted!

Over to you.................

......
That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute

To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?
[quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement[/p][/quote]Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth). Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid. 'common urban myth' rebutted! Over to you................. ......[/p][/quote]That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct? Sid Hunt
  • Score: -3

11:55am Fri 15 Aug 14

dant40 says...

You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route
You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route dant40
  • Score: -2

12:01pm Fri 15 Aug 14

HarwellItsGone says...

Sid Hunt wrote:
CtrlAltTab wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth).

Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid.

'common urban myth' rebutted!

Over to you.................


......
That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute

To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?
Think we have a winner!
[quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement[/p][/quote]Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth). Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid. 'common urban myth' rebutted! Over to you................. ......[/p][/quote]That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?[/p][/quote]Think we have a winner! HarwellItsGone
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Fri 15 Aug 14

ElderP says...

HarwellItsGone wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
CtrlAltTab wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth).

Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid.

'common urban myth' rebutted!

Over to you.................



......
That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute

To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?
Think we have a winner!
You can buy insurance and get a certificate without VED. That doesn't mean you are insured to drive the vehicle on the road until you have then paid the VED.
[quote][p][bold]HarwellItsGone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement[/p][/quote]Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth). Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid. 'common urban myth' rebutted! Over to you................. ......[/p][/quote]That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?[/p][/quote]Think we have a winner![/p][/quote]You can buy insurance and get a certificate without VED. That doesn't mean you are insured to drive the vehicle on the road until you have then paid the VED. ElderP
  • Score: 5

1:09pm Fri 15 Aug 14

CtrlAltTab says...

Why would I need to provide evidence? I am not the one STATING LAW (try reading for a change)

As you aren't able to read plain English, allow me to help you some more:

Firstly the person stating it's 'not true' then you claim that it is true by calling the statement correct - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, so please don't **** at me about evidence, as I never stated ANYTHING about law.
Secondly, according to you I have a 'contractual agreement between me and my insurer' this means I have evidence of what I know to be true regarding this, whether or not this is true in law I do not know because like you I am not a lawyer or barrister, my assumption is that it is true due to the nature of law itself.
Lastly, you can get insurance for ANYTHING, a car which is SORN for instance still needs to be insured which is 'LAW' (https://www.gov.uk/
vehicle-insurance/un
insured-vehicles) but this is not the same insurance as a road worthy car. Also there is the motor trader that has private registry plates which the vehicle doesn't need to have a valid VED.

What I find funny is that you jump in and start sounding like you know what you are talking about, but end up looking like the most i'll-informed person. I find this amusing to say the least and wish you all the best in making me laugh in the future.

Do not forget the 'common urban myth' statement...........
.......it's not common at all, but maybe you have evidence to show this?
Why would I need to provide evidence? I am not the one STATING LAW (try reading for a change) As you aren't able to read plain English, allow me to help you some more: Firstly the person stating it's 'not true' then you claim that it is true by calling the statement correct - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, so please don't **** at me about evidence, as I never stated ANYTHING about law. Secondly, according to you I have a 'contractual agreement between me and my insurer' this means I have evidence of what I know to be true regarding this, whether or not this is true in law I do not know because like you I am not a lawyer or barrister, my assumption is that it is true due to the nature of law itself. Lastly, you can get insurance for ANYTHING, a car which is SORN for instance still needs to be insured which is 'LAW' (https://www.gov.uk/ vehicle-insurance/un insured-vehicles) but this is not the same insurance as a road worthy car. Also there is the motor trader that has private registry plates which the vehicle doesn't need to have a valid VED. What I find funny is that you jump in and start sounding like you know what you are talking about, but end up looking like the most i'll-informed person. I find this amusing to say the least and wish you all the best in making me laugh in the future. Do not forget the 'common urban myth' statement........... .......it's not common at all, but maybe you have evidence to show this? CtrlAltTab
  • Score: 2

1:33pm Fri 15 Aug 14

the wizard says...

dant40 wrote:
You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route
Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.
[quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route[/p][/quote]Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail. the wizard
  • Score: 11

1:52pm Fri 15 Aug 14

dant40 says...

the wizard wrote:
dant40 wrote:
You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route
Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.
If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!!
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route[/p][/quote]Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.[/p][/quote]If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!! dant40
  • Score: -5

2:37pm Fri 15 Aug 14

the wizard says...

dant40 wrote:
the wizard wrote:
dant40 wrote:
You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route
Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.
If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!!
LOL, no not worked up at all, but these people need to know their actions are not acceptable yet the penalties almost invite them to commit these crimes against the rest. Time for a complete rehash of the laws and make the penalties really hit those who can't be bothered, or just don't care. Recovering a situation when the third party is not insured is not simple and then the onus is put on the person who is insured to make all things good again. A task and a half. As goes the belts and phones, the offenders need to be sent a message, it is not acceptable. Too many people are afraid to speak out because of so called political correctness and so on, well sorry, I tell it as it is, and if people are uncomfortable with that then they are likely offenders..
I trust that you are within the law hence your comment. I like it. Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route[/p][/quote]Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.[/p][/quote]If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!![/p][/quote]LOL, no not worked up at all, but these people need to know their actions are not acceptable yet the penalties almost invite them to commit these crimes against the rest. Time for a complete rehash of the laws and make the penalties really hit those who can't be bothered, or just don't care. Recovering a situation when the third party is not insured is not simple and then the onus is put on the person who is insured to make all things good again. A task and a half. As goes the belts and phones, the offenders need to be sent a message, it is not acceptable. Too many people are afraid to speak out because of so called political correctness and so on, well sorry, I tell it as it is, and if people are uncomfortable with that then they are likely offenders.. I trust that you are within the law hence your comment. I like it. Cheers. the wizard
  • Score: 7

6:22pm Fri 15 Aug 14

South Upper 87 says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions
If you cannot afford to run a motor vehicle and stay within the law...get a bike.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions[/p][/quote]If you cannot afford to run a motor vehicle and stay within the law...get a bike. South Upper 87
  • Score: 7

7:50pm Fri 15 Aug 14

dant40 says...

the wizard wrote:
dant40 wrote:
the wizard wrote:
dant40 wrote:
You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route
Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.
If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!!
LOL, no not worked up at all, but these people need to know their actions are not acceptable yet the penalties almost invite them to commit these crimes against the rest. Time for a complete rehash of the laws and make the penalties really hit those who can't be bothered, or just don't care. Recovering a situation when the third party is not insured is not simple and then the onus is put on the person who is insured to make all things good again. A task and a half. As goes the belts and phones, the offenders need to be sent a message, it is not acceptable. Too many people are afraid to speak out because of so called political correctness and so on, well sorry, I tell it as it is, and if people are uncomfortable with that then they are likely offenders..
I trust that you are within the law hence your comment. I like it. Cheers.
Totally agree with you and yes I've always kept on the right side of the law apart from a few ikea pencils. But the justice system needs to be harder to the known fenders or non a fenders.

They could come up with a call system so when someone sells a car they have to by law like sending the ownership log book off they call it with the persons details to see if they are a known a fender. It will cost but it will save lives and take the police off to deal with other stuff plus you find cars from private / trade sale you won't get the same face turn up, this goes out to us all. I'm sure I'm going to get banter over this. Happy days
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] wrote: You don't have to be Sherlock to work this one out. But why is tvp keep advertising in the oxford mail every time that they stopping cars in botley. If I was a dodger I'll change my route[/p][/quote]Perhaps a better tactic is for the TVP to start having a purge in some of the market towns around Oxford and start nailing a few more individuals. The penalty for driving a car without insurance should be 28 days in jail, plus crushing the vehicle if they are the owners. The whole culture about responsible vehicle ownership needs to be brought into focus. Most insurance companies send out reminders before renewal is due and will automatically renew if not contacted otherwise, so the answer is get with a responsible insurance company, pay by direct debit, and be a proper citizen. For serial offenders I would impose much tougher penalties. It is only those who object to such measures who are the likely culprits who are the chancers who scarper hoping to avoid detection. About time the penalty was imposed to deter such scum from even thinking about it. Object all you like but the net is closing in on such people as is social opinion. They are scum, and need to be flushed out of society, preferably down a drain called jail.[/p][/quote]If you got nothing to hide then don't get worked up. Calm down dear!![/p][/quote]LOL, no not worked up at all, but these people need to know their actions are not acceptable yet the penalties almost invite them to commit these crimes against the rest. Time for a complete rehash of the laws and make the penalties really hit those who can't be bothered, or just don't care. Recovering a situation when the third party is not insured is not simple and then the onus is put on the person who is insured to make all things good again. A task and a half. As goes the belts and phones, the offenders need to be sent a message, it is not acceptable. Too many people are afraid to speak out because of so called political correctness and so on, well sorry, I tell it as it is, and if people are uncomfortable with that then they are likely offenders.. I trust that you are within the law hence your comment. I like it. Cheers.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you and yes I've always kept on the right side of the law apart from a few ikea pencils. But the justice system needs to be harder to the known fenders or non a fenders. They could come up with a call system so when someone sells a car they have to by law like sending the ownership log book off they call it with the persons details to see if they are a known a fender. It will cost but it will save lives and take the police off to deal with other stuff plus you find cars from private / trade sale you won't get the same face turn up, this goes out to us all. I'm sure I'm going to get banter over this. Happy days dant40
  • Score: 2

8:49am Sun 17 Aug 14

Sid Hunt says...

Oh dear, you are getting a little petulant aren't you.

"Why would I need to provide evidence? I am not the one STATING LAW (try reading for a change)"

If it were true that no VED = no insurance this would be documented in legislation and it would be very easy to provide this. Despite your protestations, you have not because you can not. You challenge me to provide this but laws are not written in such a way. Do you expect that for each proscribed act there should be another statement to state that not breaching an act is OK?

e.g. Driving on a footway is an offence - do you think there should be further wording to state that not driving on the footway is not an offence?

Think about this, if no VED = no insurance then each prosecution for no VED would be accompanied by a prosecution for no insurance.


"As you aren't able to read plain English, allow me to help you some more:
Firstly the person stating it's 'not true' then you claim that it is true by calling the statement correct - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, so please don't **** at me about evidence, as I never stated ANYTHING about law."

The poster stated that it is not true that no VED = no insurance, that is a fact and I supported the post - how you construe this as not agreeing is baffling. I have no idea what "don't **** at me" signifies.


"Secondly, according to you I have a 'contractual agreement between me and my insurer' this means I have evidence of what I know to be true regarding this, whether or not this is true in law I do not know because like you I am not a lawyer or barrister, my assumption is that it is true due to the nature of law itself."

Another baffling comment. You have evidence of your insurers terms & conditions - one of which is that they will not provide cover if your vehicle has no VED. That is a condition of your contract between them and you. Because it is stipulated you ASSUME it is law. My insurance policy has no such stipulation, should I assume I don't even need VED? After all, my policy doesn't say I need it so it must be the case.


"Lastly, you can get insurance for ANYTHING, a car which is SORN for instance still needs to be insured which is 'LAW' (https://www.gov.uk/
vehicle-insurance/un
insured-vehicles) but this is not the same insurance as a road worthy car."

I'll refer you to your earlier jibe ""As you aren't able to read plain English...."

Why not take a few seconds to read the content of the page you have cited? You will see:

"You must have motor insurance for your vehicle if you use it on roads and in public places.

You do not need to insure your vehicle if it is kept off the road and declared as off the road (SORN)." - note the word NOT in relation to SORN.


"Also there is the motor trader that has private registry plates which the vehicle doesn't need to have a valid VED."

What is your point? Motor trade licences are not insurance, nor are they 'private'.


"What I find funny is that you jump in and start sounding like you know what you are talking about, but end up looking like the most i'll-informed person. I find this amusing to say the least and wish you all the best in making me laugh in the future."

Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote this? (BTW the way "i'll informed"?)



"Do not forget the 'common urban myth' statement...........

.......it's not common at all, but maybe you have evidence to show this?"


Yes, read the inaccurate statements written by yourself and others above.
Oh dear, you are getting a little petulant aren't you. "Why would I need to provide evidence? I am not the one STATING LAW (try reading for a change)" If it were true that no VED = no insurance this would be documented in legislation and it would be very easy to provide this. Despite your protestations, you have not because you can not. You challenge me to provide this but laws are not written in such a way. Do you expect that for each proscribed act there should be another statement to state that not breaching an act is OK? e.g. Driving on a footway is an offence - do you think there should be further wording to state that not driving on the footway is not an offence? Think about this, if no VED = no insurance then each prosecution for no VED would be accompanied by a prosecution for no insurance. "As you aren't able to read plain English, allow me to help you some more: Firstly the person stating it's 'not true' then you claim that it is true by calling the statement correct - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, so please don't **** at me about evidence, as I never stated ANYTHING about law." The poster stated that it is not true that no VED = no insurance, that is a fact and I supported the post - how you construe this as not agreeing is baffling. I have no idea what "don't **** at me" signifies. "Secondly, according to you I have a 'contractual agreement between me and my insurer' this means I have evidence of what I know to be true regarding this, whether or not this is true in law I do not know because like you I am not a lawyer or barrister, my assumption is that it is true due to the nature of law itself." Another baffling comment. You have evidence of your insurers terms & conditions - one of which is that they will not provide cover if your vehicle has no VED. That is a condition of your contract between them and you. Because it is stipulated you ASSUME it is law. My insurance policy has no such stipulation, should I assume I don't even need VED? After all, my policy doesn't say I need it so it must be the case. "Lastly, you can get insurance for ANYTHING, a car which is SORN for instance still needs to be insured which is 'LAW' (https://www.gov.uk/ vehicle-insurance/un insured-vehicles) but this is not the same insurance as a road worthy car." I'll refer you to your earlier jibe ""As you aren't able to read plain English...." Why not take a few seconds to read the content of the page you have cited? You will see: "You must have motor insurance for your vehicle if you use it on roads and in public places. You do not need to insure your vehicle if it is kept off the road and declared as off the road (SORN)." - note the word NOT in relation to SORN. "Also there is the motor trader that has private registry plates which the vehicle doesn't need to have a valid VED." What is your point? Motor trade licences are not insurance, nor are they 'private'. "What I find funny is that you jump in and start sounding like you know what you are talking about, but end up looking like the most i'll-informed person. I find this amusing to say the least and wish you all the best in making me laugh in the future." Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote this? (BTW the way "i'll informed"?) "Do not forget the 'common urban myth' statement........... .......it's not common at all, but maybe you have evidence to show this?" Yes, read the inaccurate statements written by yourself and others above. Sid Hunt
  • Score: 3

8:52am Sun 17 Aug 14

Sid Hunt says...

ElderP wrote:
HarwellItsGone wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
CtrlAltTab wrote:
Sid Hunt wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
tinsel84 wrote:
A little extreme !
No RFL, no insurance.

It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Not true! A common urban myth.
Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement
Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth).

Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid.

'common urban myth' rebutted!

Over to you.................




......
That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute

To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?
Think we have a winner!
You can buy insurance and get a certificate without VED. That doesn't mean you are insured to drive the vehicle on the road until you have then paid the VED.
Nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]ElderP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarwellItsGone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: A little extreme ![/p][/quote]No RFL, no insurance. It's time to cleanse the streets of Oxford of all untaxed/uninsured vehicles.[/p][/quote]Not true! A common urban myth.[/p][/quote]Not sure why tinsel gets minus votes for a correct staement[/p][/quote]Maybe rather than voicing ones opinion it would be a good idea to provide evidence to show that the fact was a myth (though not a common urban myth). Also please check your insurance fine print, because I checked mine and it states the car has to be road legal to include 'Vehicle Excise Duty' or the insurance is invalid. 'common urban myth' rebutted! Over to you................. ......[/p][/quote]That is a contractual agreement between you and your insurers. There is no law which states that no VED = no insurance. Why not heed your own advice and "provide evidence"? i.e. specify the law/act/statute To pay the VED it is necessary to have insurance for that vehicle and, if appropriate, a valid MOT certificate. If you buy a vehicle which does not have VED how do you get insurance to allow you to purchase VED if what you claim is correct?[/p][/quote]Think we have a winner![/p][/quote]You can buy insurance and get a certificate without VED. That doesn't mean you are insured to drive the vehicle on the road until you have then paid the VED.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Sid Hunt
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Mon 18 Aug 14

cowley bob says...

Can someone please post a link to which insurance companies cover me tpft or fully comp without VED i
Can someone please post a link to which insurance companies cover me tpft or fully comp without VED i cowley bob
  • Score: 1

9:42am Tue 19 Aug 14

Witmoor says...

docs wrote:
I know it's August, but this is scraping the barrel. And with a photo, too.
If you think this is bad - check this out. NOT NEWS!!!

http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1141748
3.Victoria_makes_a_s
pectacle_of_herself/
[quote][p][bold]docs[/bold] wrote: I know it's August, but this is scraping the barrel. And with a photo, too.[/p][/quote]If you think this is bad - check this out. NOT NEWS!!! http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/1141748 3.Victoria_makes_a_s pectacle_of_herself/ Witmoor
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Wed 20 Aug 14

The New Private Eye says...

South Upper 87 wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions
If you cannot afford to run a motor vehicle and stay within the law...get a bike.
ok, what a well thought out and educated comment to make, I will cycle the 30 miles from Banbury to Oxfam in Cowley instead to get to work
[quote][p][bold]South Upper 87[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: Various companies making £multi-million profits get away with paying no tax, yet a hard working guy who saved up to buy a car has it towed away for a hundred quid or so. There is something seriously wrong with this country, especially when it comes to persecuting the motorist. Speeding fines are now a business and nothing to do with road safety. Parking fines are now a business and nothing to do with keeping our highways clear. If the punishment for not having a £200 Tax disc is having a £20k+ motor taken away, then Vodafone, Amazon et-al must owe £billions[/p][/quote]If you cannot afford to run a motor vehicle and stay within the law...get a bike.[/p][/quote]ok, what a well thought out and educated comment to make, I will cycle the 30 miles from Banbury to Oxfam in Cowley instead to get to work The New Private Eye
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Eraser says...

If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.
If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated. Eraser
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree