What is?
What's the MIB about then?
What about case law regarding unattended cars on public roads that weren't insured in their own right covered by a policy, even if the driver was?
Are you saying a private motorist can get a policy that will include any car as being insured (as merely opposed to being insured to drive any car)? And that is sufficient for all legal purposes - ie tax VED, cover whilst the car is unattended on a public road?
Isn't that the same - "that car"?
What about when the car is unattended on a public road?
There's case law that talks about this (cited on another thread about this, might be in another newsgroup, though).
Then what's the MIB about then? And why - when renewing VED online, does it not merely ask for the drivers license number, as opposed to the car's idenbreasty?
That's what I've been saying all along - and you just distinctly disagreed with that higher up?
"exemptions" - semantics, it amounts to the same thing.
For legal and VED purposes, private motorists need a certificate mentioning the car, or an entry in the MIB for online renewals - it appears traders don't seem to be hampered in that way.
Which? Does, or doesn't?
Giving you two alternatives, and just answering "Yes" doesn't really clarify it.
How?
How can a private motorist tax a car without a certificate stating the car, and or an entry in the MIB, especially given your following comments?
And even if you did and the post office accepted it - you try and tax your car online like that.
Which states what, exactly, about the legal requirement for insurance for both drivers, and vehicles?
No they aren't - quite correct.
However, said lotto winner may well have sufficient funds to be able to register the bond thing with a magistrate, and have the insurance requirement waived.
Which is somewhat irrelevant for the majority of private motorists.
Try and renew your car tax online, without there being an entry in the MIB for the car.
