When SMS messed me around for the second time about a year ago I told the NEC/NIA what I thought of their agent for delivery. They sympathised with me and said 'it seems to happen to a lot of people' . . . Unfortunately, I was told, like a lot of Quango type organisations (they are sustantially an arm of Birmingham City Council) some idiot ...

If the above really does work for SMS then the obvious contempt for the consumer (unfortunately in this case the sending organisations are the 'customer') just about sums the outfit up!

Hello Josie, Click on my name to the left and get my email, email me with a phone number and I'll help you try to break the deadlock. KRs Funforus

The problems occur when assumptions run riot. I would always an vehemently agree that anyone who 'uses' a vehicle on the public highway or in a public place should have appropriate third party insurance. The whole (original) point of the legislation is that anything with the power of an engine of any sort should have constraints to protect ...

A bit like 'cheques in the post' is that one! Right, some ideas to secure payment. Establish who owns the vehicle involved. Is it a person, is it a business and if a business is it a sole trader, partnership or limited company. This is important because that is where the debt lies. You can be all sweetness and light and offer to help ...

Yes, a common misconception. Section 143 refers to use / users and not to keep / keeping - which, in law, equate to use by driving or moving under power and to leaving standing or moving not under power (with certain exceptions. I entirely agree with you that there are risks attached to 'keeping' and certainly to certain acts of pushing, ...

I would have agreed until the thread mentioned above where the actual situation was dug out in great detail. The Road Safety Act of 2006 (or last year not sure) does actually seem to make it an offence to have an uninsured non-moving vehicle on the road or public place . . . But, it was pointed out, it is an enabling Act and no regulation has been ...

That's right. And 'cannot' is interpreted as the other driver being a. uninsured and b. unlikey to be able to pay. They should take a view on it. When local scrotes bash your property whilst driving uninsured of course it is theoretically possible to sue them but a reasonable view is that there is little chance of success. So off to ...

Apologies for all the typos above, my fingers must have been drinking!

I think you have been wrongly advised. The MIB must cover damage to property caused by uninsured drivers. Your car is your property whether or not insured at the time . . . and given that you were doing nothing unlawful yourself you ought to be protected. Problem for the other party is thatyou must report the matter to the Police o apprach the ...