OT - tax disc holder

[Clive George]

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database looking for clones. And that's almost certainly not done.

[Bob Henson]

When the law was first introduced, I don't think Traffic Wardens existed anyway - it was for the benefit of the rozzers on foot patrol (remember them?). In those days, if you parked on the "wrong" side of the road after lighting up time you got nicked for that too.

[Dave Liquorice]

where

margin,

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal lookup.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the result to the enquirer).

[Clive George]

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

[alan_m]

But unless there is someone to physically stop the car what use is it to detect the problem with a camera?

[Chris French]

In message , Brian Gaff writes

I suspect the number of times a member of the public would tell the police there is an untaxed vehicle was rather small.

And anyway, now (are for some time already) why would that matter? They have got a list of all the untaxed cars already

[Chris French]

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the docs as 'the computer does it all'.

Dunno if this is knew, or unoffical, or because they were tuned into one of the post offices with the counter by the main shop tills when they computerised it a bit more apparently

[Nightjar]

On 04/10/2014 18:38, Bob Henson wrote: ...

They have varied over the years, but under the 2002 regulations the requirement was that, on a vehicle fitted with a windscreen that extended across the vehicle to its near side, the licence be affixed on or adjacent to the near side of the windscreen, in a manner that allowed the particulars on it to be read from the near side of the vehicle in daylight. No height was set, except that, in the case of 'other vehicles', it should be between 760mm and 1.8m above the ground.

Very generous of them, given that you were the one responsible for ensuring that the disc was properly displayed.

With effect from 1st October 2014, The Finance Act 2014 removed the offence of failure to display a vehicle excise licence by deleting the relevant sections from the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

[dennis]

They check at the time you apply for the tax when you do it online, they check the MOT at the same time.

They do the same checks when the post office person enters the details.

You really shouldn't read stuff that isn't true.

[Adrian]

Yet the PO can't check the (far more reliable and "inhouse") MOT database, which is why you still need to produce the paper certificate in the PO?

Now, should I believe some random tit on usenet over the Gov't when it comes to changes in Gov't processes and procedures? Hmm, lemme think...

You're right. I'll just ignore you from here on in.

[Dave Liquorice]

where

margin,

Next time it passes a Traffic Car with the ANPR active it gets flagged up to the coppers inside as a possible clone. They can then decide to put down their tea or not...

[Adrian]

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

[Dave Liquorice]

analyse the

No you are missing the point. Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them something "odd" is going on...

This also means that to some extent a vechicles movements over the period of the stored data can be recalled. Big Brother?

[Clive George]

No, I really am not.

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the "wanted" list as a result.

[Chris French]

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at least some PO's can do and online check.

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its not hard

Also checkable online.

[Nightjar]

Unless you are paying at a Post Office in Northern Ireland.

[Adrian]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:58:06 +0100, Nightjar > Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at

Because the continuous insurance regs don't apply to NI. Yet.

[Bob Henson]

I think you are correct, but may not be for long. The time and resources taken to correlate all references to one number would have been so great that, as you suggest, it would surely never have been done, unless for, say, a specific police request. Now it would appear there may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may rocket up.

[Bob Henson]

On 05/10/2014 9:34 PM, "Nightjar