Crosswords0 min ago
Misleading Information
In this thread:
https:/
Which has for some reason been closed, I made it clear that misleading information was being published by solicitors and others. As Corby has highlighted, even National Highways are at it:
"If you are stopped by the police and found with illegal tyres, you could receive a £2,500 fine and 3 penalty points per tyre."
You couldn't because the law doesn't allow it.
Is it a good idea to fool motorists with this (and much more) misleading information? Or is it irresponsible?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
https:/
but you knew that didn't you🙄
“Perhaps the fact it doesn't apply could be why the thread was closed.”
It does still apply. As I illustrated, the same information is current on the RAC website. The same wrong information is to be found on many solicitors’ websites. For example this one:
https:/
“Penalty Points for 4 Bald Tyres
Having four bald tyres is an extremely serious offence. This could result in a total of twelve penalty points (3 points for each defective tyre), an automatic disqualification from driving under the “totting up” system, and fines up to £10,000.”
Interestingly that firm does not offer to try to persuade the court to only impose three points (as the court is obliged to under the law, so not much persuasion would be required). But this one does:
https:/
“If you are caught driving with more than one defective tyre on the same occasion, you could receive 3 points for each separate offence. In these cases, we can usually persuade the court to impose only one set of 3 points on your driving licence.”
Just for additional information, here is an extract from the Magistrates’ Sentencing Guidelines for tyre offences:
It shows clearly that only one set of points should be imposed when two or more offences are committed at the same time (as per Road Traffic Offenders’ Act s28(4)).
I can understand solicitors providing misleading information. If they can screw £1,000 or more from a concerned client by simply asking the court to do what they are bound by law to do anyway, good luck to them. But I think it is incumbent of organisations like the RAC and particularly government agencies to provide accurate impartial advice.
“I emailed the RAC press office (I know) they said they will check their website & correct any errors.”
Good luck with that, dave. I did the same on this very topic two or three years ago. The bulls’ excrement is still on their website.
"Not happy.Why was my reasonable question closed down.Not happy at all.Back to you AB editor?"
I think I may have been at least partially repsonsible for that.
I came in when PP suggested that no MoT invalidates insurance. It doesn't and I demonstrated that it doesn't with reference to a Financial Ombudsman ruling .I also mentioned that many solicitors claim that it does on their websites. I believed that may have been relevant to you as you asked about driving with no MoT for a while. Driving with no MoT is one thing, driving with no insurance is quite another and it was an important point to clarify.
All went well until Corby raised the issue of four bald tyres attracting twelve points. This is another fallacy and I demonstrated that with reference to the law which shows that it is. Obviously this was off-thread and of no relevance to your original question.
The debate had actually progressed to a discussion about misleading information being published. Whilst worthy, perhaps, of a new thread, I would not have raised one had yours not been closed. But there were still a few loose ends to tie up in order that readers were not misled.
