ESB

Thanks agan Nick. I have got some of those already including top-up so the marginal cost is not so bad. I will start the rounds soon forearmed with this background information! ESB      

Hi Nick Thanks for the reply which is really helpful. Regarding The other insurances  what are they please? vehicle? tools? health?  ?? I was kind of expecting 2-3k but much more for decenalle I suppose. Thanks again

Hi Chezchattes Thanks for that. I'm in Lot et Garonne. I have put it on my profile as well ! ESB      

I am going through the process of registering in France as an electrician. Can any sparkies out there give me an idea of the costs of insurance and decenale. Also any recommendations for insurance companies. Thanks ESB

 Makes good sense to me not to buy  if the news is free online.

Nil caborundum and all that pimpernel. - you are venturing into the bible-belt of France after all  [6] A couple of observations: 1. would any driver insurance work if named driver doesn't? 2. what is wrong with bending rules anyway - I thought that breaking rules is what gets you in trouble.

Hi pimpernel Please dont take my assertions as an answer, they are observations really. What I was attempting to do was simply illustrate that all may not be as clear cut as some people suggest. I have no intention of suggesting what SD has said is not correct, but only that there can be situations that don't easily fit the mould. There can in fact be certain situations where the rules of each country cause some problems between themselves. This area of law is aptly called 'Conflict of Laws' and not surprisingly it is something of a growth area.

Quote "You can't legally be resident in two places as far as I know but of course you can claim to be" Residency is an issue which is becoming more complex, driven primarily by taxation issues. Rules of residency can relate to the  time spent in a country, domicile, nationality and centre of interests. Each one of these areas could in theory point to a different country of 'residence'.  The rules are essentially defined by each country. Thus it is possible to be resident in more than one country e.g. you spend more time in UK working than at home in France but wife and kids live in France. Your domicile is in France therefore French resident but your time in UK gives you fiscal residence (at the very least) in the UK and perhaps by having a business and other assets you could be resident through 'centre of interests' criteria. EDIT: Bob T I just saw your post. I think this is a very difficult issue in that if you are de facto reident of more thasn one country as above you may find that you need to register a car in eah country to comply with that country's rules as expanded by Sunday Driver.

Bob T said But to have a UK MOT and tax, you must have UK insurance. If you read the small print then you will find that you need to be a UK resident for that. So you break two rules, the insurance company's and the French importation rules. Are you suggesting that you cannot satisfy the rules of UK residency at the same time as being a French Resident?

HI Chris I am dealing with registration right now - to start with under Chambres de Commerce including entretien parcs et jardins (?). Did you actually register this with the Chambre de Metiers or was it terassement or some other variation. I am curious as when I mentioned by way of example some pool cleaning activity to the CC I was told I must go to CM. I am not actually worried about this as such as I have done the stage de gestion already.  

Just think of this:  if no Road Tax = invalidated insurance = no insurance = criminal offence, why have Govt infomercials and other promolgators of such information not spelled out to the driving public that this is in fact the case i.e. the basic laws concerning what is necessary to drive legally.  Here's a bit of the Govt website and again no mention of invalidated insurance - if it is the case why not let people know? Here's the link as well. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_4022059 Edit :   I am sorry but I have had to remove the text as it contravenes the terms of use of this government website *ref : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/SiteInformation/DG_10015420).   You can have links but you can't copy and paste it would seem. Sorry about that.

[quote user="Maricopa"][quote user="ESB"]  why no prosecutions for no insurance if no Road Tax? [/quote] Whilst not having done so since we moved out here last year, I always used to read the Court Round-up in our local rag (Portsmouth Evening News).  Whenever there was a prosecution for No Road Fund Licence, there was ALWAYS the additional prosecution for Driving Without Valid Insurance. [/quote] I have no answer for that though my experience as a criminal defence lawyer never included any prosecution directly linking the lack of Road Tax to invalidating an extant insurance policy.and I have dealt with what I thought were some super keen & thorough prosectors.  I have dealt with a couple of cases where false declarations made getting the insurance by the 'defendant', brought to light on the back of other motoring offences, invalidated the insurance and led to a conviction. I think that is something to do with false declarations allowing the policy to be voided ab initio.

Being a drunk driver causing an accident does not ivaliadte the legality of the insurance either, in my experience. Same principle I suppose. I am sure it would have other effects on how payments were made beyond the legal minimum. Aded after post with RH crossed: It may be academic or not but it seems to me many people who post here think that no Road Tax = uninsured.

The Police  would check to see if you had insurance that was valid - no brainer really. But if the insurance is invalidted in such a way, why no prosecutions for no insurance if no Road Tax? I understand the MOT bit because it is a road safety issue but Road Tax is not. Are you absolutely sure no Road Tax means no payout?

[quote user="Russethouse"] Given the facility of the police to check the insurance through the tax disc I think it is. [/quote] I was not talking about the ability to check if there is an insurance policy in force. Its more about assertions that no when a car has no Road Tax the car is then  'non road legal' and therefore and as a direct result of having  no Road Tax the insurance policy in force is no longer valid. I may have got the wrong end of the stick but it seemed that way to me. So is anyone actually suggesting that this is in fact the case? If not so then all the stuff about no Road Tax equals no insurance is not correct.