Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Car abandoned by neighbours!

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    Parking does indeed constitute use. It’s defined in the 1961 act. It does not require a driver as you stated.

    Here’s the definition of use in the act, under Section 3 interpretations.

    “use”, in relation to a vehicle, includes park, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

    Indeed it does in relation to parking tickets etc. Does not give powers to Guards to tow a car with no tax though


  • #33
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    kdevitt wrote: »
    We did phone them, well my neighbour did, and they were out that evening and had it towed by Gannons.

    Eitherway, you're being very selective here in what you're quoting. If the car is abandoned, they can tow it, end of. If its simply untaxed, they won't.

    I'm not being selective at all. Read Section 41(1)(a) of the 94 act. It doesn't get any clearer than that no matter how much you argue your point.


  • #34
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Indeed it does in relation to parking tickets etc. Does not give powers to Guards to tow a car with no tax though

    The word “use” is not confined to parking tickets only. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’ve given the act’s definition for “use”. That is not my interpretation. It’s stated in the act clearly.

    Vehicles can be seized under section 41 for more than just tax. Various amendments and statutory instruments have been made since 1994.


  • #35
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,455 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Section 41 clearly states that there must be a driver of the vehicle.
    It doesn't. Section 41 (1) sub-section (a) requires that there be a driver. The other sub-sections do not have that requirement: http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1994/act/7/section/41/revised/en/html

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and dark mode). Now available through the extension stores

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #36
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    The word “use” is not confined to parking tickets only. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’ve given the act’s definition for “use”. That is not my interpretation. It’s stated in the act clearly.

    Vehicles can be seized under section 41 for more than just tax. Various amendments and statutory instruments have been made since 1994.

    They can be seized for having no valid tax after 2 months and no insurance under Section 41 but there must be a driver is all I'm saying. Do you believe that a guard walking down the street who sees a car who's tax disc is out more than 2 months can just have the car towed?? They can't and if they do they are wrong


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    They can be seized for having no valid tax after 2 months and no insurance under Section 41 but there must be a driver is all I'm saying. Do you believe that a guard walking down the street who sees a car who's tax disc is out more than 2 months can just have the car towed?? They can't and if they do they are wrong

    It’s been amended to also cover no CVRT and NCT. Yes if a vehicle is in contravention of the act then it’s liable to being seized. Generally Gardaí don’t seize it unless it’s being driven but if they seized it without a driver then that’s perfectly legal. A statutory instrument was signed into force in 2011 and the facility disposing of the vehicle must notify the registered owner prior to its disposal. It won’t be crushed without the owner knowing about it


  • #38
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    It’s been amended to also cover no CVRT and NCT. Yes if a vehicle is in contravention of the act then it’s liable to being seized. Generally Gardaí don’t seize it unless it’s being driven but if they seized it without a driver then that’s perfectly legal. A statutory instrument was signed into force in 2011 and the facility disposing of the vehicle must notify the registered owner prior to its disposal. It won’t be crushed without the owner knowing about it

    They can't seize for NCT anymore, problems with the legislation.


Advertisement