Unless an insurance company comes up with a very cheap product sharpish then our household will be parting ways with a car, a motorbike, and a moped, all of which are un-insured at present.
I wonder if it will hit residuals of any cars at all as there may suddenly be a fair few people trying to get rid of cars that they have previously been happy to have sitting idle? I suppose maybe not, there can't be that many people in the same situation who will be trying to off-load all their unused transport, can there?
Blue
|
As I understand it if you use or park a vehicle on a road public place then Insurance for which you pay for has to be in force.
If you take a vehicle off the road and park it up and cancel Insurance, presumably for some time, then MIIC (Motor Insurance Information Centre) will have to be informed presumably direct or through the Insuring Company so that when MIIC inform PITO (Police Record Data Base)of uninsured vehicles on periodic updates, it will not appear within the data as uninsured but off road. Something similar to SORN and no payment whilst vehicle off road.
Lawful authority for MIIC to supply PITO with VRM, make and model of vehicle and date Insurance ceased to be in force in relation to use of that vehicle came into effect 4.11.05 in The Disclosure of Vehicles Insurance Regs 2005.
So on Computor records they will have Driver, Excise, Insurance, MOT and next - a data base on the thousands of unpaid parking fines with inter Council agreement. Outstanding fine on a vehicle they can clamp so say someone from Yorkshire on a day trip to London, gets PCN, returns home and sells car to Lancastrian (cool). Car checked at Preston in possession of new owner, fine outstanding - CLAMP. Yes that is what they are proposing and working on.
DVD
Human Being No 465983RPP/123/1937
|
"Human Being No 465983RPP/123/1937"
LOL, DVD! I hope you've been verified...
Personally, I'm about to unscrew the number plates from my unused vehicles.
|
|
|
|
If they're SORN'd then you don't have to have them insured. Anyone that had them off the public highway will be ok. If cars aren't insured then they can't be taxed either so anyone with a car locked away without tax and not SORN'd would be in trouble anyway.
teabelly
|
"It is estimated that every law-abiding motorist pays an extra £30 a year because of uninsured drivers. Drivers are rightly fed up with those who flout the law and we are determined to rid the roads of this small hard core of anti-social drivers."
Claptrap. The only thing the Government is interested in is the extra tax revenue generated from the additional premiums.
|
That sounds like another conspiracy theory to me.
Personally, I AM fed up with hearing about uninsured drivers, and not because the Govt misses out on the insurance tax. I want to know that if I have an accident me or mine will receive appropriate compensation.
|
I don't understand this. Insured against what ? The RTA doesn't apply to my drive or garden. There are no road risks. I could insure the car against being stolen or dmaaged, I suppose.
And insured to what level ? If its limited to £1 then I guess my house insurer would throw it in for free.
However, if its insurance not covered by the RTA then minimum standards, levels and duties will not apply. You can lie through your teeth on the proposal form which will probably not be illegal unless you actually ever try to claim.
Compulsory insurance deals wiht my legal liability. How does that liability arise if the thing is in my garden doing nothing other than rotting ?
And if its tied to SORN, thenm what will it gain ?
There is no way that this government, or probably any other, has the wherewithall to deal with such a complex law.
|
|
|
|
"It is estimated that every law-abiding motorist pays an extra £30 a year because of uninsured drivers. Drivers are rightly fed up with those who flout the law and we are determined to rid the roads of this small hard core of anti-social drivers." Claptrap. The only thing the Government is interested in is the extra tax revenue generated from the additional premiums.
Huh? Do you think it's OK that there are so many uninsured drivers on the roads?
|
|
|
|
If they are going to start fining for no insurance even if the vehicle is kept off the public highway then one way around this could be to register the car in another (fictitious?) name. Keep the green slip blank so you are able to get a replacement V5, free of charge, when you either sell the car or get it back on the road.
I'm normally a law abiding citizen but the simple fact is that as more laws are created then more will be broken.
|
|
This government has created over 700 new criminal offences since it was elected in 1997. This is at a rate 10 times higher than any previous government. Says it all really.
|
this subject was first posted here by smokie on 30 sept 2005
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35141&...f
tinyurl.com/8thwo
"Uninsured drivers are to face automatic fines of at least £60 ... ... the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used."
|
Laid up cover by the way is not always good value. Although I got it in 1988/89 when I rebuilt my four wheeled Morgan, a more recent rebuilt on another car I was advised to cover as normal as it was cheaper!
Advice was from a broker used to dealing with sort of thing, so I trust him.
|
Don't some household contents policies cover valuables kept outside? Most includes bicycles and that sort of thing, and I imagine you could nominate stored vehicles.
Of course that would mean HMG poking about in your other insurance, but as they can already send officials into your house with a camera (for council tax revaluation) there's no privacy left anyway!
|
NoFM2R has said it - insure against what?
There is at present no obligation for a SORNed car to be roadworthy, or even to be complete. I have two cars on SORN.
One is a spare, and just about roadworthy with a bit of pottering.
The other exists more in theory than practice. It is either in one or other of my sheds, in pieces, or some of the bits may be serving time on another car. Some may have been scrapped. Either way, I can't see what I might be expected to insure against. The only risk to anybody would be myself, as I trip over its propped up stack of doors yet again, or drop a starter motor on my head as I reach up to a high shelf.
The only reason I don't "scrap" the car is to retain the right to rescuscitate it at some time in the distant future. If I did scrap it, the bits would stay stacked in precisely the same position, and pose just as much a danger to the public as to require compulsory insurance.
|
I have two cars on SORN.
>>
so why are you worried ?
let me repeat:
" the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used "
i.e. you need to sorn it.
|
But why ?
Cars must be taxed or SORN'd. That is the current status. What does unworkable compulsory insurance do ?
Perhaps I use my car occasionally so I tax it. But I only insure it on the days I use it.
I think this must be ugly rumour and not really based on anythign likely to happen.
|
Well I keep my sopdier garaged for 6 months of the year.
It's still insured against all the normal things...
Accidental damage, theft, fire.
Of course if it was in bits and peices scatterd over various bits of my property I wouldn't have it insured.
JaB>> But why ?
|
I think this must be ugly rumour and not really based on anythign likely to happen
>>
not an ugly rumour; i refer the hon. gentleman to the following document, page 4, paragraph nos.8 and 9 in particular:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/docume...f
8. We propose to introduce legislation making it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle
the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such
an offence would not require the police to prove that the vehicle was in use on the road. Subject to
certain exemptions, the possession of a vehicle without valid insurance would be an offence.
Liability would rest with the keeper of the vehicle.
9. This would be a new offence, additional to the existing offence of "using a vehicle on a road or
other public place without third party insurance" as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. The new offence would initially attract a fixed penalty of £100. If, after the issue of a
fixed penalty notice, the vehicle continued to have no policy of insurance for its use then the case
could be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts. It is proposed that the maximum penalty on
prosecution be a fine at level 3 (£1000). The new offence would not attract endorsements on a
Driving Licence. Its purpose would be to deliver a sharp lesson to those motorists who fail to
renew their insurance on time, and to deter all motorists from committing the more serious
offence of actually driving whilst uninsured.
|
"to deter all motorists from committing the more serious
offence of actually driving whilst uninsured"
So we make it an offence not to insure a car that you're not driving. Brilliant...
|
'subject to certain exemptions' SORN declaration perhaps? proof it's in pieces? Hope so, or this will do no good for the classic car enthusiasts. Mind you, perhaps not. 'would not require the police to prove it was in use on the road' Wonderful, more fines without any burden of proof. Now that is a police state, and the government is reduced to a form of taxation on possession of a specific item. What next?
JS
|
Dalglish,
Good job with para 8 & 9, but to reassure people, let's carry on to para 10:
(from the same link as Dalglish post @ 16.31)
"There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance."
Here's the good bit:
"Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or restoration, or a vehicle that is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the ...DVLA, "
Drum roll.....
"THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT FOR INSURANCE TO BE IN PLACE." (my capitals)
So if your car is tucked away in the garage in bits, SORNed or similar, you have nothing whatsoever to fear.
Please people, read the whole document and make up your own minds.
It is also worth noting para 7.
"Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters people from driving uninsured but which does not require police intervention, and will ahve a minimum impact on the honest motorist."
It's easy to get agitated and bash the government. I actually can't see anything wrong with these proposals. USe car, tax and insure it. Don't use car, declare SORN. Job done.
Please, what is sooooo difficult about all of that?
|
>> I have two cars on SORN. >> so why are you worried ? let me repeat: " the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used " i.e. you need to sorn it.
That's the statement that I was looking for, so long as it's possible to declare that the car is not being used and not insure it then that's fine.
Currently when we take one of the cars off road we just transfer the policy onto the car that we are putting back on the road, we certainly don't inform anybody of the insurance situation, just SORN them and that's it.
Blue
|
|
|
|
>>n state thanks to public apathy...
It's not just public apathy, though... unless you can find a single UK politician who will stand up and state their opposition to all this totalitarian meddling. Anyway - let's not get anymore into politics.
|
"the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."
But surely Section 143 of the RTA 1988 says that a car used on a public road must have a certain level of insurance - so if a car were NOT used on the road, its non-insurance would still be in accordance with the act, because the act only refers to use on the road?
|
|
OK, so how do we protest?
|
OK, so how do we protest?
It appears to be a proposal at present. Maybe it's up for consulation? Find out and express your view.
Write to your MP and raise it with them.
I will myself research this and depending on what i find raise it with my MP. They are there to represent you after all, enough posters on here moan about the public sleepwalking into things, but maybe there is an opportunity to do something.
|
It appears to be a proposal at present ... .... I will myself research this ....
>>
too late, m8
am i wasting my time?
don't people read the links posted?
Closing Date for Responses
4. Responses should be sent to Tom Roberts in the Department for Transport at the address given in
Paragraph 5 below, and must reach the Department by 12.00 noon on Friday 25 February 2005.
|
|
As soon as i'd posted, i read through and found para 10, see post above in threaded view. The whole issue seems to be a storm in a tea cup.
|
|
|
I will myself research this ....>>
IIRC it is due to come into force on November 22nd, 2005.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
Not every vehicle off the road can be SORNed ie those that have not been used for a very long time.
And what is a vehicle? A log book could be associated with just a separate chassis which may be cut and shut awaiting a new or second hand body, period engine, axles etc.A local vintage vehicle enthusiast created a very nice Alvis working along those lines.
Who is going to insure a potential vehicle?
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
Yes I have a C5, but hidden away in the corner of my garage is my piece de resistance - a 1967 Riley Elf - complete, but a non runner. It used to belong to my sister who needed something more reliable but couldn't bear to let the Elf go - so in a moment of stupidity I bought it from her for £500 quite a few years ago!
Anyway, it was off the road before SORN was invented and I do remember contacting DVLA to check - it doesn't have to be.
I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to insist that I insure it - I certainly wouldn't, and if this became law 'Mavis' would have to go.
Why Mavis you ask?
Well those of you who can cast their minds back a few decades to Coronation Street with Mavis Riley (before she married whatsis name ...Derek?) will recall that the said lady spent her life in a whining, whimpering state of indecision. If you've ever witnessed a 1967 Riley Elf going up the high street you'll know exactly what I mean!
The Elf was also hydrolastic ( a 'wet' mini) .........
Watchout Mavis......they're coming to get you!
Graeme
|
|
Sure I'm missing something but if SORN'd and pre SORN off the road projects are outside the scope of this who does this inconvenience?. Even if my car's in the garage do I really want it uninsured while I'm out of the country for a month?.
|
|
|
I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to insist that I insure it
>>
am i wasting my time?
don't people read the links posted?
10. There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no
intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they
have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or
restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has
made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place.
|
>> I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to >> insist that I insure it >> am i wasting my time? don't people read the links posted? 10. There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place.
Ooh, you beat me to it!!
|
It is not possible to obtain insurance for illegal purposes. Thus a burglar cannot take out insurance cover for personal injuries or loss of tools while carrying out his profesion. Nor could I obtain professional indemnity insurance for my job as an insider share dealer.
It would be illegal for me to use my SORNed car on the road, and an insurance company would be aiding and abetting that offence were it to provide me with cover.
The insurance would in any case be invalid because the car has no MOT and is unroadworthy. That is a fact, regardless of whether the car were actually used or just remained parked in my field.
|
The only situation I can see arising where this could give a problem is:-
1 the car is worth a couple of hundred quid.
2 it has tax and mot for a long period (6 months for example)
3 insurance runs out at the end of november
4 vehicle is parked on private property(owner's drive)
5 owner going on extended Christmas break, all december and january.
6 insurance company contacted, renewal arranged for 1st of february.
7 owner decides that the tax isn't worth reclaiming.
8 no-one else has legal access to car during break.
9 owner decides that it isn't worth insuring against theft for that time.
The owner is now being forced to insure the vehicle for no good reason, or declare sorn/reclaim tax etc.
Another example of beurocracy out of control.
|
The problem would arise to the many enthusiasts of mainly old cars, either classic or just bangernomists, who keep spare cars that may well be nominally worthless. They are either cars awaiting restoration projects, or kept as possible sources of spares, or just bargains snapped up on the off-chance because of an interest in that model.
We are harmless enthusiasts who have no connection with the tax and insurance defaulters that government legislation pretends to be aimed at. It is just another example of hitting out thoughtlessly at a harmless but easy target, while avoiding doing anything about the real problem.
|
It is just another example of hitting out thoughtlessly at a harmless but easy target, while avoiding doing anything about the real problem.
I disagree:
If your car is uninsured, you'll get a penalty or a visit. If your vehicle doesn't need insurance, get it SORNED and bingo, no problem. Even if you forget to get it SORNED, a pile of bits ought to be demonstration enough that you're not driving around uninsured.
This really does appear to be aimed at the idiots who don't insure but drive around.
Please read Dalglish's link.
|
Thanks, yes, I see that, and it appears to give reassurance.
But the earlier bit "and who therefore may assume that they
have no need for insurance" is a bit ominous. "May correctly assume" ?, or may assume but would be wrong?
Why not just say "have no legal need for insurance" if that is what is intended?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
