New legislation will propose that taxed cars, on or off the road must be insured
tinyurl.com/mqb9oj
|
the RAC Foundation have hit the nail on the head, where they say it's basically a good idea, but needs some flexibility at times i.e. common sense
trouble is bureaucratic minions don't use common sense do they, it's far easier to use some management crib sheet and not engage brain....either that or some pedantic junior manager ties down the staff so much they don't have any leeway
we all know this is going to go the way of other things, where the original intent goes out the window and Mr & Mrs Normal get all the hassle....(NW, by that I mean Mr & Mrs Generally Law Abiding...:-)...)
|
|
|
New SORN Cash Grab! - New legislation will propose .... >>
I have not woken up fully this morning. What is new about this? How is it different form existing laws? eg.
30 September 2005 -
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4295834.stm
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35141&...f
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=36407&...f
and other similar threads.
Edited by jbif on 16/09/2009 at 10:04
|
I have not woken up fully this morning ... >>
OK, I have had my strong coffee now. So as I understand it, in simple language:
currently, if you have a vehicle
1. for it to be used in public places, you need tax and insurance.
2. if you have no insurance, it must be kept off road, and it either has valid tax or is declared SORN.
new proposal,
1. as before.
2. if you have no insurance, it must be kept off road and it MUST be declared SORN - i.e. you must cash in any tax left on it.
Is that the correct interpretation?
|
>>2. if you have no insurance, it must be kept off road and it MUST be declared SORN - i.e. you must cash in any tax left on it.
So the only thing that changes is that if you have no insurance they then force you to get your money back. How is that a bad thing for the motorist?
As long as they are a bit flexible and give you say one month after the end of insurance before they will fine you then it should only inconvenience a few.
One good thing is that it puts an end to the people driving uninsured cars with their DOC policy.
DinUK
|
It just makes it less bother as there is no point taxing the car. You may as well declare it SORN, don't bother with an MOT and don't bother with insurance. Then you are relying on actually being caught actually on the road!! It's probably made it easier to drive uninsured as it clears up the anomaly of cars on the road that are taxed but with no insurance which this flags up. All the uninsured will do is to get the tax back and declare their car off road so they won't get chased for anything.
I think it will mostly net the administratively challenged and ill people that could end up finding their car has been seized and crushed while they've been in hospital.
What actually should be done is look at the ANPR data to see movements of cars that are uninsured but either SORN or taxed.
I also think plate cloning will explode as it is much easier to just steal plates and pretend to be someone that is insured than bother with insurance yourself.
|
|
|
I do not imagine that this phrase sits easily with our preconceptions about DVLA
"As long as they are a bit flexible and give you say one month after the end of insurance before they will fine you"
Flexible - give you a month - I don't think so!
|
I do not imagine that this phrase sits easily with our preconceptions about DVLA Flexible - give you a month - I don't think so!
Why not, that's exactly what they do with the tax, the penalty charge is generated a month after the end of the previous tax disc. If my tax disc expired at the end of August and I get a tax disc next week starting at the end of August I will not see a penalty from the DVLA.
Using the car on the road this week might get me pulled but I will not get an automatic penalty from the DVLA if the car stays parked on my drive.
The key is that there is no gap period when the car is not taxed, as long as the same applies to insurance there should not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
One good thing is that it puts an end to the people driving uninsured cars with their DOC policy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but whats the problem with people driving cars with their DOC policy?
|
|
|
|
|
What about motortraders? Also I can see there could be an issue with insurance write offs as a lot of insurance companies automatically cancel cover.
It also puts a lot of importance on the accuracy of DVLA data (!!) and the MID. A foul up on either of these could cause problems....
Some classic car owners will be miffed as some of them have a year's tax as it is free but only insure for the summer months when they use the car. Personally I think that is daft and keep mine insured all year round.
|
It seems these days that those who try to play by the rules are being treated more harshly because they're easier to track down and more likely to pay than those who deliberately break the law.
These rules definitely won't be applied with common sense - see how innocent people have been treated by the police when the insurance database says 'no' even though they have valid insurance.
|
The problem here is that if someone has his car taxed and insured, and kept in his garage, and he falls ill , or is away for some reason, and his insurance is due, then he can be fined.
There is no leeway, apparently, when something like this happens over which you have no control.
|
|
Are there any insurers left who don't automatically renew your policy if you don't instruct them otherwise? If they're all doing that, then the problem Robbie postulates doesn't exist.
|
Are there any insurers left who don't automatically renew your policy if you don't instruct them otherwise? If they're all doing that then the problem Robbie postulates doesn't exist.
That pre-supposes that motorists automatically re-insure, or pay by continuous credit or direct debit. I stopped doing this some years ago, and look for cheaper quotes when there has been a massive increase.
|
|
|
Are there any insurers left who don't automatically renew your policy if you don't instruct them otherwise? If they're all doing that then the problem Robbie postulates doesn't exist.
These days you have to change insurer every year as most of them massively inflate the premiums at renewal.
Edited by moonshine {P} on 16/09/2009 at 17:16
|
|
|
|
There is no leeway apparently when something like this happens over which you have no control.
>>
I would expect it to have some delay built in as with the tax discs simply for administrative reasons.
It would be very rare for someone not to be able to reinsure within say a month of expiry of insurance, either personally or getting a relative/friend to do it on their behalf.
I think this is being reported as a big issue when, for most people, it will not be a problem.
|
I would expect it to have some delay built in ... >>
commerdriver: that is confirmed in the article linked by Armitage in the first post.
"Where an insurance policy has lapsed, the DVLA will initially send out a reminder letter.
If no action is taken by the motorist after around a month the DVLA will then issue a fixed penalty notice imposing a £100 fine - which will be reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days. "
I think the easiest option may be to move to a fuel tax funded 3rd party insurance, or to to allocate a part of your fuel-tax to the MIB so that uninsured driver claims can be funded via that route. The latter would mean that the uninsured drivers do contribute to solving the oft quoted problem: " ..... Each year uninsured and untraced drivers .... add around £30 a year to every motorist?s insurance - amounting to more than £400m a year in additional premiums. ... "
Edited by jbif on 16/09/2009 at 11:46
|
|
|
The problem is it's one of those measures that won't really do much to address the major issue - unregistered, untaxed and uninsured drivers who the authorities can't send automated fines to.
It'll generate a nice income stream in automated fines for the generally law abiding, but won't do anything to address the real problem.
|
This isn't new AS but I excuse you because of the effects of being at high altitude.
It is in the Road Safety Act 2006 see Section 22
www.tinyurl.com/y6mxnk
but as yet no commencement Order has been made in relation to that particular section.
No doubt they are still working on the SI to dot the i and cross the T in relation to notification procedure.
dvd
|
Thanks DVD - it came across to me as a new measure; it is doubtless like Government spending increases = the same money announced twice!
|
I cant see why this new law is needed. Surely existing laws and ANPR is all that is needed?
Personally I dont believe the 2 million figure for un-insured cars anyway. Sounds like the government is being lobbyed by the insurance industry, they will be the big winners in this.
|
Personally I dont believe the 2 million figure for un-insured cars anyway. Sounds like the government is being lobbyed by the insurance industry they will be the big winners in this.
It seesmto me that ...
if all this does is make people tax cars they aren't using, then the insurers will be the winners.
But if it helps reduce the number of uninsured drivers, then the winners will be everyone who actually pays for their insurance.
|
if all this does is make people tax cars they aren't using then the insurers will be the winners.
There is no need for anyone to tax or insure a car that is not being used.
The only possible extra cost will be if you have a car with free tax which you are not using you will need to either SORN it or insure it. Nothing extra to what normally happens anyway.
It is not in any way a cash grab for the vast majority of people it is a non story more suited to the usual tabloid culprits than to the Telegraph.
|
... non story more suited to the usual tabloid culprits than to the Telegraph. >>
The Telegraph has joined them (to the extent of printing the same/similar "popular" stories as in the Daily Mail ). To cap it all, their web pages appear to be designed to maximise page clicks rather than make them reader friendly.
|
>> ... non story more suited to the usual tabloid culprits than to the Telegraph. >> The Telegraph has joined them (to the extent of printing the same/similar "popular" stories as in the Daily Mail ). To cap it all their web pages appear to be designed to maximise page clicks rather than make them reader friendly.
Their unfriendly layout is why I've stopped reading the online motoring section altogether. I snatch a read from my parent's paper instead! If there are 10 letters I'm not going to click through all of them. I want them on one page so I can read the whole lot. Stupid web monkeys have clearly decided some unfortunate visitor clicking on 2 or 3 letters and generating 2 or 3 clicks is worth more than the same number of visitors reading the whole week's selection. Having all the titles with a brief summary means you don't actually bother with the letter at all if the title doesn't grab you so they are actually reducing the amount that is read. Not to mention all the people that used to just read all of them that will now decide to not bother reading it at all as clicking through endless times is just a pain in the neck and contrary to all web usability guidelines.
|
|
Agree with TB - I won't read Telegraph Motoring online anymore.
|
But if it helps reduce the number of uninsured drivers then the winners will be everyone who actually pays for their insurance.
I cant see that it will make much difference, people who drive un-insured are already breaking the law, I dont see how adding another law will help. Whats needed is more enforcement, if 1 in 20 cars are un-insured then these ANPR cameras must be catching thousands every day.
I also love the way that insurance companies always say that un-insured drivers are costing everyone about £20 on their premium, they make it sound like they would pass on the saving to drivers - NOT!
Having worked in insurance for many years (as did SWMBO) I'm just a little cynical...
|
|
|
|
|
|
