My motor insurance renewal date is just before my Road Tax expires which means that I have to chase up my insurance company to get a Certificate of Motor Insurance to pay the Road Tax. It has set me thinking that life would be easier if I could pay both together.
I am personally not too bothered if the car behind me doesn?t have a valid Road Tax ? it rates around the same as not paying a Television Licence. After all, reducing the amount paid to the Inland Revenue £160 isn?t terribly difficult for a competent accountant. The DVLA take a different view. They know exactly which cars are on the road, which cars have a valid Statutory Off Road Notice and can pounce on those whose Road Tax is overdue by 14 days, and seize the offending car if payment is not made.
However, I am extremely worried about the number of cars on the roads without valid insurance for third party damage. The fine for driving without valid insurance is pitiful. In many cases considerably less than the cost of an annual insurance premium and the chance of being caught is fairly small. The consequences of being hit by an uninsured driver, are quite significant as there is no-one to cover the cost of any damage caused. Unsurprisingly, uninsured drivers are more likely to cause accidents than those who are insured.
I am also concerned that there are cars on the road who have defective tyres, brakes and who have no valid MOT test. The implications for road safety are obvious and far greater than committing the sin of exceeding 79 mph on an empty motorway.
I think the time has come to merge all three together. I think that should display a combined certificate of insurance, road tax and MOT in place of the existing road tax disc. The insurance companies should be responsible for collecting Road Tax, along their insurance premium (and 2.5% insurance premium tax). At the time of renewal, the insurance company should inspect the MOT testing stations database and satisfy themselves that the vehicle they are insuring is roadworthy ? which would seem to be in their interest from an actuarial point of view. Most road users who pay by direct debit would have their Insurance/Road Tax automatically renewed without the need to fill out forms or queue at the Post Office. Those who wish to shop around for a competitive quote would be able to do so in the usual way.
This would ensure that all vehicles on the road have a valid motor insurance and MOT. Any vehicle that does not have its insurance renewed on expiry would be automatically notified to the DVLA who could use their existing powers to remove it from the highways.
What do other Backroomers think? As far as I can see, the only losers from this arrangement are the Post Office, who are set to lose out with web-based Road Tax renewals anyway.
|
The problem is that insurance is typically done on a per person rather than per car basis.
Although the car may be unsured, by say a 45 year old who has never made a claim, whats to say it won't be driven by his 17 year old son, who isn't insured?
I suspect that to change the insurance model from per person to per car would result in significant premium increases for most car owners.
|
The problem is that insurance is typically done on a per person rather than per car basis. Although the car may be unsured, by say a 45 year old who has never made a claim, whats to say it won't be driven by his 17 year old son, who isn't insured?
I think this is exactly the problem I am most concerned about! Who wants uninsured 17 year olds driving around in their dad's cars!
I agree that anything seen to increase motor insurance premiums would prove deeply unpopular and unlikely to be passed by (newly elected) politicians even if it was ultimately a more sensible approach.
|
|
In Australia, road tax does give you basic TP insurance, which you can upgrade at your own expense to F/C if desired.
|
It's an interesting idea, but I think fraught with many practical difficulties:
Presumably the tax and insurance periods would coincide? What happens if the car is sold, and the insurance cancelled? The new owner might use a different company. Would he display one disk from the old company, now covering only the tax element, and one disk from the new, for the insurance? Or would insurance company B get a refund from company A for the road tax? If not, the two elements would be out of sync again.
True, the company could check the MOT database. But what would happen if the MOT expired during the term of the combined disk? It would now be saying the car had an MOT when in fact it didn't.
How would a car without an MOT ever get insurance to drive to a testing station?
It seems a very complicated way of achieving very little.
The answer to the problems you observe are:
a) abolish road tax, increase fuel tax
b) have visible insurance stickers like other countries
c) change the current blue MOT stickers so that they display proper information about registration number and date visible outside the car.
|
In Chile the road tax licence confirms you have TP insurance, that your car has an MOT and that all of its documents were in order and that the owner proved his ID - and all of that runs for the same period.
They wouldn't be allowed to do it here because it causes car owners a certain amount of work and would no doubt be an infringment of civil rights blah blah blah.
|
|
New Zealand also gives TP only cover in the road tax. A much better way of doing it, as anyone can drive the car and be insured TP only. If you want additional cover, you pay extra. They seem to do most things much better than here.
|
One of the main problems of including TP cover on either the road tax or fuel is that Jack the Lad who can only just afford to insure his kitted up 1.1 Saxo now pays the same amount for his saxo or a twin turbo supra which costs the same as a saxo.
Bye bye saxo, hello supra.
|
One of the main problems of including TP cover on either the road tax or fuel is that Jack the Lad who can only just afford to insure his kitted up 1.1 Saxo now pays the same amount for his saxo or a twin turbo supra which costs the same as a saxo. Bye bye saxo, hello supra.
If this were the case (ie. the compulsary insurance was all the same price) then 2nd-hand values of previously uninsurable 'big' cars would shoot up, so with luck The Youth of Today would still be unable to afford a supercar.
Do the Aus or NZ schemes charge different rates for different vehicles? It would be easy enough to regulate as pretty much every car fits into the standard 1-20 insurance groups.
|
|
|
|
|
In Chile the road tax licence confirms you have TP insurance, that your car has an MOT and that all of its documents were in order and that the owner proved his ID - and all of that runs for the same period.
Isn't that what happens here, apart from the concurence of dates?
The road tax confirms that on the start date, the vehicle was insured and had an MOT.
This proposal is the other way round - but not just that you would need proof of tax in order to insure the car, but that the insurance company would actually act as the taxing agent.
So the point remains, what happens when I switch cars? Does the tax switch too? And supposing I bought a car that was 6 months through its MOT, its MOT period would no longer coincide with my all-in insurance/tax/MOT.
Unless of course all MOTs had to be renewed on National MOT Day! April 1st?
|
"The number plate manfacturers developed a chip and a method of embedding it in front number plates about 7 years ago. The government is working on roadside and hand held kit to read these chips and on the integration of the information they will contain. ......."
EU Directive yet again, so of course there is no democratic way of opposing this either!
|
"The number plate manfacturers developed a chip and a method of embedding it in front number plates about 7 years ago. The government is working on roadside and hand held kit to read these chips and on the integration of the information they will contain. ......." EU Directive yet again, so of course there is no democratic way of opposing this either!
Why would you want to oppose it? Oops, we're back to the
"retaining privacy for privacy's sake" vs. "what are you worried about unless you have something to hide" argument.
Personally i think it's a good move. No need for producing documents within 7 days, sorted there and then, as it should be.
|
|
|
|
>>Isn't that what happens here, apart from the concurence of dates?
I can't say I remember having to prove my ID & address to tax the car, but if you say so.
|
>>Isn't that what happens here, apart from the concurence of dates? I can't say I remember having to prove my ID & address to tax the car, but if you say so.
Well, not exactly. I meant the rest of the procedure really. But it would be an obvious check for the PO staff to make, and one I'm sure they would do if the person presenting the documents looked suspicious.
In the current climate of suspicion that even little old ladies might be money launderers or arms smugglers, it's surprising there is no general identity check to licence a car.
|
>>and one I'm sure they would do if the person presenting the documents looked suspicious.
I doubt that they would try even if you were stood there with a stripey t-shirt and a large bag with swag written across it. However, even if they tried, proving identity is not easy to do with any level of assurance in this country.
Bring on ID cards. They won't be 100%, but there'll be a lot better than nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Australia, road tax does give you basic TP insurance, which you can upgrade at your own expense to F/C if desired.
Not quite right, firstly depends on the state you are living in, then in NSW to tax a car for the year (rego) you pay a fee and show two more certificates, pink slip (MOT) and green slip (thirdparty medical insurance).
Since the green slip business was privatised the cost has escalated.
Note that green slip is 3rd party medical only, you can still be sued for 3rd party property and it doesnt cover you for your own medical costs (although some include it as an extra).
Most drivers have fully comprehensive as well as a green slip. Note that having fully compo insurance doesnt eliminate the requirement for a green slip.
StarGazer
|
Interesting point from Cliff Pope about how cars would ever get insured to drive to an MOT testing station.
It's a strange one this. You're is allowed to drive an car with no MOT to/from a testing station or to/from a garage to have remedial work for the test carried out (provided one has a prior appointment).
But you must still be insured. Ok, all fine and dandy. The procedure for getting my SORNed Spitfire on the road is simple enough: buy some insurance, get some work carried out, get an MOT certificate, get my (free, pre-1973) tax disc.
But check your insurance policy. The insurance is only valid if the vehicle has an MOT. Ok so you satisfy plod when he stops you, you're techinically playing within the rules. But what if you have an accident?
|
|
|
|
|
