Road Safety (Commencement No 6 )Order 2011 will come into force on
4th February 2011
This will bring the continuous Insurance requirement under Sect 144 Road Traffic Act 1988, Road Safety Act 2006 Section 22 into force.
Not yet clear however what the reporting requirements are (like SORN VED)
Motor Vehicle (Insurance Requirement) Regs 2011 ( wef 4.2.11) exempts any vehicle not used on a road since 1.1.98 and not taxed or used since that date.
Miss mash of jumping through several badly written sections/Regs. If I get time may try and decipher.
dvd
|
Hmmm I'll be interested in the implications of this as I have a SORNd Fiesta on our drive.
This page www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl implies that so long as a vehicle is SORN'd it won't need insurance.
|
Great. Another way to sting the unaware, but law-abiding, motorist.
I really fail to see how this will cut crime. Instead it will penalise and marginilise Mr Average Joe, just like every other ill-thought piece of legislation brought in to 'protect' us.
|
Isn't there another thread already which discusses the SORN implications of this?
Got it:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=4501
Anything to do with this, DVD?
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 09:36
|
How so?
if your vehicle is insured or has SORN no problem
|
>> if your vehicle is insured or has SORN no problem
Agreed - I don't really see why so many find it confusing or contentious.
|
I think this new law might make it harder for the habitual ved evaders to do so.... from that point of view I'm OK with it.
However it could immediately impact on a genuine situation I have at the moment. This Mercedes I've got here while I decide if I want it as a 3rd car... it's taxed unil the end of June and may be needed on the road at anytime soon so to SORN it would be daft.
But.... the insurance on it finished yesterday when the owner collected his new car so it sits in my yard unused... no crime being committed. From 4th Feb though it seems I will have to either declare it SORN or insure it. Not ideal.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 10:15
|
>> But.... the insurance on it finished yesterday when the owner collected his new car so
>> it sits in my yard unused... no crime being committed. From 4th Feb though it
>> seems I will have to either declare it SORN or insure it. Not ideal.
>>
But if it may be needed on the road anytime then won't it have to be insured anyway? Unless of course you're proposing driving it on a 'driving other vehicles' extension from another car's insurance.
|
>>>But if it may be needed on the road anytime then won't it have to be insured anyway?
As I see it suppose I keep the car for a month in our yard while I decide keep or sell.
It's taxed so it doesn't need SORN and is not being used on the road at all and I can insure it in minutes online if I decide to start using it so all above board.
But it seems after 4th Feb the fact that it isn't insured will be an issue.
|
|
I would have thought that the insurance companies will be quick to capitalise on this and come up with special deals for this kind of thing.
|
The question is can you SORN it whilst it has a current tax?
If you then needed it, you could then take out daycover and have valid insurance, have valid tax, but still be pulled for having a SORN in place!
|
I was thinking along the same lines.
I think, when you SORN a car, that you're making a legal declaration that it is not being used on the road, not that it's untaxed.
So, could I SORN the Vitara without cashing in the tax, and still use the car on the road.
Or, does the fact that you've declared SORN mean you have to abide by that declaration and not use the car.....although it's legal to do so.
In any case, is there a facility for SORNing a taxed car ? I have a car and a bike on SORN here.
Ted
|
We have a similar system here, and it all works well. But it relies on a couple of things.
Firstly, your insurance is continuous, unless you tell them otherwise. Of course, this only works because they don't yank the premiums up and down like a yoyo.
So you log onto the road tax web-site to sorn your car. They are connected to the insurers and the insurer automatically change your insurance to 'garage' insurance. The road tax people automatically send you back the unused road tax paid, worked out by the day, not untill the end of the next month. The insurer also automatically sends back the unused insurance premium, again worked out by the day, less a small charge for the garage insurance, usually around £12/year.
When it's time to get back on the road, you log onto the road tax site again, and they in turn switch back on your full insurance. The road tax people then send an invoice to be paid for the new tax, and the insurer does the same. So you're automatically all legal from the second you push the button. If there is no insurance 'link', then you can't un-sorn the car.
But as I said, it relies on a continuous relationship with the insurer, and people being trusted to pay the invoices from the road tax and insurer.
|
>> I think, when you SORN a car, that you're making a legal declaration that it
>> is not being used on the road, not that it's untaxed.
>> So, could I SORN the Vitara without cashing in the tax, and still use the
>> car on the road.
>>
>> Or, does the fact that you've declared SORN mean you have to abide by that
>> declaration and not use the car.....although it's legal to do so.
>>
>> In any case, is there a facility for SORNing a taxed car ? I have
>> a car and a bike on SORN here.
According to
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696
"What to do as a vehicle keeper
If you are not insured and use your vehicle on the road you are already committing an offence – get insured immediately.
If you are keeping your vehicle off the road, make sure that you have submitted a SORN declaration to DVLA. If the vehicle is taxed you need to return the disc (including nil value discs) to DVLA using a V14 form. You can make a SORN declaration at the same time as returning the disc on the V14. "
So it seems you either "tax & insure" or "SORN".
|
Why not collect insurance by including third party cover in the price of fuel? Its been considered before: tinyurl.com/65vy45c
The more you drive, the more of a risk you are, the more you pay. If your car is off the road, its not a risk, and you're not using fuel, so you don't pay. And you can't be uninsured, as you've had to buy the fuel to drive the car.
We already have boards and agencies to deal with claims from uninsured drivers - why not extend their remit to cover all third party claims?
Or is that all just too simple...?
|
>> Or is that all just too simple...?
>>
That would just increase the number of drive-offs without paying, and there would still be uninsured drivers on the road.
|
>> Why not collect insurance by including third party cover in the price of fuel? Its
>> been considered before: tinyurl.com/65vy45c
How do you choose your insurance company? how do you keep your premium down by adding competition?
|
All cars need a tamper proof chip which will not allow the starter motor to turn without it being uploaded with proof of insurance, MOT and road tax. Like the chip in my ignition key fob which I dropped on the floor when changing the battery (I didn't know what it was, threw it in the bin, and then tried to start the car. Then I went through the bin and happily rediscovered the chip).
Goer?
|
The DVLA systems will throw a wobbly if you try to SORN a car without returning the old, still valid, tax disc there is no capability of a vehicle having tax and being SORNed.
When you tax a vehicle which is SORNed the SORN ends automatically.
|
Had a look at the various bits and pieces and my make on all this which is similar to that already posted:
There are two, at the moment unconnected vehicle data bases. DVLA on vehicle registration/Excise duty and MIB records on vehicle Insured. Wef from 4.2.11 MIIC will have access to the DVLA records
We all are aware out obligations under Road Vehicle (Reg & Lic) Regs that is an offence to use/keep a vehicle on a road without an Excise Licence. Likewise if not taxed and off road then SORN has to be made. If vehicle is untaxed on a public place other than a dwelling and no SORN fine can result and or vehicle impounded.
What S 22 Road Safety Act 2006 is bringing in on 4.2.11 is a similar system using SORN to DVLA in relation to Insurance for vehicles.
This will not apply to the Registered Keeper who is the person keeping the vehicle and since 31.1.98 no tax was in force nor one taken out since and the vehicle has not been kept/used on a public road .
It will be an offence to keep a vehicle that does not meet Insurance requirements. In a nutshell these requirements are that Insurance has to be in force identifying the vehicle by Reg Mark so covered or
Insurance covers any vehicle or described and the owner is named in the Certificate.
Otherwise OFFENCE - £1000 fine NO POINTS and can be dealt with by FPN of £50 if paid within 21 days otherwise £100.
Offence can lead to immobilisation and removal
Exemptions from (Insurance) SORN
Vehicle is owned by person recorded as Keeper at DVLA and used with Insurance in Force.
Reg Keeper is person keeping the vehicle and vehicle not used on a road OR PUBLIC PLACE and has made ( Insurance) SORN
Reg Keeper is not at relevant time keeping the vehicle and if previously keeping has declared SORN
Vehicle was stolen and not recovered by relevant time.
It is UP TO THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE beyond reasonable doubt exemption does not apply
.
NOTE; There is no exemption to take an uninsured vehicle to a Testing Station and return as permitted in relation to MOT and Excise.
I understand that the first indication will be allletr from MIIC/DVLA pointing out No Insurance and if this is not resolved then a fine etc.
Seems to me a hell of a hammer to catch those owners that have uninsured but taxed vehicles and goes little to resolve the use of unInsured vehicles on our roads. Far better if a system could be devised where third party Insurance element was added to road fuel which I understand was in being in Australia at one time. It does however add more coppers to HMG.
dvd
|
really this makes it even more impossible for people who work abroad for long periods
im sorry if im working for 6 months abroad, sometimes in places with no internet, i should dam well be able to leave my car on my drive and if the insurance expires while i am away sort it out when i get back, especially when often i dont know how long i will be abroad when i first go
this is just crazy
rules dreamt up by public servants with no clue how people in the real world live
meanwhile the little toerags will be immune as ever cos they are far too hard to take on
|
"i should dam well be able to leave my car on my drive and if the insurance expires while i am away sort it out when i get back, especially when often i dont know how long i will be abroad when i first go."
Don't really see the problem - If you are going abroad why would you not wish to SORN your car if it's not being used? You would then save on tax and insurance surely.
|
|
Maybe he's going somewhere like Libya and who knows how long he'll be caught up there? That's just an example.
|
Surely if there is any possibllity that you might be away when your tax or insurance expires you SORN your car.
This really does seem to be a non existent problem.
|
|
Perhaps the point is that it's yet more regulation which will burden the law-abiding majority while not affecting to any great extent the minority of reckless people.
|
>> if the insurance expires while i am away
leave it on automatic renewal.
|
re "If you are going abroad why would you not wish to SORN your car if it's not being used? You would then save on tax and insurance surely." because sometimes i leave the country expecting to be away 2 weeks and end up coming back 2 years later. Its enough hassle having my mother come round to check on the house without expecting her to navigate the car admin jungle.
re "leave it on automatic renewal." because lots of insurance companies dont offer this, and from experience it always makes sense to get quotes before renewing anyways.
really for a pro motorist forum you lot are not giving much sympathy.
i really dont think folk working these kinds of jobs are kinds of folk the criminal injustice system should be throwing its weight around on, there are plenty more deserving folk who should be much higher up the priority list for law enforcement action
its coming to the point ill just run a car registered in belgium and get a belgian licence its the only way to stand a chance against the mass of nonsense
|
"because sometimes i leave the country expecting to be away 2 weeks and end up coming back 2 years later."
Sorry but I must be missing something. Why is it such a problem to SORN the car before you go and de SORN it when you return?.
The new legislation will actually make it far more difficult for the hundres of thousands of people out there who do not buy insurance. The police will no longer have to find them actually driving on the road without insurance Anyone with a car registered in their name but which has not got insurance or subject to SORN will automatically be liable to receive a fine.
Surely a minor inconvenience for a few is outweighed by this benefit
|
|
Last time I was in the States - they had a telephone in every town and the internet in every other.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 28 Feb 11 at 09:58
|
|
The kind of person that drives around without insurance is not the kind to have it registered in their name with a correct address so the police will still have to physically catch them!
|
>> The kind of person that drives around without insurance is not the kind to have
>> it registered in their name with a correct address so the police will still have
>> to physically catch them!
Most people without insurance do register the car. They simply don't buy insurance. Register it in granny's name and if there is no insurance, granny is committing an offence and will get a fine. Granny will not be happy
|
>> The new legislation will actually make it far more difficult for the hundres of thousands
>> of people out there who do not buy insurance. The police will no longer have
>> to find them actually driving on the road without insurance Anyone with a car registered
>> in their name but which has not got insurance or subject to SORN will automatically
>> be liable to receive a fine.
So people who had no thought at all of committing a real offence will perhaps commit one now simply because of this new legislation. Hm.
|
So people who had no thought at all of committing a real offence will perhaps commit one now simply because of this new legislation. Hm.
How so? Why is it so difficult to understand that you need to insure or SORN your car.
A common complaint on this forum is the number of uninsured cars and the subsequent cost to other motorists. Any move to rectify this is surely a step in the right direction.
|
Basically what it means is the scroats who sell cars and don't fill in the appropraite part of the V5 - so the DVLA know of a change of owner- will now have to insure cars they have sold to another scroat who has not registered it.
Tough.
As for grannies buying cars and not insuring, if she ca'nt do that , she should not be driving.
|
>> >> So people who had no thought at all of committing a real offence will perhaps
>> >> commit one now simply because of this new legislation. Hm.
>>
>> How so? Why is it so difficult to understand that you need to insure or
>> SORN your car.
It isn't. It used to be unnecessary. It is necessary now. That's the answer to your "how so".
>> A common complaint on this forum is the number of uninsured cars and the
>> subsequent cost to other motorists. Any move to rectify this is surely a step in
>> the right direction.
It's a common complaint anywhere, not just "on this forum". "Any move" to rectify this is certainly not a step in the right directioon. Why should the lawful majority - for any criminal activity, not just for car matters - have to suffer the burden of proving that they're lawful? If you can't see the point I'm making, just say so.
Quoting corrected, BTW.
|
>> Why should the lawful majority -
>> for any criminal activity, not just for car matters - have to suffer the burden
>> of proving that they're lawful? If you can't see the point I'm making, just say
>> so.
>>
Thread drift, but I agree. Volunteer to help children or vulnerable old people, and first you have to prove your innocence with a CRB certificate and pay for the privilege. Producing the certificate once won't suffice either, oh no, it won't.
|
"Why should the lawful majority - for any criminal activity, not just for car matters - have to suffer the burden of proving that they're lawful? If you can't see the point I'm making, just say so."
Accepting a minor personal inconvenience for a potential overall reduction in reducing the social problem of uninsured vehicles seems to me to be worthwhile. We accept such compromises all the time. As you say the problem of uninsured vehicles is a major concern.
Changing the law so it is is clear to see from records whether a vehicle is insured or not seems step in the right direction. Having to complete a SORN if your are not using your vehicle and don't want to buy insurance really seem quite a trivial matter and not too much of a burden.
|
>> Accepting a minor personal inconvenience for a potential overall reduction in reducing the social problem of uninsured vehicles seems to me to be worthwhile. We accept such compromises all the time. As you say the problem of uninsured vehicles is a major concern.
This stupid law will not make any difference to the law breakers, all it will do is cause more grief for the innocent.
What will happen, is the law breakers, will just buy cars, and will not register them in their name... that will cause problems or the seller, or the bloke who lives at the fake address.
The other option would be to create a ringer by getting number plates made up, or stealing them off the 'rung' car.
|
quite correct swiss but we are still in a nanny state where young minds have been indoctrined to believe what they hear in their bubbles
i saw a very good example tonight where gadaffis stoog said all was calm in his country and noone had been shot
|
Contrary to popular belief driving without insurance is not an offense limited to the determined criminal. Many offenders, perhaps the majority, are otherwise law abiding who simply see insurance as a costly item that they can avoid paying. Perhaps they intend to insure next month or the month after when they can afford it but they never get round to it. The new legislation will hopefully reduce their number.
Hard line offenders of the type you identify are harder to deal with but surely any significant reduction in this offense will be worthwhile.
I am still sure why it will cause any significant grief to the law abiding. It isn't difficult to put a vehicle on SORN
|
>> but surely any significant reduction in this offense will be worthwhile.
Not if the effect is of less benefit than the negative impacts. This doesn't seem clear cut one way or the other to me.
Last edited by: Skoda on Mon 28 Feb 11 at 22:37
|
|
Exactly what problems do you foresee? Not sure I can see any significant ones
|
Cost to administrate, also funding source(s)
Unfair burden potentially leading to unfair penalties, in certain cases
What happens to the individuals affected when it goes wrong unfairly
What is the financial impact for buying and selling cars, traders as well as individuals
I guess cost is the key theme. What's it going to cost, directly and indirectly?
How much is it going to benefit financially. Will Joe Punter see any changes in payments balancing out for a net 0 effect or does this just shuffle pennies to a new owner within "the system" as it were.
|
>> Unfair burden potentially leading to unfair penalties, in certain cases
>> What happens to the individuals affected when it goes wrong unfairly
Those two would be my worry. The previous government had a liking for 'administrative penalties', one might have hoped the present lot's libertarian instincts would have trampled on the idea but unfortunately the net is still spreading.
There's a cheap and simple way to appeal the administrative penalty that is a parking ticket; same should apply here.
|
>> Contrary to popular belief driving without insurance is not an offense limited to the determined criminal. Many offenders, perhaps the majority, are otherwise law abiding who simply see insurance as a costly item that they can avoid paying.
I agree with that. BUT in my book avoiding buying insurance make that person a determined criminal.
What we are talking about, is the honest person who wishes to take their vehicle off the road, probably for a short time, maybe whilst abroad, or while the vehicle is undergoing repairs.(maybe swapping the insurance to a temporary vehicle)
Or someone who is swapping over vehicles, ie just put a new vehicle on the road- having swapped over the insurance - and who have their old vehicle locked away awaiting a buyer.
putting a vehicle on SORN can be a hassle - for instance if the vehicle will only be off the road for 2-3 weeks.
|
|
When I heard the transport minister on the radio about this he suggested that the process of enforcement would start with reminders and ramp up to fines after 28+ days. I suspect there's just too much 'radar clutter' to make detecting and penalising very short term infractions either practical or worthwhile.
|
This is based on the assumption that if a car has road tax, then it has to be on the road, and there fore has to be insured.
That assumption is false. Its a % likelyhood but not a proven or guaranteed assumption.
Based on that false premise, the government plans to find you guilty and sentence you by default. In effect, guilty until proven innocent.
The reason is of course that its a revenue earner, and justice without investigation or trial is cheap to administer.
|
>> The reason is of course that its a revenue earner, and justice without investigation or
>> trial is cheap to administer.
Administrative fines at £60-£100 can be seriously unjust but they barely cover their costs. Net revenue = minimal.
|
|
A good reason for the apparent cost ineffectiveness is that an amazing %age of fines issued are not enforced or followed up. The latest figures I can find (2004) show that overall, and in UK, 32% of fines issued were not collected and I would think that the figure has got worse rather than better since then.
|
"This is based on the assumption that if a car has road tax, then it has to be on the road, and ther fore has to be insured."
No, the new law will require insurance for vehicles whether on the road or not unless a SORN has been made. Whether or not the car is on the road is removed form the equation.
|
>> "This is based on the assumption that if a car has road tax, then it
>> has to be on the road, and ther fore has to be insured."
>>
>> No, the new law will require insurance for vehicles whether on the road or not
>> unless a SORN has been made. Whether or not the car is on the road
>> is removed form the equation.
If you car is off the road you don't need insurance so my statement stands.
The assumption is that if a car is not SORN'd its on the road and being used.
|
|
There's no assumption that it is being used , being used doesn't come into it. Insurance will be required whether on the road or not. Exemption can only be granted if a SORN is made
|
And you only Sorn a car if its off the road. ie not being used?
|
Putting a vehicle on SORN can be a hassle - for instance if the vehicle will only be off the road for 2-3 weeks.
It's an inconvenience certainly but hardly a major one. And I suspect that a lot of vehicles that are uninsured for the reason stated are actually used on the road, if only for demonstrating it to a potential buyer
|
Insurance - BEWARE - smokie
