Jump to content

Continuous Enforcement Of Motor Insurance


BadbackCol
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all.

 

Is this the offspring of SORN?

Is it a good idea . ?

 

http://www. dft. gov. uk/consultations/open/motor/

Anyone seen or heard anything about this at all?

 

Regards.

Col

Proud to be a Patriot and CT Ninja
I get the feeling that beneath your sesquipedalian loquaciousness you're the same kind of fundamentalist intent on winning arguments through Argumentum Verbosium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all.

 

Is this the offspring of SORN?

Is it a good idea . ?

 

http://www. dft. gov. uk/consultations/open/motor/

Anyone seen or heard anything about this at all?

 

Regards.

Col

 

 

Seems like another step down the road to total state control, but If it reduces the number of uninsured vehicles on the roads, then I have no doubt that it will be accepted by the majority of the public. I also have no doubt that the cost of all insurance will increase to pay for it.

 

 

 

Steve W

2015 SorentoKX2 pulling a 2011 Sterling Eccles Moonstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this is the same problem that you can have with SORN, if you are away for long periods and have a vehicle on your property you can find yourself in breach of the law unless you have some one checking your mail and doing the leg work for you.

 

But that a side something has to be done to reduce the number of uninsured drivers and this is one way, provided it's enforced against the repeat offenders who always seem to find ways of ignoring the law, and not another number plate law were the majority of law abiding drivers are inconvenienced whilst the law breakers just ignore it and carry on as before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like another step down the road to total state control, but If it reduces the number of uninsured vehicles on the roads, then I have no doubt that it will be accepted by the majority of the public. I also have no doubt that the cost of all insurance will increase to pay for it.

Steve W

 

Steve

 

Surely if it means that now a further 2 million cars will be insured (at least that's the aim) does that not have the effect of reducing the cost of insurance?

 

On the surface I can't see any particular problems with the scheme. All it seems to be doing is forcing people who currently disregard the law to pay due attention to it. Or have I got that wrong?

 

David

David - Milton Keynes

Bailey Alliance 66-2 Motorhome for holidays and a Kia Venga for home.

 

Caravan Travels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Surely if it means that now a further 2 million cars will be insured (at least that's the aim) does that not have the effect of reducing the cost of insurance?

 

On the surface I can't see any particular problems with the scheme. All it seems to be doing is forcing people who currently disregard the law to pay due attention to it. Or have I got that wrong?

 

David

 

Hi,

 

I'm confused. Last year, if you Googled "SORN + INSURANCE" you would get a lot of informatuion about a new way of fining people for doing nothing.

 

The idea was that, if you didn't SORN your car when the tax expired, you got a fine. Then, if your insurance expired, DVLA could assume that you were driving your car without insurance, and send you another £80 fine. ...but no penalty points.

 

Do a Google for SORN, see how many people feel they have been unfairly treated. ....made the declaration, still got fined.

 

On January 1st last year, my wife SORN'd my car on my behalf. No, she didn't wait for an acknowledgement from DVLA, nor wait to for an acknowledgement thru the post. She was too worried about my imminent demise (subjural haematoma - bleed inside skull - but my doctor was prescribing blood pressure tablets). At beginning of April a penalty notice dropped through the door. We explained to DVLA, were prepared to go to court, but after a few weeks, they cancelled the penalty.

 

Some weeks after that, my wife sold her car, did not get an acknowledgement. Phoned to ask why. "We haven't received it!"

 

"Yes you have, it was in the same envelope as the tax refund application, and you've paid that".

 

"Send in another change of keeper form".

 

At my wife's insistance, they phoned when they received it.

 

My understanding is that the SORN/insurance thingy was put into effect last year. ?????

 

If your car is sitting on blocks in your garage. why should you be penalised because it is not insured. It could be that your insurers will not insure it. ....health, disqualification, etc. Maybe it has been stolen, but its still yours until the insurers pay out. ??? Don't DVLA tell you not to SORN if you are taking your car abroad. How do they know where it is when the tax expires?

 

Why? Cos HMG get a 5% insurance tax on every policy.

 

602

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm confused. Last year, if you Googled "SORN + INSURANCE" you would get a lot of informatuion about a new way of fining people for doing nothing.

 

The idea was that, if you didn't SORN your car when the tax expired, you got a fine. Then, if your insurance expired, DVLA could assume that you were driving your car without insurance, and send you another £80 fine. ...but no penalty points.

 

Do a Google for SORN, see how many people feel they have been unfairly treated. ....made the declaration, still got fined.

 

As someone who SORNs a car every year and also subscribes to several car forums I know this is a huge problem. Not only is the onus on you to SORN the vehicle (fair enough) but you then have to remember to check you have received the acknowledgement or you get fined. Simply forgetting to check is no excuse. I always now send my SORN recorded delivery. For some inexplicable reason I had always thought that Government and its agencies were there to help and serve the public. NOT the case with this one that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who SORNs a car every year and also subscribes to several car forums I know this is a huge problem. Not only is the onus on you to SORN the vehicle (fair enough) but you then have to remember to check you have received the acknowledgement or you get fined. Simply forgetting to check is no excuse. I always now send my SORN recorded delivery.

 

Hi,

 

I have met people (on other forums) who have paid the fine. ...and THEN found the acknowledgement.

 

DVLA will argue that Recorded Delivery means nothing. There is no proof of what was in the envelope. However, I put the registration mark as first line of address. and insist PO include it on the Recorded Delivery receipt. Still not proof, but it is evidence. I mean, why would I post that letter not to declare SORN?

 

I have a cunning plan waiting for next time they hit me. Drop the charges, or else. :blink:

 

602

Link to comment
Share on other sites

602.

 

I'll remember that one thanks. They (the DVLA) remind me of the riot polis. Hit you with a big stick for not doing as you're told first time then asking questions later when the damage can't be undone.

Also, I can't for the life of me see what difference this will make to the number of uninsured drivers. Not having told the DVLA that you wont be buying insurance is just another layer of offence. Does nothing for the bottom layer whatsoever. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reckon that anything which reduces uninsured vehicles on the road has got to be good- my concern, like others, is how it will be implemented. If it becomes like the TV licence authority which is aggressive, authoritarian, unwilling to admit errors etc etc you can just see people who have SORN'd their vehicle finding a tow away truck hitching it up to take away for "disposal".

Bessacarr Cameo 525 towed by SsangYong Rexton 2.2 auto in Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reckon that anything which reduces uninsured vehicles on the road has got to be good- my concern, like others, is how it will be implemented. If it becomes like the TV licence authority which is aggressive, authoritarian, unwilling to admit errors etc etc you can just see people who have SORN'd their vehicle finding a tow away truck hitching it up to take away for "disposal".

 

Most of the deliberately uninsured vehicles on the road don't officially exist. They are not taxed, MOT'd or insured and appear nowhere on official records. One scam is to replace the number plates with the number of a similar vehicle, then when checked by plate recognition cameras it comes up as the same type of vehicle, all legal. Another problem is the foreign imports, particularly Eastern European.

'I know' is just 'I Believe' with delusions of grandeur

Mitsubishi Outlander 2.4 PHEV 4H

Unicorn 4 Cadiz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

Up recently it's been legal to take a vehicle off the road for a few weeks to be repaired and allowing Mot, tax and insurance to lapse - the requirement being not to drive it on the road!

 

The introduction of SORN effectively introduced continuous taxation requirement but this latest change introduces compulsory continuous insurance.

 

This will hit garages and diy mechanics who've been able in the past to test drive repaired vehicles using trade plates or "driving other cars" extension - I've done this myself several times for my son's car as everything was being done legally - but not in future, he'll have to insure it while I repair it off highway and I can still only drive it on my insurance - so the requirement in these cases is for double insurance.

 

I think this measure will impose extra cost on law-abiding owners and do ABSOLUTELY nothing to tackle the problem of those who drive without insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Surely if it means that now a further 2 million cars will be insured (at least that's the aim) does that not have the effect of reducing the cost of insurance?

 

On the surface I can't see any particular problems with the scheme. All it seems to be doing is forcing people who currently disregard the law to pay due attention to it. Or have I got that wrong?

 

David

 

 

Hi David.

 

I can see your point, but in the 43 years I have been driving, I can't honestly think of any change in motoring legislation that has not increased the cost to the average motorist.

I can only hope that this measure if adopted, proves to be the one that proves to be the exception.

 

 

 

Steve W

2015 SorentoKX2 pulling a 2011 Sterling Eccles Moonstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own a 19 year old VW Golf GTi which only does about 2,000 miles a year and has a charmed life in the garage, is SORNed for 6 months of the year and only goes out in dry weather, BUT it is insured 12 months of the year, Why? 1. Because it is in the garage and if it spontaneously erupts then I won't get any more for it, and 2. It is a cost I just pay as part of the car's running costs, and as such pay it, because I feel I should.

 

How is this going to affect anybody if they drive their cars everyday anyway? As I need my main vehicle for work, it is never SORN'ed for obvious reasons.

 

Just a little question, if you have a SORNED vehicle which is also not insured, on your drive, and that vehicle then is damaged or set on fire, or the fire spreads to an adjacent property or vehicle, how are you going to sort that one out???

 

Sorry, but the SORN issue is a totally different issue all together, and this continuous enforcement is only going to affect some of us anyway.

Nissan X-trail 2. 2 DCi - 2005 Adria Altea 502 DK,2 well-behaved boys who I am immensely proud of!!

(Also a 1990 VW Golf Convertible, which definately does not tow anything!!!)

 

This post is not meant to intentionally offend anybody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Surely if it means that now a further 2 million cars will be insured (at least that's the aim) does that not have the effect of reducing the cost of insurance?

 

On the surface I can't see any particular problems with the scheme. All it seems to be doing is forcing people who currently disregard the law to pay due attention to it. Or have I got that wrong?

 

David

I think you have it wrong - those who drive uninsured will probably continue to do so until stopped by traffic police using ANPR, a facility which currently exists. There's no problem with uninsured cars not driven on the highway.

 

I very much doubt that 2 million extra cars will be insured - the uninsured cars fall into two categories - those not used on the highway so not currently illegal - and those driven uninsured, illegally.

 

The first group will simply declare SORN so that they DON'T have to insure their vehicle - I think this is the big majority of the 2 million - but like much legislation these days there's no detailed statistics to determine exactly how much of a problem the other group are.

 

The second group will continue driving around illegally.

 

I do agree that uninsured drivers are a significant problem that need to be tackled - this new measure is targetting the wrong people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I misunderstanding the concept of this idea? I thought that there would be a requirement that all vehicles, regardles of whether they have a SORN or not have to be insured. If that is what is being suggested then I can see that those that don't buy insurance will continue but there are extra safeguards built in as insurance and duty details will have to match and any discrepancies will be investigated and could lead to fines or distruction of the vehicle involved. This should lead to a lower number of people driving around in uninsured cars although clearly it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it will eradicate the problem completely.

 

David

David - Milton Keynes

Bailey Alliance 66-2 Motorhome for holidays and a Kia Venga for home.

 

Caravan Travels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that continuous insurance won't apply to SORN'd vehicles - that would be ridiculous - but it could be what is planned !

 

There is a huge black hole in DVLA statistics - before SORN was introduced, the DVLA had no idea which untaxed vehicles had been scrapped, which were being stored off-road for subsequent repair / use and those being used illegally on the road. Vehicles which have been taxed at any time since the introduction of SORN are obviously known to DVLA and are now required to be taxed or SORN'd.

 

The millions of other vehicles either scrapped or taken off the road before SORN simply don't appear on DVLA's radar other than the existence of registration details as there's no requirement to do so.

 

To levy fines and vehicle confiscation requires active policing, not computerised billing!

 

The TV Licensing Authority has a huge advantage over DVLA - residential houses don't move around! - by targetting addresses without a valid TV licence it's easy and cost effective to send the detector van around checking for the tell-tale signals.

 

DVLA is trying to catch untaxed/uninsured/unroadworthy vehicles which move around and are no longer kept at the last legitimate owner's address - I can't see any alternative to traffic policing using ANPR which has been available for some years - how else are vehicles going to be impounded and drivers arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Maybe I'm missing something but from what little I've read I assume this is to ensure that vehicles aren't just insured whilst the annual car tax is applied for, then cancelled until the following year.

 

There may be hundreds of thousands uninsured cars out there doing this in order to have a current tax disc.

 

Scales

Edited by Scales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that continuous insurance won't apply to SORN'd vehicles - that would be ridiculous - but it could be what is planned !

 

 

The TV Licensing Authority has a huge advantage over DVLA - residential houses don't move around! - by targetting addresses without a valid TV licence it's easy and cost effective to send the detector van around checking for the tell-tale signals.

 

Hi,

 

The TV licencing people boast on TV that they have a list of every house that doesn't have a licence. How dare they? Now, I wouldn't object to them having a list of every house that DOES have a licence, how else will they know when to send a reminder. Then they could investigate everybody not on that list. But listing those that don't suggests that they are under suspicion. There is a difference.

 

To get back on topic, it used to be possible to change your car insurance to "laid up" when it was in Winter storage. This covered it for fire and theft, and presumably for Third Party too (fire speading to adjoining properties). Risk was lower, so premium was lower too. ...substantially. It can sometimes reduce your premium if you tell your insurers that you only cover a very low milage each year. Some ask, some don't.

There is nothing to say that a vehicle's registered keeper has to have a driving licence. .....make it difficult to insure.

 

602

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Maybe I'm missing something but from what little I've read I assume this is to ensure that vehicles aren't just insured whilst the annual car tax is applied for, then cancelled until the following year.

 

There may be hundreds of thousands uninsured cars out there doing this in order to have a current tax disc.

 

Scales

Are there really hundreds of thousands of drivers honest enough to pay for a VED disk but dishonest enough to cancel their insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the website in question:

"11. Under the scheme, if a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet insurance requirements, the vehicle keeper in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence under Section 144A of the Act. Exceptions to this are detailed in paragraphs 16 to 20 below. As an example, vehicles which are the subject of a Statutory Off Road Notice (SORN) are not included."

 

Did everyone who is up in arms about the potential of SORN'd vehicles needing insurance not read the website?

 

It also talks about the "The provisions of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 require users of motor vehicles on the road or public place to be insured or secured against risks to third parties. It is currently an offence to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force a valid policy of motor insurance." I'd read this as being legislation aimed at ensuring that people keep cars insured - aviods those who "forget" to renew for 4 or 6 weeks of the year in batween policies, rather than every vehicle with a registration document needing insurance.

 

 

The only thing I'd do is be 100% certain when trading in or selling a car that the DVLA are aware that I'm no longer the owner.

"Scars are souvenirs you never loose"

2010 Swift Charisma Freestyle 550 + 2007 Nissan Pathfinder Aventura.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Thank you very much for your replies/responses. :D

 

My initial reaction,at first glance at this proposal was one of anger and bewilderment (It does'nt take much ) but having read the document twice and tried to digest all that is written I can now understand why more effort is being made to try and solve the problem of uninsured drivers on the roads.

Quite what the definitive answer is I do not know but I am angered that some scroats do not give a monkey's about required documentation to drive a vehicle on the public highway and without wanting even more State control over my life/leisure and hobbies I think I'll leave it to others to find the answer.

 

Regards.

Col

Proud to be a Patriot and CT Ninja
I get the feeling that beneath your sesquipedalian loquaciousness you're the same kind of fundamentalist intent on winning arguments through Argumentum Verbosium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why UK insurers don't issue a windscreen sticker, similar to France, would sit alongside the tax disc to show vehicle is both taxed & insured. ..guess there would be loopholes to fill. Would do away with NPR cameras being used for this, just need eagle-eyed police!

Formally 'MagentaMan'... with Hyundai Santa Fe Premium 5 seat Auto 2011/Lunar 530 2013 with mover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think it's a good idea (provided the exceptions stated in the consultation are adhered to) and have responded to the consultation accordingly.

 

For those people wailing about how difficult it is to SORN a vehicle, I do this every year on line for one of my motorcycles and it takes all of 5 minutes - and I can print out the confirmation if I want. As JonathanM says, people should read the proposal before foaming at the mouth.

 

I've never had a problem with DVLA or its predecessors in 40-odd years of owning vehicles.

Ian.
2013 Freelander 2 SD4 Auto / 2005 Bailey Pageant Vendée; 1952 Norton ES2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...