morcus
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 01:41 AM |
|
|
New Insurance law.
I've just seen THIS on the BBC website and thought it would be worth putting up as there are
probably people on here who could well fall foul of this new legislation.
Basically it will be illegal for a car to be uninsured unless it is sorned as far as I can work out, even if it's off the road.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
|
|
skodaman
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 01:57 AM |
|
|
'Motorists who have declared their car as off the road will not be fined.' So I take it that if the vehicle is sorned and on private
property it's still okay. This isn't what that bastion of fine un-sensationalized journalism the Sun implied yesterday. So I was
thinking I'd got one week to decide whether to scrap my Mondeo or the Rover. Not much of a decision really.
Skodaman
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 06:35 AM |
|
|
A very good idea I think.
Should hopefully catch some of the thouands and thousands of un-insured drivers on our roads. Unfortunately, as ever there will be some honest people
caught up in the new law. But if it reduces my chances of being hit by an un-insured person, then it has to a positive move ?
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:01 AM |
|
|
My understanding was if it was sorned then its fine, you dont need to worry about the insurance at all.
If its not sorned then it must be insured.
To be fair it seems sensible enough, sorn is really easy these days (can be done online in about 2 mins) and getting tax refund costs you a stamp and
5 mins filling in a form.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:12 AM |
|
|
The main problem I see is having to cash in the VED if you suspend the insurance to carry out work on the car and then to retax. Chances are you miss
the deadline for the end of the month then you have wait for the beginning of the next month or end up paying for two months tax when the car is in
bits. I used to drop the cover to storage only when doing mods.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:16 AM |
|
|
The fine amounts aren't much of a deterrent, £100 for not having insurance, so someone gets the 'knock', pays up their £100, and
either gets insurance, rid of the car or sorns it, with the size of some premiums the dodgers would still call that a result.
Court action and £1000 would still represent a saving to some.
|
|
|
pdm
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:21 AM |
|
|
Main problem as above is what do you do with VED.
If you buy another car before you've sold you're old one you'll have to cash in the tax and declare SORN. Not too good for test
drives really. Or you could keep you're old motor insured but then bet you're insurance co won't let you transfer any no claims.
It won't stop the determined anyway - they'll just be loads of fines mounting up in empty houses and fictitious addresses.
Maybe the govt or whoever would be better looking at why people dont insure. I'm buying my in-laws polo for £300 and my CHEAPEST quote so far
is £352. That can only be ambulance chasers 
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:22 AM |
|
|
Don't panic It has been covered many times in the forum in the last 6 months or so the only pit fall is that it means you have to surrender the
tax disc when your insurance runs out and makes virtually impossible to sell a vehicle with the tax disc.
Like a lot of recent motoring law the law is ill thought out and a result of pressure from the insurance companies, the government needs to take
a long hard look at the way SORN works,
|
|
|
speedstar
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:23 AM |
|
|
That Law's been kicking around for a few momnths now.
Biggest issue is when you come to sell a car. Selling a SORN car is difficult and reduces the price you'll get then if you sold it with 6 months
tax. Now, if you want to sell it with tax, you'll have to insure it too.
Real ball ache for test drives and stuff. Its doesnt make any sense to me.
If a car is parked on the road then yes it should be taxed AND insured. But if its parked on a driveway or in a garage, Why should I HAVE to SORN it?!
Strikes me as another money making scheme. Theres no legal reason for that legislation. If a car's off the road, it shouldnt need insurance -
whether its taxed or not.
|
|
|
speedstar
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:27 AM |
|
|
Oh and the main problem here is once again the insurance companies.
They make it more expensive to isnure a car, then to pay the fine. Even if a £200 banger gets impounded and crushed, and you're charged the
maximum £1000, thats £1200. Which is about a grand less then the average 17 yearold bloke's insurance. Not condoning unisured driving, and
absolutely would never even contemplete it myself, but I can see the justification in doing it, from a financial point of view anyway.
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:57 AM |
|
|
How about my TVR that has been off the road since 1991 - and didn't need a SORN as that was introduced for vehicles in use and then registered
off road from mid 1998 onwards?
I've decided to SORN it today but will now have to carefully ensure I don't let it lapse - or fines for a law abiding citizen who is
paranoid about ensuring MoT, Tax and insurance is up to date on all my vehicles.
James
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 07:59 AM |
|
|
So basically there will be an increase in SORN'd cars on the roads to avoid this new fine....
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
So basically there will be an increase in SORN'd cars on the roads to avoid this new fine....
But at least a car without Tax is easier to identify. Number plate cameras linked to the DVLA website should mean they get caught more easily.
I really dont see this as a Youth only issue either. Many kids are being fronted by their Parents policy, which is also not legal, but at least you
are inusred under the Policy if they hit you. The law/insurance company would then deal with them if there is a Fronting issue.
Watching many of the these Roadwars type programs,, it seems that alot of people they catch without insurance are anything but a spotty 17 year old.
I think it is a calculated risk by many, they know full well that if they drive sensibly the chances of getting a pull by the Police is highly
unlikely.
Having had my wife involved in an accident by an un-insured driver years ago, this is really one of my pet hates. She has had many years of back
issues and major surgery as a result. The driver of the car that hit her, fecked off form the accident scene - but fair play the Police found her.
Turns out she had no insurance , Tax or MOT etc... They did not do a thing to her because she had no money, several kids, no partner/husband, on
benefits and so they considered that the law could do nothing to her !!!
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
The law is really aimed at the number of disqualified drivers using throwaway cars, they will just find way round it , prediction ---- massive
increase in the number of cloned number plates.
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 12:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeaBass
How about my TVR that has been off the road since 1991 - and didn't need a SORN as that was introduced for vehicles in use and then registered
off road from mid 1998 onwards?
I've decided to SORN it today but will now have to carefully ensure I don't let it lapse - or fines for a law abiding citizen who is
paranoid about ensuring MoT, Tax and insurance is up to date on all my vehicles.
James
my scimitar is in the same boat, off the road since 1984 so the DVLA computer won't let me SORN it (not that I really want to
anyway...)
so how does this new system deal with that ?
-
|
|
|
PhilCross66
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 12:31 PM |
|
|
You dont need to sorn cars that have been off road since before sorn started, it says somewhere on the gov website. It saves lots of problems with
museums etc 
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 23/5/11 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
^^ just found this as you were typing
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?pro=stayinsured
quote:
If you're the registered keeper of a vehicle, it must be insured at all times.
The only exceptions are:
•if you have made a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) for the vehicle
•vehicles that have been kept off-road since before SORN came into force on 31 January 1998 - unless they are brought back into use
[Edited on 23/5/2011 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 3/6/11 at 09:02 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhilCross66
You dont need to sorn cars that have been off road since before sorn started, it says somewhere on the gov website. It saves lots of problems with
museums etc
Yes - BUT now any car not SORNED and uninsured will be fined!!! That's the point of the thread?
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 3/6/11 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
[they know full well that if they drive sensibly the chances of getting a pull by the Police is highly unlikely.]
I don't know if it's the usual thing of police using the local area here for testing, but all the police cars around here are fitted with
front and rear facing ANPR cameras.
The onbard computer pings to tell the cop that a car front or back is untaxed or uninsured. The cop doesn't even have to be on the lookout. The
camera even picks up cars travelling in the opposite direction.
Watch out folks!
Cheers,
Nev.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 8/6/11 at 04:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedstar
Oh and the main problem here is once again the insurance companies.
They make it more expensive to isnure a car, then to pay the fine. Even if a £200 banger gets impounded and crushed, and you're charged the
maximum £1000, thats £1200. Which is about a grand less then the average 17 yearold bloke's insurance. Not condoning unisured driving, and
absolutely would never even contemplete it myself, but I can see the justification in doing it, from a financial point of view anyway.
I've pointed out this math to insurance companies pointing out that in a lot of cases (where one of them has tried urinary extraction) that
I'd rather not bother than pay them that amount. You'd think they'd care, seeing as they have to pay out for uninsured drivers...
|
|
|
mrwibble
|
| posted on 8/6/11 at 07:16 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by speedstar
Oh and the main problem here is once again the insurance companies.
They make it more expensive to isnure a car, then to pay the fine. Even if a £200 banger gets impounded and crushed, and you're charged the
maximum £1000, thats £1200. Which is about a grand less then the average 17 yearold bloke's insurance. Not condoning unisured driving, and
absolutely would never even contemplete it myself, but I can see the justification in doing it, from a financial point of view anyway.
I've pointed out this math to insurance companies pointing out that in a lot of cases (where one of them has tried urinary extraction) that
I'd rather not bother than pay them that amount. You'd think they'd care, seeing as they have to pay out for uninsured drivers...
fair point. but i wouldn't try explaining it to the call centre monkeys...
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 8/6/11 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by speedstar
Oh and the main problem here is once again the insurance companies.
They make it more expensive to isnure a car, then to pay the fine. Even if a £200 banger gets impounded and crushed, and you're charged the
maximum £1000, thats £1200. Which is about a grand less then the average 17 yearold bloke's insurance. Not condoning unisured driving, and
absolutely would never even contemplete it myself, but I can see the justification in doing it, from a financial point of view anyway.
I've pointed out this math to insurance companies pointing out that in a lot of cases (where one of them has tried urinary extraction) that
I'd rather not bother than pay them that amount. You'd think they'd care, seeing as they have to pay out for uninsured drivers...
But ultimately, it's the law abiding motorists that end up having to pay for uninsured drivers through increased/inflated premiums, so the
insurance companies don't really care. As insurance premiums rise, so will the number of uninsured drivers. The future isn't bright,
it's just more expensive.....
Phil
|
|
|
.JPG)
