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.
'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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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
So basically there will be an increase in SORN'd cars on the roads to avoid this new fine....
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
So basically there will be an increase in SORN'd cars on the roads to avoid this new fine....
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.
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
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
^^ 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
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
[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.
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.
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...
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...