colin Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Heard a couple of 'snippets' on radio, apparently gov looking into compulsory insurance for all registered vehicles, have tried searching for more info to no avail. With around 12 vehicles at last count I'm not happy with this one, once again it seems joe public will be paying because of the criminals out there. >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Colin, Just out of interest do all your secondary vehicles have to be sorn registered in order to hold them. What happens with say a Museum or a Vehicle Club that has many vehicles in store that could be used at any time, even on private property? Does this also apply to farm tractor's? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dwight Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Surely if a vehicle is registred then it is the law that is should have insurance, if you are suggesting that you dont want to insure your registred vehicles Colin it then makes you a criminal. If a vehicle is registred it can be taken onto a public road at anytime so therefore it should be covered by insurance. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How does one define a 'registered' vehicle. (Only by sorn?) A sorn vehicle does not legally have to have insurance as I see it, provided it is not sited on a public road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 6 are either taxed(2) or sorned(4), of the others 2 are unregistered, 1 is off road only pre sorn, and remander are long term storage pre sorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 David Dwight - 2009-01-21 10:36 PM Surely if a vehicle is registred then it is the law that is should have insurance, if you are suggesting that you dont want to insure your registred vehicles Colin it then makes you a criminal. If a vehicle is registred it can be taken onto a public road at anytime so therefore it should be covered by insurance. David A registered vehicle is just that registered to an owner, it is only aloud on the road if it meets all the other requirements of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Seems to me they'll do ANYTHING to avoid paying for enough real people to catch those who persistently DRIVE illegally. First it was the SORN rules for tax - previously it was up to them to prove you'd kept or used the untaxed vehicle, now they're allowed to presume you're doing so unless you've told them it's off the road. Now it seems they want even SORN vehcles to be insured - just in case you use them illegally. They also discourage insurers from offering "driving other vehicles" on our policies, because that enables us to be insured without them knowing about it, which screws up their other cut-price methods like number-plate recognition cameras. Fact is, you can't get a tax disc without an insurance certificate, so those who PERSISTENTLY drive while uninsured are untaxed as well. So all they need to do is have enough police officers, PCSOs and (proper) wardens around to spot the untaxed vehicles. With a few exceptions, the only additional "criminals" they'll catch with this are those who might be tempted to use a SORNed car in an emergency (wrong, I know, but if it was your partner who needed to get to A&E ... ?) Rant over. Have a wonderful day everyone! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dwight Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Colin, OK I see what you mean. But surely in your own interest the vehicles ought to be covered by insurance, for at least fire or theft or any other damage whilst off road. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 colin - 2009-01-21 9:58 PM Heard a couple of 'snippets' on radio, apparently gov looking into compulsory insurance for all registered vehicles, have tried searching for more info to no avail. With around 12 vehicles at last count I'm not happy with this one, once again it seems joe public will be paying because of the criminals out there. >:-( Colin There's a bit about this on the RAC website. The proposal is that there will be exemption for car enthusiasts who keep cars off the road but they must be 'SORN'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a1eeyore1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Colin, does this mean that they dont have to be sorned or have you just not got round to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Tony Jones - 2009-01-22 10:17 AM Seems to me they'll do ANYTHING to avoid paying for enough real people to catch those who persistently DRIVE illegally. First it was the SORN rules for tax - previously it was up to them to prove you'd kept or used the untaxed vehicle, now they're allowed to presume you're doing so unless you've told them it's off the road. Now it seems they want even SORN vehicles to be insured - just in case you use them illegally. They also discourage insurers from offering "driving other vehicles" on our policies, because that enables us to be insured without them knowing about it, which screws up their other cut-price methods like number-plate recognition cameras. Fact is, you can't get a tax disc without an insurance certificate, so those who PERSISTENTLY drive while uninsured are untaxed as well. So all they need to do is have enough police officers, PCSOs and (proper) wardens around to spot the untaxed vehicles. With a few exceptions, the only additional "criminals" they'll catch with this are those who might be tempted to use a SORNed car in an emergency (wrong, I know, but if it was your partner who needed to get to A&E ... ?) Rant over. Have a wonderful day everyone! Tony This is from the DfT website:"There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place."So, SORN will provide a defence. Notification of theft or scrapping likewise. If a vehicle is on the road and has not been notified as scrapped, stolen, or has not been SORNed, why is it there? Seems reasonable to me to assume it is there to be used, and so should be insured. Numberplate recognition is far quicker, and much more efficient, than hundreds of extra police, specials, wardens or whoever. Let's just do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred grant Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 u is all beating around the bush my luvvers. the problem is what contsitutes a public road. sum peoples idea of off-road sorn dus not agree with others. ask any farmer who will know all about this subject. off -road really means well away from the road such as in a locked garage or behind the house, or perhaps baled in a scrapyard. it dusent mean just off the pavement or on harry neighbours piece of spare grass verge. fubsyfred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 malc d - 2009-01-22 11:03 AM Colin There's a bit about this on the RAC website. The proposal is that there will be exemption for car enthusiasts who keep cars off the road but they must be 'SORN'd. Cheers folllowed that link and there should be an exemption for sorned vehicles. a1eeyore1 - 2009-01-22 3:48 PM Colin, does this mean that they dont have to be sorned or have you just not got round to it. Some of my vehicles where taken off road before the requirement for them to be sorned Brian Kirby - 2009-01-22 5:53 PM Notification of theft or scrapping likewise. If a vehicle is on the road and has not been notified as scrapped, stolen, or has not been SORNed, why is it there? Seems reasonable to me to assume it is there to be used, and so should be insured. Numberplate recognition is far quicker, and much more efficient, than hundreds of extra police, specials, wardens or whoever. Let's just do it! Answer as above vehicles taken off road prior to 2000( ?) do not need to be sorned, but as you say the new technologies on numberplate recon are now very good and widesread therefor this legistration is totaly unessesary and now there will be a whole load more sorn notices being filled out using more of the earths rescoures and not addressing the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffchef Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Hi I am hiding writing this!!!!. i personally like the idea of the proposal-all vehicles will then have automatic third party insurance- up to you to get comp ins- however!!!!!- always is is`nt there- the `police` will have to much, much, much more active on getting the b-------[ love to swear but told I mustn`t] hwo abuse the car tax system in this counrty- and really nail them to the wall. This system works fine in other places- Oz for instance. We have mutliple vehicles and I would love to see it where anyone can drive anything without having to check ins details first-yes I wouldnt let my kids drive the `van`[ as it wouldnt be fully comp for them] but any of the other wheels lying round- great- all third party covered by the goverment in the car tax. jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.