Possible new insurance requirments

[lizken]

Brian,

 

I agree with your summary, which is quite simple, but I would not think any sensibl person would even contemplate storing a vehicle, wth the value of a motorhome without insurance.

I wouldn't be able to sleep.

Ken

[Brian Kirby]

Agreed!  But if you SORN it, you have the option to do so.  Ain't choice a wonderful thing?  :-D

[colin]

Rod_vw - 2011-01-17 10:54 PM

 

Cynical? Is that a Type 25 owners trait?

 

Yes I've been there with a 1980 Moonraker and thoroughly enjoyed it so please don't take the above personally.

 

Maybe, or is it because I know a little on how the system works?

When officers first get a ANPR they start stopping all and sundrey as the things constantly going off, but they soon learn the system is flawed as there is so much wrong data entered, from then on they probly stop 1 in 10, or as sometimes happens they turn the thing off.

The data used to push for this change of legistration was, how shall we say, heavly bias. There was a claim of millions of cars being 'non conplient', where all these cars illeagal? no most where perfectly legal being off road pre sorn or indead sorned, the next biggest group of 'non conplient' vehicles where those that had wrong data entered by swansea.

So what will this new system do that the present doesn't? create a whole load more costly paperwork. It doesn't do anything more than that.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2011-01-18 8:30 PM ............. There was a claim of millions of cars being 'non conplient', where all these cars illeagal? no most where perfectly legal being off road pre sorn or indead sorned, the next biggest group of 'non conplient' vehicles where those that had wrong data entered by swansea. So what will this new system do that the present doesn't? create a whole load more costly paperwork. It doesn't do anything more than that.

Is not the difference that we are now post SORN?  If you have a vehicle registered in your name, it must either be taxed, or SORNd.  If it is taxed, it must be insured, and in either case, if over 3 years old (cars) it must have a valid MoT.  Will it be perfect?  No, it is run and administered by people, but it will, surely, be better than the present system, where all the ends are left loose?

I really can't understand the point about fines arising from "cloned" number plates increasing because of these changes.  Fines based on cloned number plates can only arise if a numberplate is first cloned.  Usually the first the hapless victim knows of the cloning, is when the "ticket" arrives in the post.  S/he then has the problem of proving the vehicle involved was not theirs.  Often difficult.  However, it is identification of the vehicle by its registration number, its link to its registered owner, that directs the ticket, not ANPR technology, nor databases, nor the accuracy of same.  What would happen under a paper based system?  Car number taken.  Number passed to DVLA to identify registered keeper.  Registered keeper receives summons via post.  Time taken?  Who knows?

Under the proposed system the number might be grabbed via ANPR, or GATSO, or whatever.  Identification of keeper potentially in seconds.  Summons posted.  Time taken?  Possibly the same on a bad day, but potentially much less. 

As the registered keeper, you now know someone has cloned your plates, and that you have a problem.  I'd far sooner not have the plates cloned, but if they have been, I'd far sooner know as quickly as possible, than potentially weeks after the event, with further charges probably stacked up the pipeline.

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2011-01-19 11:51 AM

 

Is not the difference that we are now post SORN?  If you have a vehicle registered in your name, it must either be taxed, or SORNd. 

 

No, gf and myself have some 18 vehicles registered in our names, at a rough guess only 8 require tax or sorn.

 

[Tony Jones]

Brian Kirby - 2011-01-17 3:40 PM

Tony Jones - 2011-01-16 3:05 PM One side-issue on this new rule - most of our policies have a line allowing us to drive other vehicles (3rd party only). I assume this will disappear, or at least be restricted to cars which have other insurance cover? I hope it's the latter, as within the family we've occasionally used that provision to lend and borrow cars (NOT motorhomes! :-S )

 

Your last post above reminds me I didn't understand this one.  If you hold a valid vehicle insurance policy, whether or not that vehicle is SORNd, that allows you to drive other vehicles with the owner's permission, why should that change?  Obviously, the vehicle you then drive must be taxed, and so, must be insured by its owner/keeper.

Not quite Brian. It must HAVE BEEN insured, at the time it was taxed. Insurance could have expired the following day, leaving a year when the vehicle was legally taxed but not insured. At present, it can then be driven by any other person (not the owner) who holds their own policy permitting this. Result: perfectly lawful, taxed and insured driving, which will now become illegal. Small number of situations admittedly, but still one more incursion.If they must have the database, leave the law itself alone. Police can then still stop a vehicle which APPEARS from the DB to be uninsured, but if the driver produces an "any vehicle" certificate, end the conversation with a polite "thank you, Sir/Madam. Have a good journey!" "Thank you officer."Strikes me this is just more cheapskate "armchair law enforcement," which allows for prosecutions without any positive evidence that a vehicle has been driven or kept on the public road.

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Tony

OK, I think I now see what concerns you.  You can no longer drive a vehicle that is taxed but uninsured by its keeper, on your own insurance.  However, AFAIK, when you do that, the insurance you have is basic Road Traffic Acts only, not even fire or theft.  If that is all that is required, bearing in mind said vehicle is depreciating, and is being taxed while off road, how much would third part only insurance actually cost? 

Gotta say, it still seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me, since the major associated costs are the tax, depreciation, maintenance, and MoT, required to be able to use the thing at all.

So, to me, the logical thing is to either bite the bullet and get rid of a grossly under-used, deteriorating, vehicle, or stump up for basic third party insurance, when the vehicle can legally be used at any time.