BIG BROTHER STRIKES AGAIN!

[Ian Anderson]

Ok I have stolen this from another forum but if correct it stinks for anyone building up a car needing it to be SCORNED and also insured - even without it boing on th road!


I Quote from Keith

This damnable government is currently "consulting" with selected parties with a "vested interest" looking into making it compulsory to hold insurance on cars that have been S.O.R.N.E.D at any time. If you are the registered keeper it will mean that you will have to insure it for at least 1/3rd party risks or possibly more. Their reasoning is, that if your SORNED vehicle is ever stolen, then any damage it may subsequently cause will be covered. In the minds of these retards is the plain fact that it's cheaper for them to get US to pay the costs of such a crime rather than for them to put sufficient police on the streets to deter and prevent it.

Naturally, the only bodies that seem to be on the consultation list are, erm, insurance companies and others who are set to gain from such new legislation. It is extremely hard to get anyone in an official capacity that even knows about this plan, so it seems likely that a "stealth" law will be passed with the DOT claiming that it entered "proper consulation". Bullshit.

Here is the website: Department for Transport - Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance

For those that can't be bothered to access the site, here is also a) the Consultation Letter and b) the Annex describing the proposed changes.

In a nutshell, it talks a lot about enforcement including (presumably) entering your property clamping and subsequently removing from your land and crushing the vehicle etc etc.

It is my view that this will affect all those who regularly SORN those vehicles say during the winter months to save the Road Tax plus a gross infringement of your property rights (by definition, if you keep a vehicle off-road, it is usually on your property). Who's to say, knowing this lot, that they won't follow this up with a demand for Road Tax for a SORNed vehicle albeit at a lower rate?

I would either or both respond to the consultation letter and forward it to your local MP.

If you don't, you might eventually find your classic car in the crusher!

Ignore at your peril....you have until April 29th 2009 to respond.



Ian

[chodjinn]

*EDIT*

Hand on, Annex A, part A, paragraph 11, clearly states that SORNed vehicles are excempt, explained in further detail in paragrpah 18. No worries.

[chodjinn]

Here we go;

Part A - The scope of the scheme
The process

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.


and

Exceptions for vehicles not used on a road or other public place

18. Section 144B(7)(a) of the Act authorises regulations for the purposes of prescribing documents to be furnished, or declarations to be made, by a keeper who is keeping the vehicle off road if s/he is to be excepted under Section 144B(5) from the Section 144A offence. Effectively, this Section deals with anyone claiming that s/he was not committing an offence because the vehicle was not being used or kept on a road or other public place at the relevant time.

The Department intends to make Regulations requiring anyone claiming this exception to have complied with the existing requirements for statutory off road notification (SORN) as specified in the Registration and Licensing Regulations.

The Department recognises that there are vehicles which do not currently fall within the requirements for SORN because they have not been used on the road and were last taxed before 31 January 1998, for example historic vehicles. We intend making provision for such vehicles to be excepted. They are not of course exempt from Section 143 of the Act which requires valid insurance to be in force if the vehicle is used on the road or other public place.

[Ian Anderson]

But the people favouring this are the ones that will gain from it

The Government wants it as they will get revenue from the fines and tax on the insurances

The insurance people want it because they get more premiums

Now in South Africa they had a major problem with people driving and not being insured and they used to insist on a second "tax disc" thingy that said you had paid your insurance but those were counterfeitted very quickly. Eventually they put 5 c per litre on fuel and basically every car is covered for the road traffic act - ie kill someone and they pay for the box etc.

At least this stops big brother having more records to keep

Try to repost the web link
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/motor/



Ian

[chodjinn]

Sorry Ian I'm confused; people who run cars on the road should pay insurance, that's a given. if they don't, then they risk a fine etc.

SORN cars are not required to have insurance, nor will they be subject to this new proposal. Whoever wrote that article on the other forum had read the Gov website wrong, so the first post is incorrect, SORNed cars are unaffected?

So can you tell me why this is a problem? Have I missed something?

[14500rpm]

I have to say I'm with chodjinn here - if you aren't insured then you should be on a SORN - end of (unless I have missed something!).

I agree there should be some sort of visual representation that a vehicle is insured (a second tax disk or whatever) so that its easier for coppers and so on without ANPR devices to detect and deal with uninsured vehicles.

[Ian Anderson]

That is correct at present if you are SCORN no need for insurance

What they are finding is people are registering SCORN and then driving

So theyare now trying to make it a law that ALL cars need to be insured so that "quick test drive" before MOT etc and you are covered!

To me it sucks as I know a load of kit builders and at what point do they become a car? and also others who have an old kit and are doing a long term rebuild - off the road for 3 - 4 years and now Big Bruv says it must be insured all the time!

Ian

[stu8]

So theyare now trying to make it a law that ALL cars need to be insured so that "quick test drive" before MOT etc and you are covered!
Ian

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT.

Discussion on this proposal has come up many times in the last 2 or 3 years.

Many people have got the proposal wrong, and again here on this thread.

There is NO INTENTION of forcing people who have SORN'D cars or cars which don't meet SORN (as they were off the road before it started) to have insurance.
It clearly states it in several sections, as here:

13. If as a result of this process of comparison a vehicle appears to be uninsured, and for which there is no formal off road (SORN) declaration, the registered keeper will be sent a letter and given reasonable opportunity to respond.

Although it does look any car off road and pre SORN will have to register SORN to avoid continuous harassment from DVLA

[chodjinn]

A-ha! Cheers gents, now I get it. But richards who declare SORN then drive it deserve to have their thumbs removed.

And similarly, i agree with 14500rpm, an Insurance Disc would be a very good instant indicator. Sod all the South African fraud stuff - we've had tax discs here for decades without major issues so an insurance one shouldn't be any different.

It would also make things slightly easier for the 5-0, although their new number plate recognition systems are relatively good (as a testiment, I haven't been pulled over for 12months, although I do get followed approx once a month lol, but I think they have my reg on record now as the Police dont tend to stay behind me for long now - used to be a good 5 mins waiting for the database to confirm my details ). Always fun wathcing them overtake, looking over as if to say "thought we'd got you there, you damn law-abiding citizen!" haha