PDA

View Full Version : Own a car? Dont worry, its getting better under the tories.



BolshieBastard
8th January 2011, 21:03
No, not the fuel duty rises which are all the fault of those beastly Lib Dems or even the last Government.

No. If you have a car that's off the road for storeage or restoration, you'll have to insure it soon. All part of the drive to clamp down on uninsured drivers. Nothing like hammering all the law abiding car owners to 'catch' the crims, is there?

Drivers to be banned from keeping uninsured cars off road - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/8248361/Drivers-to-be-banned-from-keeping-uninsured-cars-off-road.html)

Under the new system the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will work alongside the Motor Insurers' Bureau to identify uninsured vehicles, many of which are never taken out on to the road. Their owners will then be contacted by letter to warn them they face a £100 fine if the car or van is not insured by a certain date.

If the vehicle remains uninsured, regardless of whether a fine has been paid or not, it could then be seized and crushed,

AtW
8th January 2011, 21:11
LOL FOAD.

AtW in "Clippy" mode.

Uninsured vehicles cost honest motorist (that's means motorist who pays all taxes honestly - a concept that might sound too alien to dodgy offshore scheme users) a LOT of dosh - maybe breaking legs of uninsured drivers is a tad too extreme and probably against human rights act (what isn't?), but taking cars that are not insured off the road is a good thing. If they take your flashy BMW that you were so proud of then it's a double win.

Spacecadet
8th January 2011, 21:15
is there any way to "unregister" a car from the DVLA?

BolshieBastard
8th January 2011, 21:17
is there any way to "unregister" a car from the DVLA?

Only by declaring it scrapped or exported AFAIA.

Platypus
8th January 2011, 21:18
Bolshie, what's your point?

That this is a dastardly Tory stealth tax, or a sledgehammer to crack a crime walnut ?

If the former, have the balls to say so.

If the latter, I expect that any government would have enacted it.

BolshieBastard
8th January 2011, 21:26
Bolshie, what's your point?

That this is a dastardly Tory stealth tax, or a sledgehammer to crack a crime walnut ?

If the former, have the balls to say so.

If the latter, I expect that any government would have enacted it.

My point is by all means target 'uninsured' drivers but, law abiding people take cars 'off the road' for many reasons. They shouldnt be targeted by an ill thought out and blanket scheme that lumps these law abiding people with those deliberately driving uninsured.

Oh, and its not a question of having 'the balls' to say something the original posting wasnt about. OK?

The_Equalizer
8th January 2011, 21:53
If your vehicle is off the road then it should be registered as SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) for the purpose of road tax. Why then would the government now ask for it to be insured too?

RichardCranium
8th January 2011, 22:10
This is old news, Shirley? Link from TWO YEARS AGO! (http://www.money.co.uk/article/1002582-government-announces-car-insurance-crackdown.htm):


Government Announces Car Insurance Crackdown

Tough new laws could make keeping an uninsured vehicle an offence, the Department for Transport has indicated.

If the plans enter statute, it would be an offence to own or keep a car in the UK without appropriate car insurance. Existing legislation merely prohibits driving without car insurance.

Who was in power in January 2009? The current bunch of bastards or the previous bunch of bastards?

RichardCranium
8th January 2011, 22:17
Here's the Guardian's coverage from January 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/10/motor-insurance-dft-penalties-government):


Motorists face curb on all cars without insurance

Motorists have a year to get cover or face fines, even if their vehicles are not used. Are the new rules going too far, too fast?

Reports suggest up to 2 million people a year drive without insurance. Photograph: David Levene

Plans published recently by the Department for Transport (DfT) will soon make it an offence purely to be the registered keeper of an uninsured vehicle, while police will not have to prove it was in use.

The Continuous Insurance Enforcement proposals, due to be introduced in early 2011, will replace existing laws, whereby a prosecution can take place only if an uninsured motorist is caught at the wheel of a car. An initial penalty of £100 will be applied, followed by further fines of up to £1,000 levied by a magistrate's court.

VectraMan
8th January 2011, 22:51
If your vehicle is off the road then it should be registered as SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) for the purpose of road tax. Why then would the government now ask for it to be insured too?

Somebody who's prepared to drive uninsured is not going to worry about falsely declaring it SORN too.

The crazy thing is the fines are often less than the cost of insurance.:suicide:

Freamon
9th January 2011, 01:17
What if insurance companies start offering specialist SORN policies where the premium is £1 a year and the excess is £5 million?

RichardCranium
9th January 2011, 01:40
What if insurance companies start offering specialist SORN policies where the premium is £1 a year and the excess is £5 million?And what if insurance companies started offering FULLY COMPREHENSIVE policies where the premium is £1 a year and the excess is £5 million?

And why don't they?

(That's not a rhetorical question, like Freamon's idea (Plan B?), I do not know why not.)

Freamon
9th January 2011, 01:50
And what if insurance companies started offering FULLY COMPREHENSIVE policies where the premium is £1 a year and the excess is £5 million?

And why don't they?

(That's not a rhetorical question, like Freamon's idea (Plan B?), I do not know why not.)
It's a gross example, but it does raise the question: At what level of excess does someone become effectively "uninsured"? Because the level of excess on some policies is ridiculous. Mind you I suppose it doesn't apply in the case of third party claims, maybe that's the key.

The_Equalizer
9th January 2011, 09:54
Somebody who's prepared to drive uninsured is not going to worry about falsely declaring it SORN too.

The crazy thing is the fines are often less than the cost of insurance.:suicide:

This then makes insuring off road vehicles a complete waste of time. Those that play by the rules will end up being out of pocket and those that drive uninsured vehicles carry on regardless.

Why not just have a crack down and ensure the fines are enough to do the job? It's not hard to catch uninsured drivers using number plate recognition software.

VectraMan
9th January 2011, 10:54
It's a gross example, but it does raise the question: At what level of excess does someone become effectively "uninsured"? Because the level of excess on some policies is ridiculous. Mind you I suppose it doesn't apply in the case of third party claims, maybe that's the key.

WHS. To be legally covered the insurance has to fully cover a third party. A lower premium and infinite excess policies have existed for years: called 3rd party only. (Though one crazy thing I found recently was that I could get comprehensive cheaper than 3rd party only).

And if you're super-rich, you "self-insure", which is the same as having a massive excess.

The real problem is the cost of insurance. You can get a perfectly usable reliable car for £500, then it costs you £1000 per year to insure. It's not hard to see why people take the chance.

Freamon
9th January 2011, 12:09
This then makes insuring off road vehicles a complete waste of time. Those that play by the rules will end up being out of pocket and those that drive uninsured vehicles carry on regardless.

Why not just have a crack down and ensure the fines are enough to do the job? It's not hard to catch uninsured drivers using number plate recognition software.
Overzealous use of ANPR will just lead to more cloned plates appearing, which makes a bad situation worse.

Did you know that around 12% of vehicles driving around have something illegal about them (e.g. no tax, no insurance, plates for the wrong vehicle, registered at invalid address, driver has a driving ban, etc)? Enforcement has been so poor over the past several decades, seems hard to believe it'll magically start improving now.

Most councils/police forces have tens of millions of unpaid fines assigned to drivers that they are unable to chase up.

xoggoth
9th January 2011, 12:19
It says further down


Police gained powers at the end of 2005 to seize uninsured cars, but to use their powers they have to catch the driver at the wheel. Under the new offence of keeping a vehicle while uninsured, the onus will be on drivers to prove that they have insurance, or have completed a statutory off-road notification.

So if people have done a SORN they won't have to have insurance? Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article but if that is the case seems ok.

AtW
9th January 2011, 13:56
The real problem is the cost of insurance. You can get a perfectly usable reliable car for £500, then it costs you £1000 per year to insure. It's not hard to see why people take the chance.

You can drive £1 car into building and cause a million quid worth of damage - it's about 3rd party risk insurance with God knows whom driving one and a half ton vehicle at high speed.

They want those SORN cars insured because I bet there are plenty of people who declare car off road but actually drive it on public roads.

The_Equalizer
9th January 2011, 14:35
Overzealous use of ANPR will just lead to more cloned plates appearing, which makes a bad situation worse.

Did you know that around 12% of vehicles driving around have something illegal about them (e.g. no tax, no insurance, plates for the wrong vehicle, registered at invalid address, driver has a driving ban, etc)? Enforcement has been so poor over the past several decades, seems hard to believe it'll magically start improving now.

Most councils/police forces have tens of millions of unpaid fines assigned to drivers that they are unable to chase up.

So the bottom line being there's a hard core of offenders who have a complete disregard for any form of legislation. Forcing all SORN vehicles to have insurance will mean law abiding types pay unnecessarily and the problem isn't reduced.

How about attempting to make it socially unacceptable in the same way drink driving has now become?

AtW
9th January 2011, 14:51
Forcing all SORN vehicles to have insurance will mean law abiding types pay unnecessarily and the problem isn't reduced.

Problem can be reduced because *ANY* vehicle without insurance can be stopped, towed away, crushed etc.

This sure does not solve it, but if you've got a vehicle it should be insured as it's a real risk.

Sysman
9th January 2011, 14:52
If your vehicle is off the road then it should be registered as SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) for the purpose of road tax. Why then would the government now ask for it to be insured too?

Lobbying from the insurance companies?

RichardCranium
9th January 2011, 15:09
Lobbying from the insurance companies?Especially since there is Insurance Premium Tax, currently about 6% (I think).

(How the hell that got accepted as law I still cannot fathom. It is a tax on sensible risk management.)

Sysman
9th January 2011, 15:33
So if people have done a SORN they won't have to have insurance? Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article but if that is the case seems ok.

Another oddity about the article:


"People say, 'Well, it's sitting outside on the road outside my house. I'm not using it. It's taxed but doesn't need to be insured.' It has to be insured, because if someone decides to use it even for an emergency they will not be covered. We are moving fast on that."

He misses the point that you need insurance to get the thing taxed. I would argue that if it's sitting on the public highway it should be insured anyway - what if it runs down the hill it's parked on, for example?

I also wonder what proportion of those estimated to be driving uninsured are in that position due to the following circumstances?


they do have insurance but made a false declaration on the application form - the insurance companies are happy to take their premiums but won't pay out in the event of a claim
they aren't insured because the insurance wants an absurdly high premium to add a family member, unmarried partner, friend etc. The vehicle is itself insured, but not for the driver in charge.


b. could be easily solved by adopting the system used in various bits of Europe where it is compulsory to insure a vehicle for any driver. Before you all throw your hands up in horror at that, judging by the premiums it all comes out in the wash and isn't ridiculously expensive.

The great thing about this is if you are on a long drive and start to feel knackered you can share driving with your passengers. Or simply ask a mate or neighbour to drive if you think you are in danger of being above the alcohol limit. I would not be surprised to find that this reduces accidents by a significant amount.

Moscow Mule
9th January 2011, 17:15
b. could be easily solved by adopting the system used in various bits of Europe where it is compulsory to insure a vehicle for any driver. Before you all throw your hands up in horror at that, judging by the premiums it all comes out in the wash and isn't ridiculously expensive.



I'm pretty sure my old comprehensive policy had this. Not sure Tesco do it though.

minestrone
9th January 2011, 17:25
Did people not used to put the car up on bricks and then it did not have to be insured or taxed?

Or am I talking crap?

Moscow Mule
9th January 2011, 17:34
Did people not used to put the car up on bricks and then it did not have to be insured or taxed?

Or am I talking crap?

That might have worked in the 1970s but there's a lot more paperwork to it these days.

VectraMan
9th January 2011, 18:03
I'm pretty sure my old comprehensive policy had this.

Comprehensive policies generally insure you for any car that you don't own. So you can drive your friend's car home from the pub, but you need to have your own insurance. And what a lot of people don't realise is that it's only the legal minimum (i.e. 3rd party only) in that circumstance.

Which brings up another problem with all this: somebody with their own insurance can legally drive a car listed as uninsured. Sysman's probably right in saying it'd be better if all insurance policies covered any driver for occasional use, though then there's the grey area of what is occasional use. Just like the parent insuring their 17-year old son's car for them, how can anybody know?

shaunbhoy
9th January 2011, 19:09
No, not the fuel duty rises which are all the fault of those beastly Lib Dems or even the last Government.

No. If you have a car that's off the road for storeage or restoration, you'll have to insure it soon. All part of the drive to clamp down on uninsured drivers. Nothing like hammering all the law abiding car owners to 'catch' the crims, is there?

Drivers to be banned from keeping uninsured cars off road - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/8248361/Drivers-to-be-banned-from-keeping-uninsured-cars-off-road.html)

Under the new system the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will work alongside the Motor Insurers' Bureau to identify uninsured vehicles, many of which are never taken out on to the road. Their owners will then be contacted by letter to warn them they face a £100 fine if the car or van is not insured by a certain date.

If the vehicle remains uninsured, regardless of whether a fine has been paid or not, it could then be seized and crushed,

Change the record you dreary bastard FFS!!!

:tumble: :tumble: :tumble:

Churchill
10th January 2011, 07:38
Only by declaring it scrapped or exported AFAIA.

What about cars not used on the road? Race, Rallcross etc.?

lilelvis2000
10th January 2011, 09:24
This is crap. This means all these guys who have cars under restoration - which can take years - will have to pony up money to insure them! crap.

There is also some issues with engine swapping - which, again, affects vintage car owners the most.

Looks like the car manufacturers have been lobbying hard. The DVLA must be the limpest guys around. First silly number plates now this.