The fight against uninsured vehicles

[MuddyMike]

Forwarded from another place. Makes sense to me.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

Mike

[crazymac]

Fine by me, the fines can already arrive if you havn't renewed your SORN (Also they are under no obligation to send you a reminder!!) so I guess by comparing to the MIB database you could end up with two fines??

No doubt some innocents will be accused under this but it should be all for the good otherwise.

[dxmedia]

All of which is still cheaper than a LOT of peoples insurance premiums.

Do what civilized countires do, have the road tax include basic 3rd party cover from .gov. Problem solved.

[blackbob]

should tie car tax and insurance together or issue a tax disc type insurance to display in window of all vehicles

[Tommo]

Ohh [Edited], this is going to cause me no end of hassle. So now if my insurance policy runs out I have to send my tax in and declare sorn? What a f*c*ing joke!

Plus, all my vehicles are covered by my traders policy, and arent registered on the MID, so how is that going to work?

And as per usual it wont stop the real criminals, who will carry on driving cars that are registered to a fictional person.



So now you can get fined for yet another thing which is legal, owning a vehicle that isnt insured.

Ahh im furious, they assume that everyone has just one car to think about.

[squaddie_fox]

They can take me to court.

[Range Rover Blues]

I agree that something needs doing, but treating us all like criminals isn't the right way to do it.  As said already it just means more inconvenience for law abiding citizens and making doing nothing an offence is just a joke.

In Auz you pay basic insurance with your fuel, no-one can drive uninsured unless they are powered by wind.  It was muted to do the same here but as usual our governement wanted to use it as an excuse to increase fuel taxation, can't remember where I read about it now though.

I'd gladly pay more fuel duty if they got rid of raod tax and the need to have basic 3rd party insurance, let's face it we'd be paying for what we used rather than to tax a stationary vehicle (how many of use do that?), there would be a lot less "classic" cars being driven as tax evasion and bigger, thirstier cars would still contirbute more per mile in insurance.  Just as long as it was the 3 or 4 p/litre it should cost and not another 50p/litre.

However, whilst the fine is a couple of hundred quid and car insewerance costs over a grand for young drivers the situation will continue.

[V8MoneyPit]

all my vehicles are covered by my traders policy, and arent registered on the MID, so how is that going to work?

Isn't it a legal requirement to register vehicles used under a trade policy on the MID? Ours are all registered. I thought anything that wasn't registered had to driven under trade plates and meet the criteria of such use. i.e. be a vehicle for sale, etc.

However, the idea of having to insure a vehicle that has an MOT and tax, but is not being used on the road, is crazy.

Edit:
Just looked it up and it reads that all 'company vehicles' are to be entered on the MID by the company concerned.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_071948

[MuddyMike]

Just looked it up and it reads that all 'company vehicles' are to be entered on the MID by the company concerned.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_071948

I was stopped twice on passing through ANPR checks before that rule came out. Both times the bobby stopping me opened with something like "I have stopped you because no insurance is shown for the vehicle, its probably because it's a fleet car but do you have proof of insurance"

Mike

[V8MoneyPit]

I'm sure it's fine as long as the car is actually insured. It just means you might have the trouble of having to take your documents to the police station to prove it.


If someone's insurance expires half way through a month and they decide to not use the car for a couple of weeks and re-insure from the next month, they are likely to get a nasty letter from the DVLA under the proposed rules! It's bonkers to force people SORN their car for a few days, only to re-tax it shortly after.

[Range Rover Blues]

Good point, because they won't refund the tax unless you cancel it more than a month before it's due for renewal.

[Tommo]

Im really dreading this.

To be fair its the road tax system that causes all the hassle. Its just so outdated, why cant we do away with the disc and just have it as a computer database, where you can pay to put 5 days tax on it if you want. Its always been a scam selling it in only 6 months or 12. Or do away with it all together and pay it on fuel or whatever as has been suggested.

Ever since they introduced 'SORN' I have hated the DVLA. Its such a petty thing that does nothing but hassle honest folks. The problem is that most people don't see a problem, as they have one car and its on the road all the time. People like me who have multiple piles of old scrap, all in different states of repair, suffer all the time with SORN declarations etc. Especially when I have to chop and change between what I drive because of cars going in a cycle between being broken and fixed. Dont forget that you can't cash your tax in at the post office now, got to send it off. And nearly every time you cash it in and tax something else you lose months into the ether.

I always think in these scenarios, 'how would I get around this as a criminal?'. And to be fair its a piece of cake. The police now are so reliant on ANPR that if you dont speed and your all good on the database then you will never get pulled, so I would just duplicate the numberplates off a similar looking car. You can even check whenever you want online to confirm that the car you have cloned is still insured, taxed etc.
   And the more people that do that, the more innocent people are going to get fines/points for stuff they havent done!

[MudLifeCrisis]

Always thought more people would get reported for no road tax if you had to display it on the rear window. [-X

[MuddyMike]

Im really dreading this.

I always think in these scenarios, 'how would I get around this as a criminal?'. And to be fair its a piece of cake. The police now are so reliant on ANPR that if you don't speed and your all good on the database then you will never get pulled, so I would just duplicate the numberplates off a similar looking car. You can even check whenever you want online to confirm that the car you have cloned is still insured, taxed etc.
   And the more people that do that, the more innocent people are going to get fines/points for stuff they havent done!

Years ago I knew two brothers that made there living selling logs. They owned at least three, some said five identical pick up trucks. They would load the trucks as they cut the logs then stick the one tax disk on each truck as they needed to make deliveries. Each truck had identical number plates and the best one was MOT tested each year. They got caught out when a new local bobby noticed one of the trucks had no brake lights and followed it back into the yard.

Mike

[Range Rover Blues]

Always thought more people would get reported for no road tax if you had to display it on the rear window. [-X

Don't the Americans put it on the licence plate/number plate instead?

[crazymac]

Yes they do, and in many states they don't have a plate on the front.

[CaptainColourful]

Always thought more people would get reported for no road tax if you had to display it on the rear window. [-X

Don't the Americans put it on the licence plate/number plate instead?

Canada has a great system. The date if your tax/insurance is displayed on the rear numberplate.... it's also linked to your date of birth so you never forget to re-licence. What a birthday present !

[Gordo]

As a reminder, the continuous insurance laws came in to effect this week - so get insurance or declare SORN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/13836557

[Mash]

Not sure if this one applies to anyone here but it does to me..
How do you stand if you've vehicles that are off the road BUT re SORN ?

2 of my bikes have never been sorned as they were taken off the road before it came into force and nether are insured ?
Just a thought 

[crazymac]

Not sure if this one applies to anyone here but it does to me..
How do you stand if you've vehicles that are off the road BUT re SORN ?

2 of my bikes have never been sorned as they were taken off the road before it came into force and nether are insured ?
Just a thought 

You'll be fine. As long as you have the V5 in your name. If you ever sell them, then the new owner will have to SORN them, but as you took them off the road before this came into force you will be OK.

[zebidee]

Since most fully comp insurance provides 3rd party cover for all other vehicles driven how does this work now?

If the car's taxed legally but doesn't have insurance ... but the other car I own is fully comp then technically I'd be insured if I were to actually have an accident BUT according to what's been mentioned I'd be flagged up because the VEHICLE doesn't have insurance.

A mate of mine also got fully comp for any vehicle on his Clio's insurance - so that'd be the same too right?

Surely it should be a combination of the driver + vehicle - although that'd mean they'd actually have to do some legwork rather than just slap the owner with a fine automatically.

[Landy1uk]

I thought that 3rd party bit was only if the car was not owned by the policy holder and you had to tell the insurance you were driving another car

if i'm wrong i'll be corrected

[jay2578]

Since most fully comp insurance provides 3rd party cover for all other vehicles driven how does this work now?

If the car's taxed legally but doesn't have insurance ... but the other car I own is fully comp then technically I'd be insured if I were to actually have an accident BUT according to what's been mentioned I'd be flagged up because the VEHICLE doesn't have insurance.

A mate of mine also got fully comp for any vehicle on his Clio's insurance - so that'd be the same too right?

Surely it should be a combination of the driver + vehicle - although that'd mean they'd actually have to do some legwork rather than just slap the owner with a fine automatically.

You can`t drive an uninsured motor YOU own on your other motors fully comp policy, only a vehicle belonging to someone else

[crazymac]

Since most fully comp insurance provides 3rd party cover for all other vehicles driven how does this work now?

If the car's taxed legally but doesn't have insurance ... but the other car I own is fully comp then technically I'd be insured if I were to actually have an accident BUT according to what's been mentioned I'd be flagged up because the VEHICLE doesn't have insurance.

A mate of mine also got fully comp for any vehicle on his Clio's insurance - so that'd be the same too right?

Surely it should be a combination of the driver + vehicle - although that'd mean they'd actually have to do some legwork rather than just slap the owner with a fine automatically.

Also the 3rd party cover on another vehicle NOT OWNED by you is only valid if the other car has a full insurance policy applicable to it.

[Range Rover Blues]

That's right, under the road traffic act IIRC the car has to carry insewerance even if parked on the road to cover it's basic liability.  Your 3rd part cover ceases when you get out and lock it.