You have to have insurance if car is off road

vaio

Raskazz, that link says......

"......One of MIB’s focal points is the statutory foundation for CIE. This is the very essence of the project because without it there cannot be a CIE process. The Road Safety Act 2006 created the new offence of being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle which is not insured. The Regulations are currently being prepared by the Department for Transport (DfT) and crucially, must be law by early December in order to fulfil plans for an April 2011 launch........."

but a search for "continuous insurance" or "CIE" on the DfT web site doesn't reveal anything significant which I find surprising given that it's been touted as "the biggest change in insurance since the 1930s".

I'd also have thought that given this is such a fundamental change, the DfT would be running a big publicity campaign for at least six months before launch like they did when SORN came in.

Did the regulations mentioned above make it into law before Christmas?

Tilt

Personally i'm struggling to understand why insurance is to be a legal requirement to have on a car which is being kept off road. The whole basis for motor insurance in the first place is to ensure that there is adequate cover for personal injury or death, not necessarily for damage. SORN is not the same argument as providing the vehicle is off road, there is no cost involved just purely a decleration that the said vehicle is not being used on a public road which is fair enough. How can it be justified to be expected to pay insurance on a vehicle which is parked in a garage (SORNd) posing no possible risk of injury to members of public? As far as I am aware, you can actually suspend your insurance on your car if you are not going to use it for any length of time as long as it is off road. The only people who would benefit out of this are the insurance companies who will be laughing all the way to the bank providing cover for cars which are never going to have to pay claims as they are not being used. And before we get into the 'what about people who don't insure their cars but still drive them' angle, isnt that is what ANPR is supposed to combat?

vaio

I thought the plan was for continuous insurance is required if you don’t declare it off road, much like the road tax system but with the added bonus that if you do make an insurance SORN declaration you also have to make a road tax sorn and return any tax disc you have.

I suspect it’s been much lobbied for by the insurance industry as it provides them with a nice additional income stream in the current hard times, DVLA probably wouldn’t object as it gives them something else to do not to mention the extra income and the same applies to the MIB.

In fact the only losers I can see are the poor punters who end up paying for the whole ill thought out scheme (if it ever gets implemented)

wealdroam

vaio wrote: »

I thought the plan was for continuous insurance is required if you don’t declare it off road, much like the road tax system but with the added bonus that if you do make an insurance SORN declaration you also have to make a road tax sorn and return any tax disc you have.

I suspect it’s been much lobbied for by the insurance industry as it provides them with a nice additional income stream in the current hard times, DVLA probably wouldn’t object as it gives them something else to do not to mention the extra income and the same applies to the MIB.

In fact the only losers I can see are the poor punters who end up paying for the whole ill thought out scheme (if it ever gets implemented)

I think this all boils down to...
If your car is taxed, then you need insurance.

If you declare your car SORN, then you don't need insurance.
Or conversely, if you let the insurance run out then you must SORN it.

Some losers will be classic car owners.
There are classic car owners whose vehicle is taxed as an Historic Vehicle, i.e. free road tax.
As there is no cost for the tax, it makes sense to tax it for twelve months. But if the car is only used for three summer months then a few months insurance is all that's needed. There is no point in sending tax disc back for a refund if car is stored off road for a few months. Currently only need to SORN it when the tax runs out. Can let the insurance run out without a problem. If car is needed, only need to take out short term insurance and off you go.

Under this new proposal those people will have to surrender the tax disc and declare SORN every time they let the insurance lapse.

whatmichaelsays

If you don't declare SORN, then insurance is required. If you are keeping the car off road, there is little reason not to declare SORN.

The legislation isn't as draconian as some groups are making out and it is something that a lot of motorcycle owners do anyway (insure & tax for the summer months, declare SORN for the winter months).

wealdroam

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

If you are keeping the car off road, there is little reason not to declare SORN.

Except as I described earlier, if the tax disc is free, there is currently no point in returning it and declaring SORN.

raskazz

wealdroam wrote: »

But if the car is only used for three summer months then a few months insurance is all that's needed. There is no point in sending tax disc back for a refund if car is stored off road for a few months. Currently only need to SORN it when the tax runs out. Can let the insurance run out without a problem. If car is needed, only need to take out short term insurance and off you go.

That is why proper Classic policies are based on a limited mileage and so are usually just as cheap or often cheaper than short-term 'standard' policies, so this point isn't really relevant.

NeverInDebt

This policy wont stop many of the none insured drivers driving the roads but may penalise those who have taken vehicle off the road for x amount of time who will now have to take insurance out or keep it running even though they may not use the vehicle for some time.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

but a search for "continuous insurance" or "CIE" on the DfT web site doesn't reveal anything significant which I find surprising given that it's been touted as "the biggest change in insurance since the 1930s".

I'd also have thought that given this is such a fundamental change, the DfT would be running a big publicity campaign for at least six months before launch like they did when SORN came in.

Did the regulations mentioned above make it into law before Christmas?

I think that that is just because the DfT's website is !!!!poor - it only has 8 documents on the page dedicated to motor insurance.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/

The MIB has been sending publicity material to brokers and insurers since December advising of vehicle owners' obligations under the new regime; people I know have mentioned seeing advice on their road tax renewals to the effect that vehicles without insurance must be declared SORN; there has been nothing to indicate that the plans have been dropped.

I think the best confirmation that I can find is this:

http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46F0BCC8-6E05-494D-AEF8-6B863521520E/0/DfT_Announcement_CIE_regs_110111.pdf

"The Department for Transport today made the Commencement Order to make it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle which does not have insurance, as well as regulations to support this. Further regulations will be made shortly, allowing the scheme to come into force in the Spring."

raskazz

NeverInDebt wrote: »

This policy wont stop many of the none insured drivers driving the roads but may penalise those who have taken vehicle off the road for x amount of time who will now have to take insurance out or keep it running even though they may not use the vehicle for some time.

Seems totally fair to me. Either the car is not being used on the road, in which case you SORN it, or it is being used on the road, in which case you insure it.