You have to have insurance if car is off road

Wig

mikey72 wrote: »

Wig wrote: »

Provisions coming into force

2. The following provisions of the Road Safety Act 2006 shall come into force on 4th February 2011—

(a)section 22(1) and (2);
(b)section 22(3) and accordingly Schedule 5;
(c)section 22(5);
(d)section 22(6) to the extent to which it relates to subsection (7); and
(e)section 22(7).

Am I alone when I say I have no idea what any of that means?

My preliminary musings.....will update when I have read more.....

Section 22 RSA 2006
Subsection 1 This is the main bit that concerns us <The bit I haven't read in full>
Subsection 2 Does not concern us at all, it's just oil in the money making machine
Subsection 3 Puts this schedule as schedule 2A into RTA 1988 (I haven't read it yet)
Subsection 5 Ammends the Road Traffic Offenders Act
RTO Section 6 applies,
6 months to issue proceedings after gathering sufficient evidence - not really relevant to us as we don't know when they have a gathered sufficient evidence, presumably some time after receiving the love letter and we have taken no action.
RTO Section 11 applies,
The admissibility(?) of evidence (confession) as to who the owner of the vehicle was at the time of the offence.
RTO Section 12(1) applies,
Procedure of proving to the magistrates court that the accused was the driver at the time of the offence.

Subsection 6 Notice to ammend Schedule 2 of the RTO as laid out in subsection 7 (below)
Subsection 7 The ammendment of RTO Schedule 2, This determines the maximum fine, which is level 3 (£1,000) on the standard scale for the relevant offence

HTH

In short, we need only concern ourselves with Subsection 1 and possibly the new schedule 2A

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

The problem is that there exists a very real 'underclass' of persistent uninsured drivers who are quite happy to take the chance that they will not be spotted by the police when they take their uninsured car on the road. In those cases the police are currently restricted to effectively a reactive approach. Under CIE, the authorities can merely cross refer the DVLA's list of SORNed vehicles with the MID to proactively rather than reactively check on these individuals.



Not sure how it will be an income stream for the DVLA. Surely it would result in those people who used to leave taxed vehicles lying uninsured, declaring the vehicles SORN at the correct time and receiving a refund of road tax for unused whole months.

If you sorn a vehicle, you only get a refund if you don't re-tax within 21 days. So how does that work with being un-insured for a few weeks while you work on a car for an mot for example?

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

And will probably only cost £50 to £100, plus amendent charges.

Not necessarily. A lot of broker policies from better insurers include a free 7 day hold on cover for the old vehicle after a substitution. Or you could take out a short term policy which does not charge explicit admin fees. Or if you are planning to sell your vehicle you consider the cost implications of any temporary cover at renewal of your policy. The options are multifarious.

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

You can typically add a vehicle which you have recently substituted from your policy back on as a temporary addition for up to 30 days. Which is surely ample time in most circumstances.

But it's not a guaranteed right, and 30 days doesn't sound long enough to me, and it will be extra cost where there was none before.

All for a law which had no need to be made because it was already illegal to have an uninsured car on the road. All this does is make it massively easier to issue automatic fines by computer to people who may have suffered from the DVLA's incompetence, both in the SORN and the subsequent love letter not being received.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

If you sorn a vehicle, you only get a refund if you don't re-tax within 21 days. So how does that work with being un-insured for a few weeks while you work on a car for an mot for example?

You either leave the insurance inforce (as cancelling it usually incurs charges) or leave the re-taxation until 21 days. Hardly life-changing obstacles.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

My preliminary musings.....will update when I have read more.....

Section 22 RSA 2006
Subsection 1 This is the main bit that concerns us <The bit I haven't read in full>
Subsection 2 Does not concern us at all, it's just oil in the money making machine
Subsection 3 Puts this schedule as schedule 2A into RTA 1988 (I haven't read it yet)
Subsection 5 Ammends the Road Traffic Offenders Act
RTO Section 6 applies, 6 months to issue proceedings after gathering sufficient evidence - not really relevant to us as we don't know when they have a gathered sufficient evidence, presumably some time after recieving the love letter and we have taken no action.
RTO Section 11 applies, The admissibility(?) of evidence (confession) as to who the owner of the vehicle was at the time of the offence.
RTO Section 12(1) applies, Procedure of proving to the magistrates court that the accused was the driver at the time of the offence.

Subsection 6 Notice to ammend Schedule 2 of the RTO as laid out in subsection 7 (below)
Subsection 7 The ammendment of RTO Schedule 2, This determines the maximum fine, which is level 3 (£1,000) on the standard scale for the relevant offence

HTH

I got lost on the bit about the registered keeper having to have the vechicle insured. What if you insure someone elses car to use. I'm sure it's covered later on, but it's too hard to make sense of on the screen.

NeverInDebt

How is it fair, why should you have to pay insurance if you keep your car off road?. If I had a tv but didnt use it to watch live tv do I need a licence? No I dont

What if you have big bills to come and or you car isnt working and youe insurance is just to relapse and you cant afford the money for a while? As long as the vehicle isnt used on the road what is the problem?

This will not stop low life scum who drive on the roads with no tax or insurance and dont get me wrong I want these people stop, these low lifes along with ambulance chasers bump our insurance up

raskazz wrote: »

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.

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

But it's not a guaranteed right, and 30 days doesn't sound long enough to me, and it will be extra cost where there was none before.

No it is not guaranteed but I have never seen an example of an insurer refusing to do this.

30 days is the maximum period allowed for temporary additions as longer durations of cover require permanent records to be sent to the MID. If the owner requires longer then they can purchase an annual policy and subsequently cancel.

Yes, there may be some extra cost but in the grand scheme of things most people I know who are selling their car do hold them on temporary cover if only for the fire/theft risk; you must surely acknowledge that there are benefits in this legislation not just costs?!

raskazz

NeverInDebt wrote: »

How is it fair, why should you have to pay insurance if you keep your car off road?

Please come back when you have read the thread. You won't have to buy insurance if the car is declared SORN with the DVLA - that is the whole point of this discussion for God's sake.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

You either leave the insurance inforce (as cancelling it usually incurs charges) or leave the re-taxation until 21 days. Hardly life-changing obstacles.

What?
We've just all agreed that if the insurance runs out you have to send the tax back, so an uninsured car has to be sorned.
That means leaving the insurance on it won't be an option.
So what about the other piece of dvla legislation that says you can't declare sorn for less than 21 days?