You have to have insurance if car is off road

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Well, yes, finally we are getting somewhere. Under this legislation there are no instant fines. The initial action is by a warning letter. Obviously the authorities only follow through on the warning if the situation persists.

So the motorist is getting a warning letter for following the procedure already in place by the dvla?

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

So the motorist is getting a warning letter for following the procedure already in place by the dvla?

What??!!

No, they get a warning letter to let them know that it is (or will be at the time) an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle if it is not declared SORN or insured within the relevant time period.

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

You see no benefit at all? So you do not accept that there is a benefit to enabling the authorities to investigate potential uninsured driving proactively rather than reactively? I think you are being stubborn as I don't believe you are stupid enough to not admit that there are benefits involved in this in addition to costs.

When it comes to the working practices of the DVLA, and all the grief they currently cause over the SORN process, hitting innocent motorists with fines. I do not accept that this legislation will be worth it because of all the innocents they will hit.

Curently a car will go on the road intentionally uninsured, and will be open to detection by ANPR. With this new legislation the afore-mentioned drivers will simply declare SORN and then go on the road uninsured intentionally and be open to detection by ANPR

What has changed? - apart from the fact the scrotes now don't even have to pay for the road tax.

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

What??!!

No, they get a warning letter to let them know that it is (or will be at the time) an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle if it is not declared SORN or insured within the relevant time period.

And we all know how reliable the DVLA are in sending out letters, and then claiming they did send it or didn't receive yours........... don't we?

CharlieBilly

Yes they never make mistakes as the years go by the DVLA are just a government department out to make money and sell your details on to anyone who has probable cause even just for a parking at Aldi for Petes sake

Wig wrote: »

And we all know how reliable the DVLA are in sending out letters, don't we?

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

When it comes to the working practices of the DVLA, and all the grief they currently cause over the SORN process, hitting innocent motorists with fines. I do not accept that this legislation will be worth it because of all the innocents they will hit.

With respect, whether the costs outweighed the benefits was not the question that I put to you, was it? I put it to you that there were benefits in addition to costs, to which you replied:

Wig wrote: »

No, I see no benefit at all in the legislation

Wig wrote: »

Curently a car will go on the road intentionally uninsured, and will be open to detection by ANPR. With this new legislation the above drivers will simply declare SORN and then go on the road uninsured intentionally and be open to detection by ANPR

What has changed?

Nobody is pretending that this legislation is any kind of panacea. But, for example, it will make it much more difficult to get away with the old con trick of buying insurance to tax the vehicle then immediately cancelling the insurance. Under this regime then as soon as that cancellation hits the MID the authorities will be alerted and the warning letter will go out.

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

And we all know how reliable the DVLA are in sending out letters, and then claiming they did send it or didn't receive yours........... don't we?

I'm not here to defend the efficiency of the DVLA - they are as poorly run and inefficient as any other public sector institution - but that is no argument against implementing legislation with the aim of reducing uninsured driving.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

And we all know how reliable the DVLA are in sending out letters, and then claiming they did send it or didn't receive yours........... don't we?

Then we'll have all the insurers that haven't put the details on the database as well.
Hope they'll be covering the fines.

vaio

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....

and I'd guess that this underclass will either not register the cars or declare SORN and just carry on using them when they like

raskazz wrote: »

.....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.

Unless you re super well organised un-taxing and taxing normally involves paying for for tax you haven't used and that's before you consider the income from the fines

It just seems like an unnecessary complication that won't really affect the underclass law breakers but will affect normally law abiding folk like me

For reasons not relevant to this discussion I left my car uninsured for a couple of weeks, had this scheme been in force then I'd have had to declare SORN, on say the 5th of Jan, return my tax disc (loosing the rest of the month) and then two weeks later when it's insured again retax it paying for January again except you can’t retax within 21 days so I’d have to wait until the 26th.

Under the existing rules I can’t use my car whilst it’s not insured, but keep the tax running as normal and can start using it as soon as the insurance is back in place, under the proposed scheme, I can’t use my car whilst it’s not insured, have to faff about with SORN and returning the tax disc, can’t use it for a week after it’s insured (due to the three week rule) and end up paying for January tax twice.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

For reasons not relevant to this discussion I left my car uninsured for a couple of weeks, had this scheme been in force then I'd have had to declare SORN, on say the 5th of Jan, return my tax disc (loosing the rest of the month) and then two weeks later when it's insured again retax it paying for January again except you can’t retax within 21 days so I’d have to wait until the 26th.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that in a case such as the one you illustrate, you would not necessarily have to declare the car SORN as it was insured again after 2 weeks, which is well before the time at which further action is taken after the initial warning letter was sent.