MSE News: Warning over new compulsory car insurance rules

newmarketheath

I hope someone from the government is clever enough to read this? Surely a reasonable amount of notice must be given before the start of this new law. What would happen if someone was abroad when it comes in? If you are complying with the law before a law is enacted, I thought you could not be guilty for a retrospective act?
Let's hope the government decide to give at least 3 months notice

shropshire_lass

This will only help to stop a few uninsured drivers. A lot of the worst offenders drive around in cars that are unregistered, unsafe, untaxed, no MOT and definately no insurance. They probably have never taken a driving test never mind passed one. If they cause an accident they leg it.
If the police catch them, they take the car away and fine them. Then they just go out and buy another car for a few quid!
They probably have so many convictions that they would never be able to get a company to insure them, never mind pay the hugh premium.
Police prog on TV stopped a young mum with 3 kids in the back (none wearing seat belts) took the car off her, she was uninsured. Twenty minutes later they saw the same woman and kids in another car! Needless to say this one went as well.

FelixK

This seems like it will encourage more tax evasion that it solves insurance evasion. It is bad enough that the taxman charges me for any of the days in that month which have already (for not obvious reason), but now they will be taking days off at the end of your road tax as well when your insurance inevitably runs out before the tax. Unless they make it so that tax discs can be refunded per day rather than per month, this law is nothing but daylight robbery with no tangible benefits!

sliver

Seems very confusing to me, and as has been pinted out earlier in the thread, surely you can be insured as an individaul rather than the car.

I have, admittedly only on a few occaisions, driven a car that I knew was not insured by the owner. As far as I know this was fully legitimate and legal, as my fully comp insurance allows me to drive another vehicle third party as long as I have the owners permission and I am not the owner; there was no requirement that the car itself be insured for me third party cover to be valid (that I was aware of...?)

It looks under the new system that any car being driven needs to be explicitly insured by reg number or owner name: Post 30 says

Section 144A creates the new offence which arises when a vehicle does not meet the insurance requirements. Under the insurance requirements the registration mark of a vehicle, or the vehicle's owner, must be specified in an insurance policy or security.

I can see this impacting on second hand sales as well, as has already been said. A few times I have helped out firends and driven cars home for them, again under my fully comp policy, giving them time to arrange cover once the car was safely on the drive.

I admit both of these scenarios are very infrequent, but this does look more and more like a money spinner for private insurance companies rather more than a way to stop uninsured drivers.

keithbowman

Hi-I tried to tax my girlfriends second car(currently SORN'd) so I could use it when weather conditions prevented me from using mine(useless in the snow)

The post office refused to sell me a tax disc as the policy I took down was for my car but enabled me to drive any car not owned by me.

Is this legally correct at the moment ?

Is the only solution to take out a policy, get taxed then cancel the insurance. With the new law do I need to sorn it every time I have used it-the current and new law does not seem to have been thought through for law abiding people or am I missing something ?

LessThanSte

*Bump*

Ive just found out about this rule and, along with quite a few people, this is likely to effect me quite a large amount.

I currently have a renault clio that i use to travel to work and a vauxhall omega that sits on the drive looking pretty. I only use it when im travelling long distance (motorways) and very infrequently at that, roughly once or twice a month.

The tax form has just come through to tax it for the next year. My plan was to tax it for the year but then only book day insurance as and when i needed it. A quick quote gives a price of roughly £10 per day, therefore around £250 a year assuming i use it twice per month. A quote for the full year otherwise seems to be in the region of £650.

Obviously thats quite a saving but now this rule has come into effect im going to be forced to either pay for the full year or declare the car SORN whenever its not being used, which requires me to get a tax disc to cover the car for one day, which would then only give me a refund for 11 (or 5) unused months, along with all the hassle that requires.

Has this been raised with anyone official, MP's and such like? It strikes me that it hasnt been thought out very well. After all, if youve got a car on the drive with no tax disc whats to stop you using it late one night to pop to the shops hoping that noone will see (exactly as you would if you had no insurance). The whole thing becomes nonsense when applied to caravans etc.

I could see quite a few people getting fined in the coming months......

inkslinger

sliver wrote: »

I have, admittedly only on a few occaisions, driven a car that I knew was not insured by the owner.

Unless you have a traders policy, this is wrong. Check your small print. Fully comp insurance allows you to drive any car on a third party basis, provided you are not the owner of the car and the car IS insured with someone at the time. If its not insured you are not allowed to drive it and risk 6 points plus a hefty fine if caught.

This catches a fair few people out.

Andy_L

inkslinger wrote: »

Unless you have a traders policy, this is wrong. Check your small print. Fully comp insurance allows you to drive any car on a third party basis, provided you are not the owner of the car and the car IS insured with someone at the time. If its not insured you are not allowed to drive it and risk 6 points plus a hefty fine if caught./QUOTE]

People keep saying this on this site. It is only true IF your insurance policy says it requires separate insurance. Mine has no requirement for it to be insured elsewhere (and it would be a pointless requirement as the other parties insurance would not pay out anyway).
The downside of it not having its own dedicated insurance is that ANPR systems will flag it as uninsuread and, when you get out of the car, it is uninsured which is a no-no if it's on the road

LessThanSte

Some progress on this.

I spoke to the lovely people at Adrian Flux (recommended to me by a friend!) who are able to arrange Laid Up cover for the year, at a cost for my car of £75. That is enough to satisfy the ridiculous demands of this new law (though in essence you are still paying £75 for something that until now had been at no cost to anyone!), and allows you to tax it per day if using the car on rare occasions!

it_was_me

Well Chaps & Chapesses!

This sounds like ANOTHER money spinner for the Insurance Company. Firstly they bow to Europe by agreeing to bring Women's Premiums in line with Men's, but some how manage to get away with increasing Women's by up to 40% but conversely reducing Men's by no more than 10%, so either they have monkeys working their finance department or they are once again taking us for a ride down pay up lane! Personally I suspect its both....

In this case though I think the latest money generator will be a small increase. If you do own a vehicle or motorhome that is off the road most of the time just declare it SORN. It might be a bit more paperwork, but you would save on not having insurance or needing tax! Its what I do when I go away for long periods. Why give the Tax man and the insurance company any more money?!

I certainly believe in stopping these "uninsured drivers" who blatantly break the law, but in reality it never happens. You only have to watch Traffic Cops, or Police Camera Action to see that not only do these people not have insurance, but they hardly ever have an MOT, TAX, or even a valid license!! And what do they get...........Another suspension on their license.......yes thats right, the license they dont even have. So why do they care? And when they do get their two weeks in prison they come straight out and reoffend. I would sooner see my taxes putting reoffenders in prison for 5 years flat rate sentence. That would soon reduce their reoffending! Especially as if they hit you, your left with the bill and they just walk away eventually, so why dont we stop penalising the insured driver for once and actually do something to stop these scroats!

And Relax.....

BIGGADY_PETE