Does a car have to be insured to be left on a road?

Helen_J_3

Hello

My insurance runs out on Monday and I'm not renewing as I'm selling the car. I live on a main road and want to leave it parked there whilst it's for sale as it will get a lot of people driving past and seeing the for sale sign in it.

I know it has to be taxed to be on a road (and it is, until the end of December) but it won't be insured come Monday. I've got a feeling the answer is no because what if someone crashes into it etc but just thought I'd check? If not I can leave it on my mum's drive or in her garage so not the end of the world.

Thanks for any help
Helen

Cpu2007

yes if is on the road then it will need to be insured, otherwise you can be fined.
Remember there is a law that they are going through which is going to be active soon( i don't know when) that even if a car is inside your home(like on a drive way,garage etc) it will still need to be insured,even if you don't use it.

vaio

As CPU says it needs insurance if it's on the road and under the new continuous insurance rules it also needs insurance if it’s off the road unless you declare SORN in which case you also send the tax back and get a refund.

I think if it’s off the road and going to be reinsured within a couple of weeks you don’t need to do the SORN thing (but check)

Cpu2007

when the new rule about having continuos insurance is going to be in force?

asbokid

It was clear at the time that HMG had bigger plans for its new legislation to catch road tax dodgers. It was only a matter of time before the law was expanded to ensnare those with no insurance or MOT. TV licence dodgers are possibly next.

It was always a contentious law since it reverses the legal burden of proof. No longer are we presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty, a principle that was enshrined in English law since the days of William the Conker. At the time, people argued that the draconian law breached our fundamental human rights, but Her Majesty's Government soon had those critics silenced.

lucylucky

asbokid wrote: »

It was clear at the time that HMG had bigger plans for its new legislation to catch road tax dodgers. It was only a matter of time before the law was expanded to ensnare those with no insurance or MOT. TV licence dodgers are possibly next.

It was always a contentious law since it reverses the legal burden of proof. No longer are we presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty, a principle that was enshrined in English law since the days of William the Conker. At the time, people argued that the draconian law breached our fundamental human rights, but Her Majesty's Government soon had those critics silenced.

Really? And how will that work? Got a link?

Cpu2007

asbokid wrote: »

It was clear at the time that HMG had bigger plans for its new legislation to catch road tax dodgers. It was only a matter of time before the law was expanded to ensnare those with no insurance or MOT. TV licence dodgers are possibly next.

It was always a contentious law since it reverses the legal burden of proof. No longer are we presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty, a principle that was enshrined in English law since the days of William the Conker. At the time, people argued that the draconian law breached our fundamental human rights, but Her Majesty's Government soon had those critics silenced.

Are you seriously comparing the two? Do you know what we are talking about in this topic?
There is a different between tax/insurance dodgers and having a non insured car in your private propery.
I think this law it's stupid as they are asking us to pay for insurance and tax for a product which is in our private property.
If you agree that they should then everything else such as furniture or any other stuff you have in your home should be taxed and insurned and it should be compulsory ,not an option.

vaio

Cpu2007 wrote: »

when the new rule about having continuos insurance is going to be in force?

think it's already started, april the first I'd guess

Helen_J_3

Thanks for the replies.

I really like the sound of this law requiring it to be insured even if it's on private property and not being used??? Don't we pay enough money out for compulsory vehicle insurance when we need to use them?

So it has to be declared SORN for it to be on private property with no insurance? That's going to be annoying because it means whoever buys it off me will have to wait until the documents have gone through the DVLA and they have ownership so they can re-tax it and drive it away? And they can't tax it until they've insured it?

Helen_J_3

It would seem the new law is already in force depending on how you interpret 'early 2011'
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

Nice of the government to let us know eh!
So now it has to be insured even though it's on private property and not moving unless a SORN is declared :mad:

Does this also mean that anyone who comes to look at the car can't test drive it?

Cpu2007

Helen_J wrote: »

It would seem the new law is already in force depending on how you interpret 'early 2011'
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

Nice of the government to let us know eh!
So now it has to be insured even though it's on private property and not moving unless a SORN is declared :mad:

Does this also mean that anyone who comes to look at the car can't test drive it?

well the part of the person coming and testing it is already forbidden, people let other test it because it is somehow a requirement to test a car before buying it.

What i wonder is, I buy a car and looking for an insurance etc, the car stays for a week inside my private property, how will they know? and how quickly will the act to come and fine me for not having insurance and tax on it?