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

asbokid

Cpu2007 wrote: »

There is a different between tax/insurance dodgers and having a non insured car in your private propery.

Yes, I agree...

But that's not the Government's argument.

HMG has reversed the centuries-old legal burden of proof, insofar as the Government now makes the baseless assumption that we are illegally using a vehicle on a public highway without insurance or tax, unless we have explicitly reported that the vehicle is off-road.

Until very recently, a British subject did not have to prove that he had done no wrong. It was the responsibility of prosecutors to prove the wrongdoing. In a nutshell, we were presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Okay, some motorists don't pay for tax or insurance, but it was previously the role of the police to actually prove that they were driving the car on the public highway. Now the Government is simply calling us guilty without evidence.

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.

Well, that's not strictly true.

The Government is saying that unless we submit a SORN advising the DVLA that a vehicle is off the road, the Agency will presume that we have broken the law by driving the car on the road with no tax or insurance.

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 insured and it should be compulsory, not an option.

Quite.. reversing the legal burden of proof is a slippery legal slope. It provides more evidence that we are ruled by a totalitarian Government that is dangerously out of control.

It is easy to envisage ways in which this reverse burden could be expanded to other areas of law..

A change of the law in television licensing would be very simple to implement. Unless a householder submits a yearly declaration stating that he uses no TV equipment in his home, it will be assumed that he is watching TV without a licence.

The blueprint for such iniquitous laws already exists. Expect their use to expand...

Cpu2007

asbokid wrote: »

Yes, I agree...

But that's not the Government's argument.

HMG has reversed the centuries-old legal burden of proof, insofar as the Government now makes the baseless assumption that we are illegally using a vehicle on a public highway without insurance or tax, unless we have explicitly reported that the vehicle is off-road.

Until very recently, a British subject did not have to prove that had he done no wrong. It was the responsibility of prosecutors to prove the wrongdoing. In a nutshell, we were presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Okay, some motorists don't pay for tax or insurance, but it was previously the role of the police to actually prove that they were driving the car on the public highway. Now the Government is simply calling us guilty without evidence.

Well, that's not strictly true.

The Government is saying that unless we submit a SORN advising the DVLA that a vehicle is off the road, the Agency will presume that we have broken the law by driving the car on the road with no tax or insurance.



Quite.. reversing the legal burden of proof is a slippery legal slope. It provides more evidence that we are ruled by a totalitarian Government that is dangerously out of control.

It is easy to envisage ways in which this reverse burden could be expanded to other areas of law..

A change of the law in television licensing would be very simple to implement. Unless a householder submits a yearly declaration stating that he uses no TV equipment in his home, it will be assumed that he is watching TV without a licence.

The blueprint for such iniquitous laws already exists. Expect their use to expand...

yeah your right and what worries me more is that the society is not doing anything about, we are so weak that we are being manipulated and being controlled by the tyranni of few.

alistair.long

From what I have read on this new law, it is enforced by a fixed penalty, so if you dont mind getting a £100 fine.
I did have my car on the road and didnt get a ticket,

vusys1

we`ve have been notified that it will come into effect end of May 2011? and as from next week letters will be going to 7000 customers due to incorrect reg numbers. Check your certs:D

Helen_J_3

What annoys me is that the law is simply not clear. I wonder how many law abiding drivers actually know about this new rule? Also the government website can't even give you a date, what on earth is 'early 2011'? January? Up to May? What!?

mikey72

This law is a response to all the complaints about "uninsured drivers" adding £40 to every policy, and was the insurance companies proposal to combat this, which has been adopted.
The next one to be changed is the "ambulance chasers",

bowdonblue wrote: »

Not sure if this is in the right board, so mods please move if needs be.

The government announced this week that they are planning to make sweeping reforms to the way in which civil damages claims are funded. This will affect hundreds of thousands of people each year.

I work in the personal injury sector, and will try to objectively summarise the proposed changes.


The headlines for "phase 1" of the reforms are as follows -

• we will still have "no win no fee" system, BUT the successful claimant will have to pay the "success fee" part of his/her own legal fees from their own damages, rather than being able to recover these costs from the Defendant (currently it's usually the Defendant's insurer who pays)
• damages for personal injury (known as "general damages") will be increased by 10% to allow for the above
• as an alternative lawyers will be allowed to act in return for a share of their clients damages (contingency fees), which is not allowed currently [this won't fly]
• claimants who lose won't have to pay the Defendants legal fees (called "qualified one way costs shifting")

The government are also now consulting on proposed further "phase 2" reforms, as follows -

• RTA claims with a value of up to £50k to be dealt with via an online "portal" with simplified evidence rules (this currently operates for RTA claims up to the value of £10k)
• all "employers liability" and "public liability" injury claims to be dealt with via this online portal (it's currently RTA only)
• raising the "small claims" limit from £5k to £15k (in the small claims court you have to bear the vast majority of your own fees and cannot recover them from the Defendant, even if you win)
• expand parties obligations to try "mediation" in small claims cases.

In my opinion the effects of "phase 1" of these reforms will be -

1. if you have a valid claim which is not an "obvious winner", then you may struggle to find a lawyer willing to act for you on a "no win no fee" basis, and you will have to pay your own legal fees up front (usually about £5k+), otherwise just give up
2. if you have an "obvious winner" and you do recover damages, whilst the injury element of your damages will be slightly (10%) higher, this will be off-set (perhaps more than off-set?) by the fact that some of your legal fees will have to be deducted from those damages before you get your money
3. if you can find a lawyer willing to act for you on a defended claim, you may as well sue on the basis that if you lose you won't have to pay the other sides legal costs.

If "phase 2" comes in, then any personal injury claim (RTA, EL or PL) under the value of £50k, which would include some very serious injuries, would be dealt with via an online portal with restricted rules on evidence. :eek:


Worst of all, if the small claims limit for NON personal injury claims goes up to £15k, then practically anyone who has a dispute with their plumber, builder, car garage etc will have to either act as a "litigant in person" (nightmare, imo), or pay their own legal fees even if they win, which in many cases will take up a large part (if not all) of their damages.

So who stands to gain and lose from this?

By far and away the the biggest winners will be insurance companies (good luck waiting for a drop in premiums!), and way behind but in second place is ... the government, who apparently stand to save around £50m per year via the NHS (who pay out for medical negligence claims).

The losers will include the best part of a million people per year who currently seek damages. A large number of them will simply not be able to proceed with a damages claim, and those that do will end up with reduced damages after legal fees are deducted from their claim.

For what it's worth, according to the stats there is no compensation culture. The governments own research confirmed this in 2006 (* see below), and in recent years the official stats show that the number of claims have actually reduced year by year.

The government still have to pass "phase 1" through parliament, and "phase 2" is up for public consultation.

* The House Of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee 2006 Report “Compensation Culture” concluded that (para 111):
“It is evident from the statistical evidence that the UK is not moving
towards a “compensation culture” driven by a significant increase in litigation.”

As with all these changes, we should be careful what we wish for.

societys_child

It is a ridiculous and won't catch the real p!!! takers as they don't register their vehicles anyway.

I did read somewhere that DVLA will send a (warning) letter advising that the vehicle must be insured or SORNed before taking action. I also remember something about allowing a few days (weeks?) grace. Not sure how true this is and can't provide any links ATM.

asbokid

societys_child wrote: »

It is a ridiculous and won't catch the real piddle takers as they don't register their vehicles anyway.

Crims will put their own car on a SORN, and then clone the plate of an identical vehicle. This will foil ANPR software that is used to detect licence or insurance dodgers.