fined £548 for not having road tax, !!!!!!? Need advice

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Suppose by that logic I'm part owner on a Trident sub

For the time being, yes. What happens after September is anyone's guess.

Of course it also means I am part owner of that pothole you fell down.:rotfl:

nobbysn*ts

BillJones wrote: »

But the argument that the government makes is that the range of prices is to reflect the amount of CO2 (etc.) that the vehicle puts out. That's pretty much in direct proportion to the fuel used, so taking them at their word, it's sensible to put the entire levy on fuel.

If the govt were telling the truth, my rarely used but ludicrously over-engined C63 would be paying far less than the guy downstairs who does tens of thousands of miles per year in his golf "Blue Motion".

Cost of ownership. You can afford the car, you can afford the tax. You can't, you buy a Blue Motion. if you really can afford the car, you do use it everyday, and don't just keep it in the garage, for the days when you aren't using the Blue Motion. Either way, the system works like any tax. The poor pay less, the wannabes pay more, the rich pay less again.

BillJones

AdrianC wrote: »

Apart from the fact that you don't pay "the best part of £1000" for VED, since the top rate is £500, you ignore the fact that there is already substantial fuel duty in place - 58p/litre.

I doubt you'll elicit much sympathy that your tax disc is unfair when you've just paid THAT much for a low-mileage toy

On your first point, I have two cars...

On your second point, I don't want or expect sympathy, I'm reasonably happy paying what I do. I'm simply pointing out, given that I do the vast majority of my miles on motorbikes or a very frugal scooter, that VED is not related to pollution, despite some people believing that it is.

BillJones

AdrianC wrote: »

I've just noticed that you named it as a C63. Furry muff. I s'pose the £10k of VAT on the purchase is irrelevant compared to the £500 of VED? Not to mention the likely £30k+ depreciation over the 12,000 miles you'll put on it over 3yrs.

Near-on £3/mile in depreciation. <wince>

Enjoy it...

I've, er, had it about six months, and am thinking of swapping it for a F-type R....

I never should have sold my RS4. That did anything a car needs to do, and can now never be replaced.

Norman_Castle

BillJones wrote: »

On your first point, I have two cars...

On your second point, I don't want or expect sympathy, I'm reasonably happy paying what I do. I'm simply pointing out, given that I do the vast majority of my miles on motorbikes or a very frugal scooter, that VED is not related to pollution, despite some people believing that it is.

VED rates vary based on emissions with the intention that motorists will buy lower polluting cars.

Joe_Horner

Norman_Castle wrote: »

VED rates vary based on emissions with the intention that motorists will buy lower polluting cars.

Which is the wrong way to target pollution.

Putting VED onto fuel would be more appropriate because, from theollution point of view, it's the total amount of fuel you burn that matters most. A small (nominally economical) car beng driven hard for 20k mile a year will cause far more pollution than a 5 litre V12 doing a gentle 4k miles as a weekend tourer.


eta:

Incidentally, as a supporter of the idea of moving VED onto fuel, I'd lose out pretty substantially if they ever did it. We have two cars. One is a pre-'73 classic, which has free tax, and one is in the disabled class (free tax) because of my partner's arthritis. Replace VED with increased fuel tax and we'd be paying out on both of those.

But that fact that we'd be worse off doesn't alter the fact that it would be a MUCH fairer system, especially for those on low incomes who need a car because they happen to be born / live in an area without decent employment, shops or public transport.

Marvel1

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, wow. Have you led a sheltered life, or what?

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299797/V149__2014-15.pdf

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Which is the wrong way to target pollution.

Putting VED onto fuel would be more appropriate because, from theollution point of view, it's the total amount of fuel you burn that matters most. A small (nominally economical) car beng driven hard for 20k mile a year will cause far more pollution than a 5 litre V12 doing a gentle 4k miles as a weekend tourer.


eta:

Incidentally, as a supporter of the idea of moving VED onto fuel, I'd lose out pretty substantially if they ever did it. We have two cars. One is a pre-'73 classic, which has free tax, and one is in the disabled class (free tax) because of my partner's arthritis. Replace VED with increased fuel tax and we'd be paying out on both of those.

But that fact that we'd be worse off doesn't alter the fact that it would be a MUCH fairer system, especially for those on low incomes who need a car because they happen to be born / live in an area without decent employment, shops or public transport.

So when fuel prices rise. Those with higher emissions drive less miles?

Robin9

The discussion seems to have taken a large detour away from the OP request for advice of having received a bill for non payment off his road tax.


Pay it.

You are paying a high price for your actions - you chose to not pay your road tax, you got caught out, you ignored the court paperwork ... you pay the penalty and you learn the lesson.

Norman_Castle

Putting VED onto fuel would be more appropriate because, from theollution point of view, it's the total amount of fuel you burn that matters most. A small (nominally economical) car beng driven hard for 20k mile a year will cause far more pollution than a 5 litre V12 doing a gentle 4k miles as a weekend tourer.

Very few people have a V12 weekend toy. Your example relies on reducing mileage by 16k per year. Whatever mileage is driven, using a lower polluting car will pollute less.