Rebates on Car Insurance / Road Tax at this time?

Herzlos

It makes sense to tie the tax to the fuel, since it's all based on emissions (which is based on fuel consumption) - use more fuel pay more tax.
Insurance less so, since it's based on risk, value and liability. A drunk driver on 9 points will consume about as much fuel as a retired driving instructor.

roddydogs

The idea of putting the tax onto fuel is at least 50 yrs old, and has never  been adopted, due to country people saying "its not fair" and all that jazz.

forgotmyname

roddydogs said:

The idea of putting the tax onto fuel is at least 50 yrs old, and has never  been adopted, due to country people saying "its not fair" and all that jazz.

I agree it would not be fair..  Sold my 2.2 Diesel for a newer 2L diesel and the tax went from £220 to £30.

Not fair because my old 2.2L engine actually used less fuel than the supposedly cleaner 2L engine. Not just a small
difference either, it uses a fair amount more. Into double mpg figures worse than my previous car.  How is my current
car more enviromentally friendly?

I dont mind paying £30 tax but the additional fuel costs more than I would have saved. Adding more onto the fuel would
not be fair.       Just wait for the charges to start hitting electric cars, taxed based on their range per Kw?

AdrianC

forgotmyname said:

Not fair because my old 2.2L engine actually used less fuel than the supposedly cleaner 2L engine. Not just a small
difference either, it uses a fair amount more. Into double mpg figures worse than my previous car.  How is my current
car more enviromentally friendly?

Because the VED amount is based on one thing, and one thing only - the official CO2 g/km figure. Those figures are derived by the manufacturer in tightly-controlled condition lab tests.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-registered-on-or-after-1-march-2001
£30 VED is band C, 111-120g/km.
There isn't a £220 band. The nearest are G, £205 - 151-165g or H, £240 - 166-175g.

So your new car, in the official tests, emits around 2/3 of the CO2 of the old one.

There's always winners and losers under banding schemes. I've recently bought a car that, if it was a few years older, would be £40/year cheaper. <shrug>

nick74

AdrianC said:

forgotmyname said:

Not fair because my old 2.2L engine actually used less fuel than the supposedly cleaner 2L engine. Not just a small
difference either, it uses a fair amount more. Into double mpg figures worse than my previous car.  How is my current
car more enviromentally friendly?

Because the VED amount is based on one thing, and one thing only - the official CO2 g/km figure. Those figures are derived by the manufacturer in tightly-controlled condition lab tests.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-registered-on-or-after-1-march-2001
£30 VED is band C, 111-120g/km.
There isn't a £220 band. The nearest are G, £205 - 151-165g or H, £240 - 166-175g.

So your new car, in the official tests, emits around 2/3 of the CO2 of the old one.

There's always winners and losers under banding schemes. I've recently bought a car that, if it was a few years older, would be £40/year cheaper. <shrug>

The same test which is used to derive the official CO2 emissions figure is also used to derive the official MPG figures. CO2 produced is broadly speaking directly proportional to fuel consumed, so in theory a car which produces 2/3rds of the CO2 of the old one should also use only 2/3rds of the fuel of the old one. Reality though is usually very different!

[Deleted User]

The_Rainmaker said:

Just get your car off the road declare it SORN and cancel your insurance job done.

If you do that remember to get some new insurance, will be a lot cheaper for a SORNed vehicle being stored. Otherwise it could still get damaged while off the road.

Brewer20

I'd recommend just putting the vehicle on sorn if it's not being used. You'll only get the full months of unused VED back. Obviously if like mine it's only £30 annually then no. 
Insurance, I'd just leave it running then you have cover in case something happens to it whilst it's off road or in the garage. Check the admin fees for changing or cancellation of the policy, sometimes when deducted it doesn't seem worth claiming the amount a refund could give you.
My other car has been garaged since 1st Dec 19  and sorned it's still insured just in case of damage etc.

motorguy

Brewer20 said:

I'd recommend just putting the vehicle on sorn if it's not being used. You'll only get the full months of unused VED back. Obviously if like mine it's only £30 annually then no. 
Insurance, I'd just leave it running then you have cover in case something happens to it whilst it's off road or in the garage. Check the admin fees for changing or cancellation of the policy, sometimes when deducted it doesn't seem worth claiming the amount a refund could give you.
My other car has been garaged since 1st Dec 19  and sorned it's still insured just in case of damage etc.

Yes, exactly.  I pondered doing that for our second car at the end of march.  I like the flexibility of having the two cars - and being able to take the second one for a run if needs be, so saving less than £20 didnt seem worth it.

If someones not using the car then yes, SORN it, but why on earth would the government otherwise rebate / refund or cancel vehicle tax?

Banal to think it frankly.

The_Rainmaker

[DELETED USER] said:

The_Rainmaker said:

Just get your car off the road declare it SORN and cancel your insurance job done.

If you do that remember to get some new insurance, will be a lot cheaper for a SORNed vehicle being stored. Otherwise it could still get damaged while off the road.

That really depends on how much risk you are willing to take on.

forgotmyname

AdrianC said:

There's always winners and losers under banding schemes. I've recently bought a car that, if it was a few years older, would be £40/year cheaper. <shrug>

Not complaining and would have bought the car even if it was £200+ tax.  It was £220 before i changed the car. (I think).

I mention in a lot of posts the depreciation often costs 10x more than the tax saving anyway.