Uk forum members - warning!

[Keith]

This damnable government is currently "consulting" with selected parties with a "vested interest" looking into making it compulsory to hold insurance on cars that have been S.O.R.N.E.D at any time. If you are the registered keeper it will mean that you will have to insure it for at least 1/3rd party risks or possibly more. Their reasoning is, that if your SORNED vehicle is ever stolen, then any damage it may subsequently cause will be covered. In the minds of these retards is the plain fact that it's cheaper for them to get US to pay the costs of such a crime rather than for them to put sufficient police on the streets to deter and prevent it.

Naturally, the only bodies that seem to be on the consultation list are, erm, insurance companies and others who are set to gain from such new legislation. It is extremely hard to get anyone in an official capacity that even knows about this plan, so it seems likely that a "stealth" law will be passed with the DOT claiming that it entered "proper consulation". Bullshit.

There is a website out there with details of this "scam", and I will seek it out and post the address as soon as I discover where it's buried. In the meantime: as the man said "Keep 'em Peeled" :worried:

 

[Keith]

Here is the website: Department for Transport - Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance

For those that can't be bothered to access the site, here is also a) the Consultation Letter and b) the Annex describing the proposed changes.

In a nutshell, it talks a lot about enforcement including (presumably) entering your property clamping and subsequently removing from your land and crushing the vehicle etc etc.

It is my view that this will affect all those who regularly SORN those vehicles say during the winter months to save the Road Tax plus a gross infringement of your property rights (by definition, if you keep a vehicle off-road, it is usually on your property). Who's to say, knowing this lot, that they won't follow this up with a demand for Road Tax for a SORNed vehicle albeit at a lower rate?

I would either or both respond to the consultation letter and forward it to your local MP.

If you don't, you might eventually find your classic car in the crusher!

Ignore at your peril....you have until April 29th 2009 to respond.

 

[Frank Catt]

AON, my Insurers, know of this and believe it will happen, those of us with business policies are already covered, but its a sad day for the private owner/collector when we have to be afraid of big brother holding this over us. I cannot see how they can make it work, but I am sure they will try. Frank

 

[Brian Magee]

Here is an extract from the website of the Federation of British Historic Car Clubs.

26th July
Continuous Insurance
There has recently been a flurry of misinformed press comment on the subject of “continuous insurance”. These have been triggered by a misunderstanding of the intent of section 21 of the Road Safety Bill wending its way through parliament. This section will make it an offence to be the keeper of a vehicle that does not comply with insurance requirements: those requirements will be specified more precisely in regulations that will follow when the Bill has been enacted. We have been assured by Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State for Transport, that there will be no requirement for SORNed vehicles, or vehicles that have been off the road before SORN was introduced, to be insured.

Sounds like they have their eye on it.

Brian.

 

[Malcolm]

The governemnt will get the insurance tax of course....

 

[Scott Calabro]

Guy's

Am I reading this correctly?

If your car is not "registered" in accordance with Annex "A", page 2, section 7, then you would not be required to carry insurance?

Additionally if your car is currently registered it must be covered by a minimum amount of insurance coverage.

It reads to me like they don't want registered cars on the road without insurance.

If you handed in your registration, would you then have to go through SVA/IVA again?

Thanks,
Scott

 

[Keith]

Scott, that's another can of worms....but you are correct. If you "keep" a motor vehicle (not necessarily own it) then it must be insured for a minimum of 1/3rd party risk unless you declare a Statutory Off Road Notice. Many police cars are now equipped with a registration scanning device which connects to the national insurance and road tax database which automatically flags up an uninsured and untaxed vehicle. These proposals just make it an automatic procedure. If you're on the database then you pay up or get fined. Of course, if you have one of the many thousand cloned vehicles on the road, it is very likely that the legitimate owner is a nice law abiding chap who has paid all his dues but if you run his clone, then it's going to be cheap motoring! (But don't have a prang)

There's certainly one thing that these "socialist" govts like doing is passing new laws. Thousands of them. Then setting up automatic systems to fine you.

Brian, I'm obliged for your post and it seems that, for now at least SORNed vehicles will NOT be required to be insured, but I guess that's in the future:uneasy:



The new proposals will permit a statutory fine to be levied automatically if your vehicle is not declared off road and is not showing a SORN on the DVLA database, in the same way that road tax works now. Tax tax and more bloody tax., but if it gets uninsured drivers off the road, I guess I must support it.

 

[Doug S.]

...if it gets uninsured drivers off the road, I guess I must support it.

Here in the U.S. we have mandatory insurance laws, but at least one of our states (Louisiana) has this unique "twist" to it's insurance statutes:

If there is a collision involving an uninsured driver/automobile, then the owner and/or operator who drove that uninsured vehicle on the public highways is prohibited from filing against the other (presumably) legally insured driver's insurance, even if the accident was clearly the fault of the insured driver.

I like that! There are already very stiff fines in place for driving without the state required minimum insurance (usually more than the insurance would cost), and some states even dispatch the constables to retrieve the license plates from the auto if their database indicates that the owner/operator has discontinued insurance.

I must agree with you......whatever it takes to make sure our pathways are traveled by people who prepare for the unexpected! Here in Texas, where we border Mexico, there are huge numbers of illegal aliens who flaunt the insurance laws. When they cause an accident or otherwise run afoul of the law, OUR laws require that those individuals be deported......gee, if I had a huge lawsuit staring me in the face and no insurance, I don't think I'd mind that too much.

Fortunately for most drivers, "Uninsured motorist" coverage is quite affordable and the insurance companies reduce deductibles for accidents in which the uninsured motorist coverage must be used. I wouldn't be without it down here in Texas!

Doug

 

[Ian Anderson]

Kieth

I think I need to correct you.

Mr Brown is not a Socialist but probably closer to a Communist Dictator!

Please step forward anyone who voted for him to be in No10

Ian

 

[Ivan]

to be honest i can see this failing, due to the 2nd hand market, its too easy to put a fake/wrong address on a v5 form (registration form), then who's responsability is it?

i know this happens now, but i can see it happening alot more.

 

[Keith]

Kieth

I think I need to correct you.

Mr Brown is not a Socialist but probably closer to a Communist Dictator!

Please step forward anyone who voted for him to be in No10

Ian

How true that is. Unfortunately, despite many years of questioning people, I cannot find nary a one who will admit it - not only that - they flatly deny it. Now, on the basis that probably 75% of the UK population is fairly honest, do you think he was democratically elected or were his Chads hanging? Actually of course, he wasn't elected leader, so we have Blur to thank for that crime....

We need to be told...

Doug the problem is similar to that of gun crime (but please lets not wake the NRA eh?) Guns are illegal but the crims have them. Using a car on the road without at least 1/3rd party cover is also illegal in the UK but the crims do it. Cloning is alive and well.

It is only the visible and thus mainly law abiding people in the UK that get hammered by the forces of "law and disorder"

 

[Jack]

A long time ago, I warned that "If it's Brown, flush it".

 

[Doug S.]

It is only the visible and thus mainly law abiding people in the UK that get hammered by the forces of "law and disorder"

Well, being the good, subservient explorers that those on the Mayflower must have been, you'll be happy to hear that we must have carried that propensity on here in the colonies!

At least that's the way it's always worked for me :sad: .

Doug

 

[Murray Cowley]

Well the way I read it, if you are SORN'd you are exempt;
Part A - The scope of the scheme

The process
11. Under the scheme, if a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet insurance requirements, the vehicle keeper in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence under Section 144A of the Act. Exceptions to this are detailed in paragraphs 16 to 20 below. As an example, vehicles which are the subject of a Statutory Off Road Notice (SORN) are not included.


Also if you report the car as stolen to the police, you are exempt. This is in Section 19.