andym Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) On a point of order, the DVLA is not a private organisation, it's an Executive Agency of the Department of Transport. That means it is part of government, but it's set up to behave like a commercial organisation to ensure business-like behaviours. If that means making money then I think they're doing pretty well at it! Andy Edited January 26, 2011 by andym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yes but remember if a vehicle was taken off the road before SORN came in and there is a change in keeper, you then you have to sorn it as soon as the logbook is issued in the new keepers name. No you dont. I have just changed keeper and SORNed a LWB Landy in this situation. Got back a letter from DVLA saying I didn't need to SORN it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Suslowicz Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Exactly what I was thinking, good question. If there is now a requirement for the car itself to be insured, that is a fundamental change to the law. In the past I have re-taxed vehicles belonging to other people by producing an insurance certificate in my own name which shows D.O.C. ("driving other cars") cover, although I understand that this has not been possible for some time and now the insurance proof provided to tax a vehicle must explicitly identify the vehicle being taxed. It seems to me that once again we are being clobbered by an ill-conceived and inoperative "solution" to a problem - the real problem is the huge number of uninsured motorists on the road and I cannot see how this will help at all! It will just make life more difficult for the law-abiding community. Stop the world, I want to get off! I think the "You cannot tax a vehicle without an insurance certificate listing that particular vehicle" was introduced to specifically stop the uninsured drivers from getting their impounded vehicles back - apparently the usual trick was to send a relative to the pound with an "any vehicle" policy, they would pay the fine/fees, collect the vehicle and hand it straight back to the uninsured owner. Lather, rinse, repeat. Refusing to release the vehicle without proof of ownership, insurance, MOT and tax was intended to stop that. Dunno how successful it is. I.m also not sure how it works with little brother's motorcycle accumulation (nearly all on nil-value tax discs and a rider policy). I don't drive, so have no personal experience. (Keep death off the roads, that's my motto!) Chris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holte999 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The problem is the government bring in new legislation then DVLA enhance it by adding their own conditions. Much the same as SORN, there is no legal requirement to re SORN your vehicle each year, this is purely a requirement imposed by DVLA if you use their services to comply with the government legislation. However once you sign a DVLA form you are entering into contract with the DVLA agreeing to renew each year. But because the form you sign does not include full disclosure of conditions this contract cannot be enforced. The best thing we can all do is cut DVLA out and deal direct with the government and explain why we won’t use their private run for profit contracted agent. Another problem some may encounter are those who choose not to insure their vehicle and have deposited £10,000 with the Secretary of State. This is the legal alternative to third party insurance to drive a vehicle and covers you to drive any vehicle no matter who it belongs to, so long as you have the owner’s permission. How does this system of depositing £10,000 with the Sec of State work, it all news to me, would save me a fortune.???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosrec Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 How does this system of depositing £10,000 with the Sec of State work, it all news to me, would save me a fortune.???? I thought it was a lot more than £10,000 but i dont know. Pretty much as Police forces work i think also the armed forces????. I thought a bond was deposited with lloyds then you stood all claims against you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. My understanding is, to drive a vehicle on the road firstly it must be taxed and secondly the driver has to have third party insurance cover to drive that vehicle. It’s the driver that has to be insured not the vehicle. For example a motor trader will have insurance to drive a number of vehicles; however the vehicles won’t be insured individually and will show up on the insurance database as uninsured. So long as they are taxed he is perfectly legal to drive that vehicle. Another example is my car ad bike insurance covers me to drive vehicles not belonging to me on a third party basis. Last year I borrowed a bike belonging to a friend for a trip to Wales, I got pulled over by the police as the bike was coming up as uninsured on the database. I produced my insurance which showed I was insured to ride a bike belonging to someone else, the police were quite happy and off I went. Are you saying that this new legislation now means it’s the car that has to be insured not the driver? I have always seen it as the vehicle that is insured to be driven by named drivers, this is why you need a policy covering each vehicle. In most cases the vehicles are specified in the policy, or you can get a policy covering any driver for a specific car. A motor traders policy is basicly intended to enable them to run a business. The "driving other vehicles" is a bonus on some fully comp policies, you were obviously aware that you had it, and carried it with you. When the police, quite correctly, stopped you, you were able to produce it, so whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I thought it was a lot more than £10,000 but i dont know. Pretty much as Police forces work i think also the armed forces????. I thought a bond was deposited with lloyds then you stood all claims against you I believe it is actually £500,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I know with bus companies the Insurance brockers don't actually become involved unless a claim is higher than £500,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob8066 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The new continuous insurance legislation only applies to: Vehicles that have been Sorn. If you've never Sorn your vehicle then you don't need to worry. It has always been the vehicle that has to be insured with a named driver. Most policies allow you to drive another vehicle third party insured with restrictions. New drivers or young drivers generally do not get this luxury. Trader policies along with showman policies are different. That's why they have to display trade plates in addition to the normal plates on the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Double post Edited January 27, 2011 by Grumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I thought it was a lot more than £10,000 but i dont know. Pretty much as Police forces work i think also the armed forces????. I thought a bond was deposited with lloyds then you stood all claims against you I believe it is actually £500,000. Latest copy of the Road Traffic Act states £10,000, but I haven’t checked if there are any updates. Public service vehicles such as police cars are named as exempt in the act. In most cases the vehicles are specified in the policy, or you can get a policy covering any driver for a specific car. A motor traders policy is basicly intended to enable them to run a business. The "driving other vehicles" is a bonus on some fully comp policies, you were obviously aware that you had it, and carried it with you. When the police, quite correctly, stopped you, you were able to produce it, so whats the problem? There isn’t a problem but it’s an example of exactly what this thread is about. The bike was taxed and MOT’ed but not insured, the owner was keeping it off road. However it was perfectly legal to take on the road by me because I had third party cover even though the bike its self had no insurance. Presently it’s the driver that requires insurance not the vehicle, all I am asking is this going to change? The last business policy I had for a non motor related business just stated on the certificate “any vehicle being used by the policy holder” and under drivers “any one driving with permission of the policy holder” All we had to do was list the vehicles that had been driven on a monthly return, the monthly premium was then varied depending what had been driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) The legislation is being introduced to remove un insured vehicles from the road - again! The registered keeper will receive a fine for a Sorn vehicle that has no insurance. Thats the change. If it it taxed and insured - no problem. If it is SORN - no problem. If the insurance expires before the tax the vehicle must be declared SORN. I cant see why this is a problem, assuming the tax is Historic (Nil duty) there is nothing to lose, just SORN it. If it is a tax disk with a value you would cash in the tax and SORN it. NO NEED FOR INSURANCE ON A SORN VEHICLE. Edited January 27, 2011 by croc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff66 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 u sure? if vehicle is sorned and off road ii does not need insurance mot or valid tax disc thats way i understand it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike65 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 "From early 2011, if it appears from the database comparison that a vehicle has no insurance or no SORN, a letter will be sent to the registered keeper." Straight from the DirectGov website You have a choice Insure it and tax it and use it or not. SORN it and not use Use it and lose it 3 very simple choices. Mind you if you have a vehicle that is worth anything you would have some form of insurance on it anyeay for fire and theft as a minimum. How you would get insurance on a pile of bits I do not know. It would make the conversation with the broker fun. Has the vehicle been modified? No but it is stacked up in pieces the garden shed. OR Where is the vehicle kept overnight? In the shed, back garden, loft, under the bed and theres a few bits on the kitchen table. Suprised you don't have to declare the vehicle SORN when the MOT runs out aswell. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff66 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) rob can u post link where it says sorned vehicle must be insured plse .just looked at it my self IT says if a vehicle has no insurance AND has not been sorned a letter will be sent etc suggest u re read it Edited January 27, 2011 by griff66 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike65 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 rob can u post link where it says sorned vehicle must be insured plse .just looked at it my self IT says if a vehicle has no insurance AND has not been sorned a letter will be sent etc suggest u re read it Yes please I have been looking at various places and it says insure it or SORN it not both. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff66 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 yeh direct gov site search SORN then scroll down page a bit there it says insurance OR sorn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob8066 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Sorry guys. I hang my head in shame. I was wrong you are right. If you have NOT declared Sorn the vehicles must be insured. I would like to know what will happen when you put a vehicle back on the road that has never been subject to Sorn. Apologies for the confusion i'm now leaving to country & seeking asylum elsewhere. :cry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8_10 Brass Cleaner Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would like to know what will happen when you put a vehicle back on the road that has never been subject to Sorn. You go to the post office armed with your V5, a valid MOT (if you need one), an insurance cert, fill in the relevant form for taxing it without a reminder and bingo, you get a tax disk. It really is mostly fuss over nothing. The biggest change is that if your vehicle is coming off the road, and the insurance runs out before the tax, you need to sorn it when the insurance finishes or you will get a letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) The new continuous insurance legislation only applies to: It has always been the vehicle that has to be insured with a named driver. Most policies allow you to drive another vehicle third party insured with restrictions. New drivers or young drivers generally do not get this luxury. Trader policies along with showman policies are different. That's why they have to display trade plates in addition to the normal plates on the vehicle. It’s the driver that is required to be insured not the vehicle. Exact wording from the Road Traffic Act: a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, Full act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents If a vehicle is not being used no insurance is required, my question is does this change with the new legislation? Trade plates are nothing to do with insurance; they allow an untaxed vehicle to be driven on the road for associated business purposes. In essence they are like a transferable tax disk. Edited January 27, 2011 by Grumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob8066 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Grumpy I think we've established you were right if your not using the vehicle no insurance is needed. If tax runs out you must Sorn or be insured? So does that mean the end of the Sorn fines as your insured? If trade plates are nothing to do with insurance then why do you drive a test car with valid tax and number plates with Trade plates fitted? I guess it's so the Police know who's driving the car, as it's not the registered keeper who has sold it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 If a vehicle is not being used no insurance is required, my question is does this change with the new legislation? :banghead: If it is not being used it doesn't need insurance. You have to have TAX + INSURANCE or SORN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Latest copy of the Road Traffic Act states £10,000, but I haven’t checked if there are any updates. 20 Exception from requirement of third-party insurance (1) Section 144 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third-party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for “£15,000” there shall be substituted “£500,000”. (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted— “(1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above. (1B) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Thanks Lee :banghead: If it is not being used it doesn't need insurance. You have to have TAX + INSURANCE or SORN. You haven’t understood what I am trying to get at :computerrage: Currently only the driver of a vehicle has to be insured, not the vehicle as per the wording of the RTA. Therefore if you have a vehicle that is taxed but not insured you are ok so long as you don’t use it, further more it can be used by someone you lend it to if they have third party cover to drive other vehicles. My question is does this situation change with the new legislation and will the RTA be revised yet again or is it just a DVLA whim. If trade plates are nothing to do with insurance then why do you drive a test car with valid tax and number plates with Trade plates fitted? I guess it's so the Police know who's driving the car, as it's not the registered keeper who has sold it? If a vehicle has current VED there is no need for a trader to use trade plates Edited January 27, 2011 by Grumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 rob8066 Steve. Your point is? I take it that as you have amended/edited your post No.4 you have taken my point that a sorn and therefore a vehicle off the public road means no insurance requirement:D Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.