Requirement for continuous insurance cover

[ArtistsRifles]

Reading the RL owners group thread over on Yahoo one of the guys there raised a point about a new requirement that all vehicles be continuously covered by insurance unless covered by a SORN.

 

Details here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl

 

Start date is "early 2011"...

Seems unless you do issue a SORN statement the DVLA's computer systems will check with the MIDB databases and verify the current registration status against the insured status - no SORN then = financial penalties.

 

Apparently it's a drive to cut the uninsured drivers on the road.

[Willyslancs]

was in the Autojumble paper the other month , dad asked about it at our insurers , they had not heard about it ..........we asked the dvla about it they said they had no record of our vehicle yet had sent log book to us with our details on !

[ferrettkitt]

My Mini been off the road for over ten years and pre dates the 'sorn' legislation. In that time I haven't received any information relating to my Mini regarding the fact that it should be sorn'd. I haven't received any info off the DVLA at all. It hasn't been sorn'd in all that time that the legislation has been in force. Until I receive notification that I should be filling out a sorn form I am keeping my head below the parapet.

[rob8066]

Yep, this came up at our last meeting.

 

If the vehicle has never been SORN your ok pre 1998.

 

http://news.gocompare.com/2011/01/new-regulations-to-target-britain%E2%80%99s-uninsured-drivers-0000048/

 

It is worth remembering that under UK law, it is up to YOU to ensure you comply with a law, not up to the DVLA to inform you of any legislation changes.

 

The issue we found as a group may be what happens when you come to register a vehicle that has never been SORN.

 

Had similar with my first UK civilian MOT on a LandRover.

 

The MOT took two hours as the DVLA computer would not accept the vehicle, even thought it was road registered!

Edited January 27, 2011 by rob8066

[steveo578]

rob8066

Even if it's just a chassis with grass growing through it, it must be insured.

 

If not you will be fined.

 

I think you need to read your posted link more closely

http://news.gocompare.com/2011/01/ne...ivers-0000048/

as quoted from the go-compare article

The new measures will make it illegal to own an uninsured car which hasn’t been registered as being ‘off the road’ with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The laws will come into effect in a few months’ time.

 

Apart from the obvious of preventing illegal driving it will resolve the current problem when a parked un-insured vehicle in involved in an accident.

 

Steve

[rob8066]

Steve.

 

Your point is?

[Grumpy]

It is worth remembering that under UK law, it is up to YOU to ensure you comply with a law, not up to the DVLA to inform you of any legislation changes.

 

 

 

The SI that covers SORN states you have inform the Secretary of State when you take a registered vehicle off the road and will not be taxing it. The SI also states that you MAY use one of his agents i.e. DVLA to do this. There is no requirement in the SI to renew the SORN each year, that’s just a money spinning exercise introduced by the DVLA who are a private body acting as agents for the government. However once you have signed the DVLA SORN form you are entering into contract with them to renew each year, however as the form does not contain full discloser the contract can be voided.

 

After DVLA constantly losing paperwork on my vehicles and sending out illegal fine notices, I wrote to the Secretary of State stating which of my vehicles will be off the road and untaxed until further notice due to them undergoing restoration, I also aired my views regarding his agent’s incompetence. I had a very polite letter back acknowledging the off road status of my vehicles and they would investigate my comments regarding the DVLA.

 

Its bad enough being ripped off with government taxes, but when private bodies such as the DVLA start, enough is enough. There have been at least three instances of case law against the DVLA for sending out fines for not renewing a SORN, yet they keep sending them out. If you do happen to get one, write back to them straight away saying you dispute the fine, while its in dispute it is illegal for them to pass it on to a debt collector. There only course of action is to take you to court, but as there is already case law in place that they are acting illegally they wont bother.

 

As Rob says legislation can change, but get the change from the horses mouth and read the SI to see what you must legally comply with, don't just go along with what some private agency are telling you.

 

Sorry rant over, but please don’t be sheep being herded along by private agencies who are just after your hard earned cash.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Grumpy

[Grumpy]

Double post

Edited January 26, 2011 by Grumpy

[rob8066]

See where your coming from but i've been fined even though I had Sorn and was told in no uncertain terms I had to pay or they would take action against me.

 

New thread I think

[Grumpy]

They are acting illegally; just send a letter back containing the following:

By virtue of the fact that the DVLA method of trial is a computer database and the postal system, I consider that the DVLA is acting Ultra Vires by attempting to extort monies from me without due legal process, as is my right under article 6 of the human rights convention and under the Bill of rights 1689. The DVLA is not a Court of Law nor is it a competent authority for the following reasons:

 

Article 6 of the given European Convention on Human Rights provides that "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

 

The said appeals service offered by the said DVLA is not established in accordance with law, as required by the said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -

 

in that:

 

The basic laws of the United Kingdom as provided within the Common Law of the Kingdom of England with the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, and as further enacted by the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the purpose of establishing and preserving the Civil Liberties of all people living within the territories of the United Kingdom which Common Law may not be repealed and which Statute Law remains un-repealed have been and are now being violated by the provisions of such enactment as now claims to provide lawful authority for the existence and conduct of the DVLA, but which fails to provide any such lawful authority, because of the given violations to Constitutional Laws and Provisions which retain the force of law.

In evidence of the submission given, a full reference is made to the text of the Common Law Charter of King Henry III, dated 1225 (the existence of which Charter is now evidenced by the text of the 1297 enactment of King Edward I and his parliament), and a further full reference is made to the several texts of the Declaration & Bill of Rights (variously dated February & December of 1689) which latter documents now serve to define and restrict the powers of the Crown in Parliament, to the purpose of preserving Peaceful Government under the Rule of Law,

 

Article 234 (formerly Article 177), of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now known as the European Union now provides that the European Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the Treaty; the validity and interpretation of acts (entered into) by the institutions of the Community and/or by the European Bank; the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.

 

Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.

 

Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

 

 

Magna Carta of 1225, confirmed by the Statute of 1297.

"We will not pass upon him, nor [condemn him], but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land."

 

I contend that the clear option as to method of trial is an option that belongs to me as my property, and that title to this property is confirmed by the Confirmation of Liberties given in Magna Carta-

 

"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever"

 

I also contend that the substantive law relevant to this hearing is further declared by the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and further secured by the Bill of Rights subsequently enacted -

 

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"

 

As such, I do not recognise the DVLA’s authority to issue penalties/fines nor have I had a trial within a competent criminal Court to find guilt under a section 31A offence of not procuring a vehicle license. Should the DVLA insist on pursuing this unlawful course of action, then I request that you refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under article 234

 

Taken from another site but good enough to make them think, I’ll see if I can dig out the relevant case law against DVLA.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Grumpy

[croc]

I am not sure what the problem is, vehicles must be insured and taxed or SORN rather than just taxed or SORN as it was previously.

 

"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.

 

If the keeper takes no action, the keeper faces:

• a fixed penalty fine of £100
  
• court prosecution and be fined up to £1,000
  
• having the vehicle clamped, seized and destroyed"
  

Edited January 26, 2011 by croc

[Grumpy]

One problem is DVLA is incapable of maintaining an accurate database.

My main gripe is with agencies such as the DVLA enhancing legislation with such things as illegal fines and renewing SORN’s each year. I really cannot see the need to renew a SORN each year, especially when the legislation laid down by the government doesn’t call for it.

You SORN your vehicle when you take it off the road, and tax it when you put it back on the road, doesn’t matter to a database the length of interval between, whether its 3 months or six years.

The only reason the DVLA make work for themselves by renewing each year is to make money from fines, when that route is exhausted because its illegal they will start charging an admin fee.

I know I have to comply with government legislation, but I am certainly not giving money away to private agencies such as the DVLA without good reason.

There is not a piece of government legislation that states you have to uses the SERVICES of the DVLA, however most do for convenience, the more people that stop using their service and deal direct with the government the better. Especially if they express their dissatisfaction with services provided they the governments nominated privately run agency.

[croc]

It does changes things as:

 

1, If the vehicle has never been Sorn then what happens when you come to put it back on the road?

 

2, If it is Sorn but not insured?

 

There has never been a requirement for a Sorn vehicle to insured as long as it's not on the public highway.

 

1. If you put something back on the road you would tax it, even if Nil rate Historic.

2. There is still no requirement for SORN and insurance.

[rob8066]

Yes,

 

but if you put it back on the road & it has never been previously Sorn, isn't their going to be some questions asked by them as to why it wasn't Sorn.

 

Could you then be fined?

[croc]

Yes,

 

but if you put it back on the road & it has never been previously Sorn, isn't their going to be some questions asked by them as to why it wasn't Sorn.

 

Could you then be fined?

 

Only if it should have been SORN, if it wasn't taxed when SORN was first introduced, and has not been on the road since, it has never been liable, therefore no problem.

[rob8066]

Good answer.

 

That's what I thought.

 

Cheers.

[XS650]

So say this year if my insurance runs out in June and my tax in August and I decide to park it up in the garage in May for a 2 year rebuild , don't fill in a SORN until the tax reminder comes , I will be fined for no insurance in July/August ?

[griff66]

just to clarify if u have sorned your vehicle and kept off road it does not need insurance on it

[croc]

So say this year if my insurance runs out in June and my tax in August and I decide to park it up in the garage in May for a 2 year rebuild , don't fill in a SORN until the tax reminder comes , I will be fined for no insurance in July/August ?

 

Yes, you should SORN it when the insurance expires.

[croc]

just to clarify if u have sorned your vehicle and kept off road it does not need insurance on it

 

correct.

[Grumpy]

Yes, you should SORN it when the insurance expires.

 

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?

[utt61]

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?

 

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!

[Grumpy]

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.

[R Cubed]

Ok then, lets see if I have got this right.

 

1 vehicle insured, taxed and MOT'd on the road all ok.

 

2 vehicle sorned and off the road so no insurance needed.

 

3 vehicle off the road before sorn came into effect never been sorned no insurance needed.

[Grumpy]

Ok then, lets see if I have got this right.

 

1 vehicle insured, taxed and MOT'd on the road all ok.

 

2 vehicle sorned and off the road so no insurance needed.

 

3 vehicle off the road before sorn came into effect never been sorned no insurance needed.

 

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.