Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 09 January 2011, 22:02:14
-
Say you own a car, which has an MoT and Tax. You have parked it outside your home, but are unable to drive it until you have saved up enough money to pay the insurance renewal.
Can the authorities clamp/seize/destroy your parked vehicle?
No, not at the moment...
However, they will be able to do so very soon under the Continuous Insurance Enforcement legislation which is shortly be enacted.
:o :o :o :o
Discovered via the excellent Anna Raccoon. :y
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-new-year-crush-to-get-insured/
Confirmed here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696
-
I didn't think you could park your car on a public road if it wasn't insured anyway :question
-
well this is the conservatives for you they promised to do it as part of there manfesto..and hey preto :y
-
I didn't think you could park your car on a public road if it wasn't insured anyway :question[/quote
you can't but these barstewards want powers to enter into a locked garage and tow your car away and crush it/sell it if it will bring more than £2000 at auction :y
-
I didn't think you could park your car on a public road if it wasn't insured anyway :question
OK, maybe you're right. In your driveway, then. Either way, if you don't have it SORN'd, then it's off to the scrap heap.
-
I didn't think you could park your car on a public road if it wasn't insured anyway :question[/quote
you can't but these barstewards want powers to enter into a locked garage and tow your car away and crush it/sell it if it will bring more than £2000 at auction :y
I've seen some rubbish posted on the forum .. but THAT just about wins hands down.
Just where/why did you decide to make up that story ???
-
I didn't think you could park your car on a public road if it wasn't insured anyway :question[/quote
you can't but these barstewards want powers to enter into a locked garage and tow your car away and crush it/sell it if it will bring more than £2000 at auction :y
I've seen some rubbish posted on the forum .. but THAT just about wins hands down.
Just where/why did you decide to make up that story ???
You tell him Entwood. :D :D :-X
-
as usual , the usual newspaper scaremongering.
read this in the pub this afternoon with the same "how dare they" reation.
but on reading your second link from the gov direct, if its not sorn, then it should be insured.
classic car / summer sports car driver wont be afected if its sorn.
saying that. if birmingham had let the cameras installed at great cost be used instead of bowing to pc,using existing legistlation. new laws wouldnt/ are not reqd.
-
aint making it up mate it is too stop uninsured drivers :y...they also want to stop the pre 1972 free tax ruling!!
-
I really can't see what this will do to tackle uninsured drivers, TBH. Just seems it will generate more paperwork for the DVLA because any time a car owner has a car uninsured for any period of time and for any reason they MUST SORN it, only to tax it again once they have insured it again.
Whereas.. uninsured drivers always diligently tax their vehicles, of course. ::)
Kevin
-
..
but on reading your second link from the gov direct, if its not sorn, then it should be insured...
My motorbike is taxed in the garage but has not MOT or insurance but hasn't been on the road illegally. So do I have to crush it?
DVLA have made money out of me being lazy.
-
As I've argued a billion times in pubs and on forums.......... why not include the Road Fund Licence in the cost of Insurance?
You cant legally park/drive a car on the public highway without either, so combine the cost and save a load of effort/paperwork.
The government (or their advisers) are a bunch of retards.
-
Either way, if you don't have it SORN'd, then it's off to the scrap heap.
Yes, that's the way I read it and it will be up to the individual to apply for the SORN as reminders will not be sent out.
It's another piece of cack-handed legislation spewed out by those who wish to control by way of database rather than have people on the ground looking for offenders.
Another bloody shambles in this form-filling, internet driven, database obsessed, everything including arse-wiping age we now inhabit.
-
as usual , the usual newspaper scaremongering.
read this in the pub this afternoon with the same "how dare they" reation.
but on reading your second link from the gov direct, if its not sorn, then it should be insured.
classic car / summer sports car driver wont be afected if its sorn.
saying that. if birmingham had let the cameras installed at great cost be used instead of bowing to pc,sing existing legistlation. new laws wouldnt/ are not reqd.
it is not scare mongering..it was part of this idiot goverments manifesto...so big clap for every one who voted for them :y
-
I really can't see what this will do to tackle uninsured drivers, TBH. Just seems it will generate more paperwork for the DVLA because any time a car owner has a car uninsured for any period of time and for any reason they MUST SORN it, only to tax it again once they have insured it again.
Whereas.. uninsured drivers always diligently tax their vehicles, of course. ::)
Kevin
I have to say that Kevin gets it spot on...again. ;)
-
As I've argued a billion times in pubs and on forums.......... why not include the Road Fund Licence in the cost of Insurance?
You cant legally park/drive a car on the public highway without either, so combine the cost and save a load of effort/paperwork.
The government (or their advisers) are a bunch of retards.
Fair point. Government already tax insurance, so a levy on insurance might be a more efficient way to do it. Of course, now the car tax system is complicated by all the CO2 band bu11sh1te it might not be as easy..
Having said that, PNC, ANPR, etc. can tell plod the tax and insurance status of a car, so how does tying them together make any odds? You're going to be nicked for no insurance regardless of whether you're also driving a SORN'ed car. ;D
Kevin
-
......
Another bloody shambles in this form-filling, internet driven, database obsessed, everything including arse-wiping age we now inhabit.
You're not in favour then ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
..
but on reading your second link from the gov direct, if its not sorn, then it should be insured...
My motorbike is taxed in the garage but has not MOT or insurance but hasn't been on the road illegally. So do I have to crush it?
DVLA have made money out of me being lazy.
it is rubbish paperwork making legislation.
the clue is in the name. statutory off road notification. therefore declaring it ....not used.
-
aint making it up mate it is too stop uninsured drivers :y...they also want to stop the pre 1972 free tax ruling!!
Can't see that happeneing I think Ken Clarke brought that in - he could threaten to be annoying to the twins ;D ;D
-
As I've argued a billion times in pubs and on forums.......... why not include the Road Fund Licence in the cost of Insurance?
You cant legally park/drive a car on the public highway without either, so combine the cost and save a load of effort/paperwork.
The government (or their advisers) are a bunch of retards.
Fair point. Government already tax insurance, so a levy on insurance might be a more efficient way to do it. Of course, now the car tax system is complicated by all the CO2 band bu11sh1te it might not be as easy..
Having said that, PNC, ANPR, etc. can tell plod the tax and insurance status of a car, so how does tying them together make any odds? You're going to be nicked for no insurance regardless of whether you're also driving a SORN'ed car. ;D
Kevin
The insurance company knows what car you are insuring, so their database would 'hopefully' know what tax band it is in. They can charge the relevant amount.
It would work just as well for those who wish to insure a car for 7 days, 3 months 9 months, whatever..... the RFL is charged for the period the car is used. No more sending Tax Discs back for refunds, no more paperwork.
Ah well........ if common sense grew on tree's, the Government (whichever party is 'in') still wouldnt have any.
-
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293983126/all
:y
-
as usual , the usual newspaper scaremongering.
read this in the pub this afternoon with the same "how dare they" reation.
but on reading your second link from the gov direct, if its not sorn, then it should be insured.
classic car / summer sports car driver wont be afected if its sorn.
saying that. if birmingham had let the cameras installed at great cost be used instead of bowing to pc,sing existing legistlation. new laws wouldnt/ are not reqd.
it is not scare mongering..it was part of this idiot goverments manifesto...so big clap for every one who voted for them :y
;D :y :y
-
As I've argued a billion times in pubs and on forums.......... why not include the Road Fund Licence in the cost of Insurance?
You cant legally park/drive a car on the public highway without either, so combine the cost and save a load of effort/paperwork.
The government (or their advisers) are a bunch of retards.
Fair point. Government already tax insurance, so a levy on insurance might be a more efficient way to do it. Of course, now the car tax system is complicated by all the CO2 band bu11sh1te it might not be as easy..
Having said that, PNC, ANPR, etc. can tell plod the tax and insurance status of a car, so how does tying them together make any odds? You're going to be nicked for no insurance regardless of whether you're also driving a SORN'ed car. ;D
Kevin
The insurance company knows what car you are insuring, so their database would 'hopefully' know what tax band it is in. They can charge the relevant amount.
It would work just as well for those who wish to insure a car for 7 days, 3 months 9 months, whatever..... the RFL is charged for the period the car is used. No more sending Tax Discs back for refunds, no more paperwork.
Ah well........ if common sense grew on tree's, the Government (whichever party is 'in') still wouldnt have any.
private companies are seriously not the least bit interested in having to collect more tax on behalf of the government, in fact businesses arent interested in helping with anything unless it lines the pockets of owners and shareholders - I'm not saying thats a bad thing, I'm saying its a real thing - a truth Mr Cameron would do well to remember when hes spouting about Big Society and private companies stepping in to take up the shortfall in public sector jobs and services.
ooops - went a bit off topic - sorry :y
-
Third party cover as part of the vehicle excise duty or linked to fuel duty would eliminate the problem any extras to paid for direct buy owner. Problem solved. :y