Continuous insurance

[MOCAŠ]

This notice appears in the current DVLA auction catalogue. Probably won't affect many people but if, for instance, your car is parked on the road, taxed but without insurance, you'll need to take action:

New Motor Insurance law

From Spring 2011 a new law gives DVLA more power to combat keepers of vehicles that are not insured. DVLA will compare its records with details of vehicles on the MID (Motor Insurance Database) – the UK’s central record of vehicle insurance.

If a vehicle does not have insurance and a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) has not been made, the registered keeper could face;

• a fixed penalty fine of £100
• their vehicle being clamped, seized and disposed of, and
• a court prosecution with a maximum fine of £1000.

These new measures are in addition to the powers the police already have to seize an uninsured vehicle and fine the driver. If you want to check your vehicle is recorded as ‘insured’ on the MID record, visit the free service at www.askMID.com. Do not contact DVLA as only your insurance provider can update your insurance details on the MID. If your vehicle registration number is not on the MID, contact your insurance provider immediately to get the MID updated.

What this means for you

• If you are keeping your vehicle for use on the road and it is not insured, insure it now.
• If you are keeping your vehicle off the road and it is not insured you must make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN). If it is taxed you need to return the disc (including nil discs) on a V14 form to DVLA.

For more information and to get a V14 form, visit www.direct.gov.uk/stayinsured

 

[renault12ts]

I'm surprised that this wasn't always the case.

 

[tali]

I'm surprised that this wasn't always the case.

Agree -someone overpaid and bored at the DVLA has too much time on their hands

 

[MOCAŠ]

I'm surprised that this wasn't always the case.

It was news to me. Up to now, you were only likely to be incur a penalty if you were caught driving your car while it was uninsured.

For a car kept (but not used) on a public road, it's only been required that it displays a valid tax disc. If your insurance happened to expire before your tax disc did, it wasn't an issue (although you could, of course, be left with a big bill if your car was hit by an unisured driver, or one who didn't stop). Now it is.

As I said, I don't imagine it will affect many people, but it will affect some.

 

[flango]

As far as I am aware under the Road Safety Act of 2006 it is illegal to keep a car on a public highway that is not insured.

The difference this new legislation makes is that it will be an offence to keep an uninsured car in your garage which is rediculous.

There are also some challenges going through the European courts at the moment on this as the intention in the new law is unclear.

"if you are keeping your vehicle for use on a public highway" surely that covers every car with the exception of race and track cars?

Yet another legislative **** up by our wonderful dictatorship of a government.

 

[oldcro]

As far as I am aware under the Road Safety Act of 2006 it is illegal to keep a car on a public highway that is not insured.

The difference this new legislation makes is that it will be an offence to keep an uninsured car in your garage which is rediculous.

There are also some challenges going through the European courts at the moment on this as the intention in the new law is unclear.

"if you are keeping your vehicle for use on a public highway" surely that covers every car with the exception of race and track cars?

Yet another legislative **** up by our wonderful dictatorship of a government.

Doesn't SORN cover the vehicle if off road with no tax or insurance?

I can see the point of the law change though, the car is taxed but not insured so you're free to use it until caught with ANPR.

If there is no intention of using the vehicle on the road the sensible action would be to claim back any tax remaining and apply for the vehicle to be SORNed.

Rather than blame the government, try all the uninsured drivers who are responsible for these extra laws being proposed.

 

[timskemp]

It'll be "continuous MOT tests" next.

"Dear sir. Your MOT expired on 15 Jan 2011. Please MOT your car now and send us £100 for being late."

 

[Burger]

So where is the change in the law of the land to support this? Driving without insurance is an offence but as far as I know owning without insurance isn't. You can't start prosecuting people just because some bright spark (well, slow burning fuse) somewhere had the bright idea to start comparing databases.

This is just another example of the sorry state of this country and it's greedy need for indirect taxation. Even under the current schemes many insurance companies can't get their act together with MID. Why is it going to be any different now? So your cars not on MID but it is insured... Who's going to pay when it's wrongly destroyed?

This is going to be a complete and utter mess. Mark my words.

Oh, I take it we can all expect our premiums to come down then?

 

[Will]

I understand the rationale behind this, but it has scope to be quite awkward for perfectly law-abiding motorists

Example - say you're in the process of buying a new car. You then keep your existing car off-road (driveway, garage etc) for a few weeks whilst it is sold. You might not wish to insure the second vehicle if you swap your insurance over (I know all about temporary additional cover etc).

Why should you be forced to 'cash in' the RFL that you have already bought, just in order to declare the vehicle SORN due to not being insured, whilst it is on private land?

You'll lose some of the value of the RFL (probably more than what you're not using), and you are inconvenienced with having to re-tax your car if/when you decide to insure it and use it again. Could make selling cars quite awkward for a number of people, especially for test drives and collection upon sale.

By all means clamp down on those who flout the law and have no intention on doing the right thing, but please don't make life even more awkward for those of us who actually pay our way.

 

[davidjpowell]

Pain in the ****. I have a Saab (which I do now need to sell), which I was about to sell come the snow.

It's taxed and tested, but not insured. If I need to use it, it is usually because a car is in the garage. I then just day insure it.

I don't want to cash in the RFL - that will make it prohibitively expensive to day insure... and I suspect that it will not make much difference to the crooks who have the car registered to others and already ignore road fund licence etc...

Also the minimum interaction with the DVLA if you please!

 

[219]

Another point is that this affects those of us with older Classic , Vintage and Veteran cars which are SORN exempt .

As it stands , I don't have to SORN my Ponton since it hasn't been on the road since SORN began . I do have a V5 for the car , but it merely states 'not licenced' , and the car does not show up on databases such as the DVLA's online check , despite having registered it to my new address within the last 5 years and getting a new V5 accordingly .

The fintail I had up to last year was the same , no requirement to SORN annually , despite having last been on the road less than 5 years ago ( this one does appear on various databases ) .

None of my cars are ever kept illegally on the road , and since they are currently exempt from SORN , I see no reason why I should be forced to insure them whilst out of use .

I'll be removing the numberplates to thwart snoopers who may start looking up peoples' drives with ANPR cameras .

 

[camerafodder]

You can have as many uninsured vehicles as you want as long as they are on private property. I thought the so called 'fines' for not sending in a SORN notice to the DVLA had been proven to be un-enforceable too.

 

[Burger]

You can have as many uninsured vehicles as you want as long as they are on private property.

Only if they're registered with a SORN in future it seems. This announcement's pretty simple to understand. If it's taxed, it has to be insured it seems.

I thought the so called 'fines' for not sending in a SORN notice to the DVLA had been proven to be un-enforceable too.

Wouldn't be the first time a government body thinks it can change the law just by saying so. As I said above, this will be a complete and utter mess! The DVLA can't get its act together under the current rules so adding yet more isn't going to improve anything.

Still, as the insurance companies have been claiming uninsured drivers have been a large contributory factor to the hike in premiums, at least we can all look forward to them coming down now.

If only that were true eh? Just wait, I'll bet there'll be an excuse for them continuing to rise.

This country is a complete joke when it comes to legislation and invasion of privacy etc. Will we complain? Hell no. We're British

 

[fuzzer]

Does anybody else feel that the more of these things they bring in the worse the problem will get? Once youve been caught a few times and banned , whats the incentive to go streight?

Its about time the insurance companies were brought to book over the massive premiums. Im sure that would have more of an effect on uninsured cars on the road.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Another point is that this affects those of us with older Classic , Vintage and Veteran cars which are SORN exempt .

As it stands , I don't have to SORN my Ponton since it hasn't been on the road since SORN began . I do have a V5 for the car , but it merely states 'not licenced' , and the car does not show up on databases such as the DVLA's online check , despite having registered it to my new address within the last 5 years and getting a new V5 accordingly.

I'm in the same boat with one of my cars, which has been tucked away in a corner of the garage since 1996, but my understanding is that pre-SORN cars are not affected by this new initiative unless they are brought back into use. Also, the reason these cars don't show up in the DVLA's online vehicle enquiry facility is because that only covers cars that are required to be SORN'd if not taxed.

However, I remain surprised (as per a previous thread) that a car that has been taxed at some point since SORN was introduced does not need to be SORN'd if it is later taken off the road. And removing number plates seems a little extreme – it may just serve to arouse further suspicion in anyone who's that interested.

 

[renault12ts]

Can you buy insurance for a car not on the road...to cover fire and theft? Many people would buy this surely.

 

[renault12ts]

Duplicate post.

 

[st13phil]

I can see the point of the law change though, the car is taxed but not insured so you're free to use it until caught with ANPR.

So what stops the uninsured scrote declaring SORN and then driving it on the road? Err... the ANPR that might catch the very same scrote who drives uninsured but (perhaps) taxed today.

As is usual with these changes, the only people who will be disadvantaged are those who want to comply with the law. Those who flout it today will be largely unaffected by the change. A fantastic triumph of petty bureacracy

 

[Burger]

Can you buy insurance for a car not on the road...to cover fire and theft? Many people would buy this surely.

One example...

Classic Car Insurance for Laid Up Cars | SORN Classic Car Insurance

I'm sure there must be others.

Still doesn't make this ridiculous change in the law OK though. If indeed it is a change in the law and not the DVLA thinking it can make it up as it goes along.

 

[st13phil]

If indeed it is a change in the law and not the DVLA thinking it can make it up as it goes along.

Oh yes, the law is on it's way...

The topic was apparently discussed on You & Yours, Radio 4 last Monday (10th), during which a spokesman said that an Order would be laid either that day or Tues 11th and would come into effect from April.