New Insurance Proposals

[crockers]

Interesting new proposal for insurance.
You will no longer be able to drive a car which is uninsured - even if you are driving it on your own insurance. Proposals are to link insurance to V5C documents and reminders to uninsured cars in the post. Then fines aka RFL.

Makes it easier for the police to seize uninsured cars and should help drive more uninsured cars off the road - I'm all for it..

 

[st13phil]

That one's been rattling around for some time now.

There are some real issues with this for people who have multiple (often historic) vehicles that don't have them licensed for use all the time. Depending upon which version of the proposal you think will get enacted there may be exemptions in this area, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be an administrative nightmare.

 

[corned]

There are some real issues with this for people who have multiple (often historic) vehicles that don't have them licensed for use all the time.

But we also don't actually use them all the time either - so we wouldn't get snapped by a roadside monitor/enforcement camera when not in use.

Tax for 6 months and then SORN for 6 months. Insurance would simply follow that timeline. Sorry, but I don't see the problem (other than the inevitable administrative nightmare you correctly predict)?

 

[219]

While I can appreciate the reasoning behind this , it is yet another case of the law abiding majority being inconvenienced because of a minority group who choose to flout one law or another .

I am one of the many who own a number of cars , some of which are in use and others are not . I will object very strongly to the notion that i will be obliged to insure vehicles that are not in use and off the road ; SORN covers some of them , but I also have a SORN exempt car which has not been used since before SORN came in , as do several others I know .

SORN itself , is yet another example of law abiding citizens being made to 'jump through hoops' because of a disobedient minority - so what if I forget to tell them I am still not using a car that has been off the road for another year , just as long as it is not being used illegally !

If exemptions are not made for legitimate 'not in use' vehicles I will demand to know how my elected representatives voted on this matter , I will urge others in my various car clubs and motoring organisations to do the same , and we will remember their responses come election time .

These proposals are also inconvenient for those who have multiple vehicles insured on fleet or 'any car' policies ; motor traders whose stock changes daily and may have a block insurance policy besides trade plates to allow cars to be driven on the road .

 

[MOCAŠ]

I will object very strongly to the notion that i will be obliged to insure vehicles that are not in use and off the road

Unless you only ever buy Third Party Only insurance and are happy to cover all first party risks yourself, surely it makes sense to insure cars that are off the road? They can still catch fire or be stolen/vandalised/etc.

 

[Palfrem]

Until the fine for having no insurance is painful, the scroats will thumb their nose.
Our local Magistrates regularly seem to fine around £200 for the offence. Who can get insurance for that I wonder. The fine should be the average of Confused.com 3 lowest quotes multiplied by 2.

I noticed the other week the stupid idiots fined someone £40 for no MOT! How can the fine be less than the cost of compliance for Gods sake?

Are we the fools?

 

[st13phil]

But we also don't actually use them all the time either - so we wouldn't get snapped by a roadside monitor/enforcement camera when not in use.

The new offence will not be based upon use of the vehicle, merely posession. Taxed (on the DVLA database) but no insurance record (on the MIB database)? Oh joy, you're nicked. The checks to determine culpability will be solely against the DVLA & MIB databases - which are not exactly reknowned for their accuracy. Timing the move from SORN to Taxed (or vice versa) and the start or end of an insurance policy will get pretty tricky.

Try googling for "Continuous Insurance Enforcement" and see what it turns up. Here's the BMF's press release and the Motorcycle Industry Association's response to the consultation request last year that will give a flavour for the problems this legislation will cause.

 

[moonloops]

Yes, I thought it was already the case that a car had to have it's own policy in place before you can drive it using your own "drive any car" cover to drive it ??

 

[219]

Unless you only ever buy Third Party Only insurance and are happy to cover all first party risks yourself, surely it makes sense to insure cars that are off the road? They can still catch fire or be stolen/vandalised/etc.

Unless you are looking at high value vehicles it is just not worth it . I have several cars worth from a few hundred to a couple of thousand apiece . If I had insured one for the last 15 years it has been out of use , it would have cost me more than the value of the car by now , this way they cost nothing to keep .

I also sometimes have 'parts cars' kicking around which are never going back on the road and will certainly not be insuring them .

 

[219]

Yes, I thought it was already the case that a car had to have it's own policy in place before you can drive it using your own "drive any car" cover to drive it ??

Depends on the insurance policy you are driving on - some specify this and others don't .

 

[219]

The new offence will not be based upon use of the vehicle, merely posession. Taxed (on the DVLA database) but no insurance record (on the MIB database)? Oh joy, you're nicked. The checks to determine culpability will be solely against the DVLA & MIB databases - which are not exactly reknowned for their accuracy. Timing the move from SORN to Taxed (or vice versa) and the start or end of an insurance policy will get pretty tricky.

Try googling for "Continuous Insurance Enforcement" and see what it turns up. Here's the BMF's press release and the Motorcycle Industry Association's response to the consultation request last year that will give a flavour for the problems this legislation will cause.

This again won't work for those with collections of pre '73 classic cars where VED is zero : some owners just keep their cars 'taxed' all the time now since it costs nothing , but move road risk insurance around from car to car depending on which one they are using - unless they have a Classic policy which covers a group of cars with a collective total mileage allowed over all of them .

This is an ill-considered scheme which penalises the law abiding majority because of a minority who break the law .

Catch someone on the road without insurance then do ALL of the following : crush their car/fine them/ban them/throw them in jail ; DO NOT penalise the rest of us .

 

[crockers]

This is an ill-considered scheme which penalises the law abiding majority because of a minority who break the law.

Pontoneer I take your points on board and agree with your concerns. I disagree with the above though as the majority of people insure cars individually. So it's a law abiding minority not majority. Can not this be gotten around by listing all your on road cars on the policy thereby being on the MIB database then only SORN or VED excempt cars are exempt from the requirement. The penalty for driving a SORN car on the road being confiscation and a penalty of at least £1000.
Same for a VED car driven with no insurance.
Just a thought.

 

[219]

I agree it is only a small minority of the UK motoring population . I , personally , have two of my three current cars insured , although only one is actually being used at present - a couple of months ago I had five cars , with one of the policies on one of the cars I subsequently sold ( before I transferred it to the car it is on now ) .

Even Classic insurance these days can cost a bit , so it is not uncommon for people with modest collections to switch insurance around between different vehicles at different times , rather than keeping them all insured all the time - with VED being zero on a lot of these cars , there's no point in SORN-ing over the winter or whatever . I did at one time have a policy which allowed me to cover up to 6,000 miles across several cars , but the certificate just said 'any car the property of Mr Derek XXXXX' rather than listing registration numbers , and I know of others who have had similar policies .

This scenario probably applies to quite a lot of people in car clubs , with 'show cars' etc .

I fully agree , though , that those who flout the law should be severely penalised - my feelings are just that the existing laws are sufficient if only they were used more fully - ie harsher penalties imposed on those being caught ( fines of AT LEAST five times what the insurance would have cost and/or jail , especially in cases where the offence came to light as the result of an uninsured accident ) would stop those who think driving uninsured is an easy option . Confiscation of the vehicle should be automatic in all cases - even where the vehicle is insured but the driver is not insured to drive it , this offence being just as serious ( I have suffered from this one when daughter driving daddy's BMW wrote off one of our cars parked outside - the BMW was insured , but not for her to drive - so the database would not have picked up this offence , nor would an ANPR check - sometimes old-fashioned policing by a cop who 'has a nose' for what is right and what is wrong is the best way ) . If daddy had had to forfeit his BMW , he would have made darned sure daughter would not have been driving it in the first place .

 

[grober]

Would the introduction of a low cost "SORN " status insurance policy solve the problem? Should be very low cost--minimal risk other than theft. Attraction for the industry to keep the cost down would be a facility to "upgrade" to a full road policy when required. If government legislation is forcing this on the motorist maybe it should be exerting pressure on the insurance industry to provide this at reasonable cost. Just an idea if the inevitable happens.

 

[crockers]

I think that having policies such as..

'any car the property of Mr Derek XXXXX' rather than listing registration numbers...

will be ok - you will just have to log all cars with the insurance company so that they can be put on MIB. I know it is a pain.

Did the girl driving daddy's BMW get prosecuted?

 

[st13phil]

Would the introduction of a low cost "SORN " status insurance policy solve the problem?

This amply illustrates the key problem with ill-considered policies: you end up looking for ways to mitigate the unintended consequences, and as well as the "simple solution to the problem" you end up with a raft of exceptions and work-arounds. Remember also that the insurance industry has been angling for years to get away from the person being insured to the vehicle being insured, and it's clear that there's little prospect of the insurers introducing new products that aid the status quo.

Unfortunately, for the less morally scrupulous in society, the "incentives" to drive an unregistered, untaxed and uninsured vehicle in the UK are quite high, while the penalties are quite small. Add in the fact that the risk of being caught is negligible and it's a no-brainer for too many people.

Continuous Vehicle Licencing was supposed to have "solved" the problem of untaxed vehicles. It hasn't. It's just added another administrative burden to the legitimate vehicle owner.

Continuous Insurance Enforcement is supposed to solve the problem of uninsured drivers. It won't. It will just added another administrative burden to the legitimate vehicle owner and increase their costs into the bargain.

Unless and until there is a realistic prospect of being caught, and punished, for driving an untaxed, uninsured and/or unroadworthy vehicle there will be no material change in the number of people who flout the law in those respects.

 

[Scott_F]

I agree it is only a small minority of the UK motoring population . I , personally , have two of my three current cars insured , although only one is actually being used at present - a couple of months ago I had five cars , with one of the policies on one of the cars I subsequently sold ( before I transferred it to the car it is on now ) .

Even Classic insurance these days can cost a bit , so it is not uncommon for people with modest collections to switch insurance around between different vehicles at different times , rather than keeping them all insured all the time - with VED being zero on a lot of these cars , there's no point in SORN-ing over the winter or whatever . I did at one time have a policy which allowed me to cover up to 6,000 miles across several cars , but the certificate just said 'any car the property of Mr Derek XXXXX' rather than listing registration numbers , and I know of others who have had similar policies .

This scenario probably applies to quite a lot of people in car clubs , with 'show cars' etc .

I fully agree , though , that those who flout the law should be severely penalised - my feelings are just that the existing laws are sufficient if only they were used more fully - ie harsher penalties imposed on those being caught ( fines of AT LEAST five times what the insurance would have cost and/or jail , especially in cases where the offence came to light as the result of an uninsured accident ) would stop those who think driving uninsured is an easy option . Confiscation of the vehicle should be automatic in all cases - even where the vehicle is insured but the driver is not insured to drive it , this offence being just as serious ( I have suffered from this one when daughter driving daddy's BMW wrote off one of our cars parked outside - the BMW was insured , but not for her to drive - so the database would not have picked up this offence , nor would an ANPR check - sometimes old-fashioned policing by a cop who 'has a nose' for what is right and what is wrong is the best way ) . If daddy had had to forfeit his BMW , he would have made darned sure daughter would not have been driving it in the first place .

The problem with any fines is that about 50% are never collected. If you increase the size of the fine then even fewer people will pay. Many uninsured cars that are seized are worth far less than the cost of insuring them and bans are often flouted. Jail is an absolute last resort as they are already full despite people who shouldn't be let out gaining early release.

That's why so many uninsured drivers get away with it time and again.

 

[219]

Did the girl driving daddy's BMW get prosecuted?

We never heard anything further . The police certainly were aware as they confirmed to us she was not insured .

Daddy paid us for the loss of Jan's car out of his own pocket after I responded to his insurer's getout that they 'had no interest in the claim as the driver was not insured' with the statement that either she was driving with his permission in which case they WERE liable or else she had stolen the car in which case she had to be charged .

 

[flango]

I'm struggling to see how they could ever make this work, I have a motorsport & driver training policy that allows me to drive absolutely anything on track or on road fully comp. A lot of the vehicles I drive are registered to companies and do not have any individual insurance policies associated with them yet I and the owners are fully insured to drive them.

As Derek says yet again the minority invoke heavy handed legislation that inconveniences the rest of us

 

[crockers]

I think the logic behind this (and i use the word loosely) is that all cars have to be logged with their insurers. So if you have a multi car policy each time you add or sell a car you inform your insurer and they add it to the database.

How this works with motortraders etc is I suppose covered by trade plates.

In your case surely if the original car isn't insured and you are driving it you may have to display some sort of trade plate etc.

As for cars being owned by companies and not having individual policies assigned to them - that is easily gotten around by the company logging the details with the insurer and then those details being logged onto MIB.

As with all rules / laws - often no thought is given to the minority - which is pretty poor.