Car insurance

With my reminder to renew my road tax came an advisory slip drawing my attention to a new law for 2011.

Effectively it says that my car has to be either insured or SORNed.

So if I have a valid road tax, but choose to put my car away in its garage for a couple of months and have an insurance gap while I am not using it, I am liable for various penalties. Apparently I now have to return my tax disc (even if it is a zero cost Historic one) and declare SORN, and then apply for another tax disc once have insured the car. I can see life getting very complicated if the MOT runs out while the car is stored, which wouldn't have been a problem if the previous tax disc had been allowed to remain in force.

Does anyone know what the legislation actually says, as opposed to the DVLA's pocket interpretation of it?

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John
Loading thread data ...

A car must either have tax and insurance or be SORNed.

The only change is to clarify that you can't have tax on an uninsured car, even if it's parked off-road.

It's largely to make it easy to stop the chavs taking out a monthly policy, buying road tax, then cancelling the insurance - leaving them with a tax disc that suggests they're fully legal.

The DVLA can now cross reference their tax records against the Motor Insurance Database and issue fines based on any discrepancies found.

Reply to
SteveH

Indy Jess John gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Of all the various half-baked arguments against continuous insurance (which I have no problem with, for the record), that's got to be the single lamest.

If the MOT runs out whilst it's off the road, you can take it to an MOT centre untaxed, but not uninsured.

Reply to
Adrian

Except in this country the law of car insurance is the PERSON driving has to be insured to drive the vehicle in question as this is the risk factor. Insuring the car in question wether continuously or not and checking this detail on the computer provides no proof at all that the car is being driven legally by the driver.

Alex

Reply to
Alex

I know that. It doesn't make it any more convenient though. Particularly when my garage is too small to work on the car while it is inside. It would only take one jobsworth to spot no road tax while I adjust the brakes and as | said, life could get very complicated.

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John

I know that. It doesn't make it any more convenient though. Particularly when my garage is too small to work on the car while it is inside. It would only take one jobsworth to spot no road tax while I adjust the brakes and as I said, life could get very complicated.

Remember that it now either has to be taxed or on SORN and a SORNed car shouldn't be on the road, even if temporarily. Whilst it is legal to drive an untaxed car to an MOT and back, I am not so certain that driving a SORNed car for an MOT has been thought of as a valid exemption in law.

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John

Indy Jess John gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Not _nearly_ as complicated as if they figured out the car that you're working on on the public road is uninsured.

Reply to
Adrian

Indy Jess John gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It hasn't been legal for a car to be neither taxed nor SORNed for nearly a decade and a half, so the exemption for requiring tax to take a car for an MOT HAS to cover SORNed cars.

Reply to
Adrian

The way in which a law is written and the way it is generally interpreted don't have to match. Which brings me back to my original query. Does anybody know what the legislation actually says?

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John

Indy Jess John gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

So you're suggesting that, since SORN was introduced in 1998, anybody taking a car for an MOT untaxed is breaking the law, unless they break the law by having the car not SORNed?

Bottom of...

formatting link

formatting link

Reply to
Adrian

I meant the 2011 legislation.

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John

Indy Jess John gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

That is the legislation that's just being brought into force.

Reply to
Adrian

The "2006" fooled me.

I notice it says: (5)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle.

Since when was storage defined as "use"?

A loophole lawyer could have a defence case, I reckon.

Jim

Reply to
Indy Jess John

But it won't do that. The idiots who don't insure a car, don't tax it eaither, or even bother registering it. All it does is further inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

Like a couple of weeks ago, I bought a newer car. The old one, being worth only a few hundred pounds, wasn't traded in but sold privately. Of course once we had collected the newer car, we transferred the insurance over, leaving the old one uninsured, but parked on our garden. Technically breaking this stupid new law.

Anyone who has ever sold a car privately will know that it can take a few weeks, and that it is easier to sell a car with some tax remaining. To do this now you either have to sell your car before you buy your new one (not practical), or SORN the car and reclaim the tax, or simply flout the law - which is what I chose to do this time. Fortunately the car has now sold, but it really pees me off that faceless burocrats make rules like this that make life awkward for most of us while doing little if anything to solve the problem they are designed to do.

Reply to
Chris Bolus

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.