The message from John Williamson contains these words:
Some of us still have cars off road that can't be sorned and I still think the long term plan is to ultimately prevent such cars from ever returning to the road.
Roger (Roger ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Not at all - but you do need to request a V5C if you haven't got one for 'em.
Seriously, the FBHVC is strongly onto this sort of thing. If you're not a member of an FBHVC-affiliated club, hassle your club to join - or join a club that is.
The message from Adrian contains these words:
I have updated to V5Cs.
FBHVC?
See what I mean Mr Shackles?
A grovelling apology would now be nice. Unless you're just a troll. ;-)
That would be going back to what existed only a few years ago. The DVLA decided on SORN to try and help sort out the number of 'untaxed' vehicles around. Since it costs no more than a stamp I really can't see what the fuss is about. I can't find any figures that would prove or disprove whether it has done what it set out to do. My guess is it has worked to some extent.
Even less than a stamp if you tax or SORN on line, Dave - IF the various people concerned would talk to each other! Last month I tried to tax my shopping trolley, a 1993 Peugeot something-or-other but failed as the DVLA had no record of it being insured. Rang the insurance company who confirmed it was correctly insured. Turns out they batch up the info and send it Royal Mail once a month or so.... Blimey, you could have done this on line back in the days of Sinclair ZX and Amstrad. Probably.
Going back to an earlier post (sorry, lost it) re has anybody had a SORN inspection? Not exactly, but I had my E inspected some years ago in order to retain the original registration. Bit of a hoot, really - half the body was in Reigate, the rest in Woodhatch, the engine/gearbox in Merstham - it was basically smeared over half of Surrey. Oh, and the instruments were in Manchester. Never mind, the suit seemed happy to climb over piles of junk in a lock-up to confirm that the bulkhead was there as this is apparently the bit wot defines the car.
Geoff MacK
Roger (Roger ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Have a read of the newsletters for the kind of high-level communication they've got.
On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:10:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" enlightened us thusly:
I don't do grovelling. I will apologise for the implication that it was you who started on about registration, since it wasn't.
However, my comments were based not solely on this thread. You seem to have a habit of taking a contrary point of view regardless, in this group. This may of course only be an impression I've formed, and not deliberate policy on your part, but nevertheless, it IS the impression I've formed.
In general I don't contemplate killfile entries lightly; since apart from the clearly terminally stupid or malicious types who seek only to post complete drivel or pointless profanity, (normally seem to get them in school holidays) almost everyone has something worth reading to say sometimes, even if I don't always agree with them.
On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:16:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" enlightened us thusly:
^^^^^^^^^^
See what I mean? I'm not advocating getting rid of SORN, and never was, and neither is Mike G. it's the repeated declaration that's the waste of resources, and it's not just the stamp, it's the waste of resources by the DVLA as well. And yes, you can do it online, but it's still a waste of resources, for no gain that I can see. If there was an annual charge for SORN, as with VED, there'd be a reason for renewing it annually. But there isn't.
I suppose that's better than nothing.
Which group? You've cross posted. If you mean alt.fan.landrover I no longer read it and have removed it from this reply.
Fine. Well, if all you want is a series of 'AOLs' in every thread there's not much point in reading them. The idea surely is to debate a point?
Who you wish to killfile is your business. If you think I'd lose sleep or somehow be offended if you told the world you'd killfiled me, you're mistaken.
I'll try once more. *Any* database is only of much use if as up to date as possible. Look at the electoral register - they require you to give details of who is living in your house regularly - even if there have been no changes for years. Relying on an individual only contacting them when there is a material change simply doesn't work. Many would forget or just wouldn't bother. So you make it an act of commission rather than omission.
If you'd ever run any database - like say a car club one - you'd know this to be the case. Now you can't force anyone to give you up to date information for this - but the government can. And I think this thread has confirmed just why it has to be as it is.
OK I'll give you a real life example of how it can work in your favour.
I sold a car for scrap and the V5 either got lost in the post or wasn't entered correctly at the DVLA. It was the notification of a failure to SORN that alerted me to the error and allowed me to get it corrected.
An annual SORN provides a regular check on what vehicles are where. It costs very little and isn't exactly hard to complete. Why change it just to benefit the lazy or feckless who can't manage to fill out a simple form on time?
I've sat on the fence over this whilst the thread has raged on but perhaps it time to point out that there are other views and folks often don't express them due to some of the regulars having a tendency to call anyone who contradicts their views a troll or worse ;(
Why is a yearly SORN the only way to notify you? It's still needless to do it every year.
There's *no* valid excuse for repeating it every year other than to catch people out who forget and slap a fine on them.
If more companies and organisations took that attitude, we'd be snowed under with repeat forms every month.
One side doesn't think things through though.
I'm not sure how that was a benefit to you, so the registration got screwed up, so what?
On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:42:04 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) enlightened us thusly:
Although I think if you notify DVLA you get a form letter saying "thank you for notifying us that you are no longer the keeper of". ISTR getting several such over the last year or three.
but you'd not necessarily notice if that didn't arrive. I grant you've found a positive benefit to annual SORN renewal. Mind you, according to DVLA they never make such mistakes, of course... That'll be how I've not got a V5 for the motor outside, then. Somehow, I doubt the dealer I bought it from didn't send it in, seeing as they must send in several per week. I KNOW the dealer had the V5 and I KNOW that I filled in my details on it...
so now, I have to send the green slip and a V62. Which will be going by registered and signed-for post...
On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:45:38 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
No, I accept that as a genuine benefit. If I sell something on SORN and send the form in, I promptly forget all about it. If for any reason DVLA fail to take note (including that the form never got there) it'll still be registered to me. DVLA won't notify me, seeing from their point of view, I'm still the keeper. However, if I get a SORN renewal in 3 months or whatever, I'll be going "WTF!? I sold that 3 months ago!"
In the given scenario, that would be the only way it'd come to light.
On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH" enlightened us thusly:
In the stated circumstances, I'd want to know that I was still the registered keeper so I could get it sorted.
I'd not want anything registered to me floating around who-knows-where, and in the event that the keeper change got screwed up, that would likely be the way I found out.
There's one born every minute! :-P
Yearly SORNing isn't the solution to that problem, just one letter sent out to confirm the change or for you to call them would do it, it's no justification for a yearly SORN check. After all if you're that bad at keeping up with things, if you moved or went on holiday for a long time, or got the letter but put it down somewhere and forgot about it, you'd be in the shit again.
Only because the current setup does not offer any confirmation of the passage of responsibility other than the yearly SORN. It's no substitute for doing it properly.
I'm still having difficulty in understanding the benefit(s) of registration. I know that's not what your petition is about but no registration no need for SORN. The ONLY beneficiary I can see of registration is the revenue!
Quite the contrary. SORN was introduced to help prevent abuse of the VED system. And to try and keep a track on every vehicle off the road which hasn't been scrapped. For some reason some apparently don't want this. I can only guess why.
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.