News article says: "If you keep a vehicle then it will have to be insured, whether or not it's on the road. That's the implication of a news story today in the insurance industry's magazine Insurance Times".
However, I understand this is a misquote. The new proposals will make it an offence to own a car that is uninsured or not registered as off the road.
I have no problems with this if I don't have to insure my Triumph TR7 currently laid up in the garage.
And as you have to present an insurance certificate to tax a vehicle, and DVLA presumably have a list of all vehicles that are not taxed and are not SORN, and it already IS an offence to drive a vehicle with no insurance, then they ALREADY have a method of prosecuting non-insured drivers. Why should they need anything new to do that? More jobsworth I should think.....
I hope this is the case.
One more link:
, ( snipped-for-privacy@a.inv) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
It is. There will be the option to "Insure-SORN" a car.
It's been discussed here many times since it was first floated a few months ago, and the FBHVC are all over it. Unless, of course, this is a new piece of lunacy - in which case, the FBHVC will be all over it.
Oh, look, a motor insurance trade body press release.
I wonder why they might want this kind of law in place?
Currently, you can tax a vehicle for a year with insurance that will expire tomorrow. With the new system, there'd need to be insurance covering the vehicle at all times. The small problem of drivers being insured, not cars, will I'm sure be badly bodged around.
Exactly. Paranoia is not compulsory for owners of cars like ours. Let the FBHVC look after it. And if you're not a member then you jolly well ought to be, don't just leave it to your owners' club if you belong to one.
Ron Robinson ]
R.N. Robinson ( snipped-for-privacy@frumiousbandersnatch.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
If you belong to a club, make damn sure the club belongs to the FBHVC, though - and ask the club to share the FBHVC newsletter with the members.
This presumably would end yearly insurance?
I don't see why it would change much at all.
You just need to be sure that you're either MOTed, taxed and insured at all times. Or SORN it.
The only difference is that it would become illegal to keep a taxed and MOTed car off road and not insure it.
As SORN rules don't apply to vehicles that were already off the road when SORN was introduced, there are clearly exceptions to your "all vehicles".
So, I don' see the benefits of this (apart from insurance companies getting extra cash)
I've, in the recent past, found it useful to park up a non-valuable taxed/MoT'd classic on a drive and just insure it when I need to on the back of another policy
Ken
Hear hear its about £15/ a year and they lobby Parliament / DVLA/ European Parliament and Commision . They save me that much a year in hassle with beurocrats(?) For example in France you can only use a classic in the department ( county) its registered in !! just join .
Steve the grease
R L driver ( snipped-for-privacy@onetel.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Not quite...
There is a historic vehicle registration class, but it requires very very little of the owner - I think the tax and Controle Technique (MOT) requirements are waived.
You can still register a classic on normal registration and use it normally.
"Perennial insurance"?
"Perpetual insurance"?
I like "perpetual"...
I know this is a little old but I asked my MP to look into it and the reply to him from the Government has just arrived.
Quote
"Essentially the new scheme, which is aimed at tackling the problem of uninsured driving, will create a new offence - "Being the registered keeper of a motor vehicle the use of which is not covered by a policy of insurance" The new proposals would mean that the use of the vehicle must be specified on at least one policy of insurance. There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance. Provided that the keeper of the vehicle has made a Satutory Off Road Notice (SORN) declaration to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place while the SORN declaration remained in effect."
End quote.
The letter is from Stephen Ladyman who has Ministerial responsibility for Government policy on this issue.
So vehicles under a SORN notice do not have to be insured but the use of a vehicle which has no insurance will be illegal.
John
I'm confused now. Driving with no insurance has always been illegal.
But rereading it, it looks as though the vehicle has to be specifically mentioned on an insurance policy - i.e. by reg. no. - or it cannot be driven.
So if it's taxed and MOTed but not specifically insured you can't drive it on an 'any other vehicle' policy.
Which seems a shame.
Which makes sense.
If the car has to be parked on the road at all, then it is no longer covered by the driver's other vehicle policy and therefore not insured.
In the event of an accident or breakdown, this would render the car illegal as it is no longer being driven once stopped.
Basically a car needs to be specifically covered by an insurance policy whilst on the road. There is no change to this part of the law.
The change is that any car, even if it is never ON the road, still needs to have an insurance policy OR be declared SORN. It is analogous with the new road fund licence laws that now state that a vehicle needs to be either taxed or declared SORN whether or not it us driven on the road.
This has always basically been the case.
The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road, then the keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be "using" it, and hence it needs to be insured. So, not only does the driver need insurance, but the keeper does, too.
As it is basically impossible to get any car cover on your own vehicles, this requires the keeper to have an insurance policy in force for the car in question. Obviously, there are many loopholes.
The new law effectively codifies what is already the situation de facto and removes those loopholes to make prosecution and detection more assured.
Christian.
Unless it is kept off the public road.
See above...
It's a change. I wish they'd decide whether they want the car or the driver to be covered.
I'd love to have, say, 'any car up to Group 15' policies available, or 'this car, any fully licensed driver'.
Sadly it's not the vehicle which poses the main risk.
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.