'ere, a petition for you all to sign.

Well, if a larger stronger nastier neighbour took a fancy to your vehicle and pinched it and said to anyone who asked it was his and had never belonged to you, how could you prove him wrong? Or the police clearly see a vehicle looking the same as yours run down a child and kill her? And decide it has to belong to you?

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:04:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" enlightened us thusly:

and it's eff-all to do with that - they KNOW I'm the registered keeper, although that, in fact, proves nothing about ownership.

Let me make it completely plain, this is NOT ABOUT REGISTRATION. It's about waste of time and resources inherent in my telling them repeatedly that yes, this vehicle is still not on the road, once I've told them it's off-road, there it should rest unless or until it goes back on the road, when it needs to be licensed, or scrapped or sold, when it becomes someone else's responsibility.

It's more the way you appear to disagree with more or less anything in this group on principle.

As for trolling, pretty much every post you make, it seems to me, disagrees on principle with anything that's posted.

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:15:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" enlightened us thusly:

Oh FFS... As I said in my other reply, it's NOT about registrastion and the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner.

prat.

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:40:41 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

he's very close to it.

Ok then. Read GbH's point *carefully* and give your answer to it. To remind you he asks just why registration is necessary in the first place. Not SORN, but registration. I'll look forward to it.

Ownership isn't necessarily the issue but who is the current keeper of the vehicle.

Then why jump on me when GbH asks me:-

'Pardon me for asking, but just what is the NEED to re-register the vehicle every year, or register it in the first place except as a revenue generator?'

As by that some *do* want to bring registration as such into the thread.

It makes it an active act where you are prompted to do something. Rather than just ignore or possibly forget to do it when a change is made. As human nature being as it is many will do. *You* may not being an organised individual, but these things happen because many aren't.

That simply isn't true. And you can easily prove it to yourself by searching on my name and this group.

See above.

Fer chrissakes, put him in there and then stop wittering on and on about him.

About who?

Am I missing something here? Of course registration is necessary in the first place, but this is all about having to notify SORN every year when there's no need. If you forget, you would still have committed an offence or if you used it without licence whilst SORNed or you sold it without notification etc., the only difference is the extra penalty for forgetting, which only you don't get paid for but can cost you.

Martin

Austin Shackles (Austin Shackles ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Sorry, Austin. I started out unable to see what the problem was, and you're not helping.

And, fwiw, I've currently got (IIRC) 5 on SORN.

Of course??

I 'think' I can see your point, but can't agree with it. Whether a vehicle is SORNed or not, one is still legally obliged to notify a change of ownership.

Bearing that in mind I don't see how repeatedly having to notify the DVLA that a car is still off the road once it has been declared as such helps keep track of a vehicle. It would still be an offence if it were sold without notifying the DVLA, so I can't see why it is necessary. Mike.

Dave Liquorice wibbled

Your earlier argument said AS was already operating within the law ... and as such even if someone paid cash, didn't want a receipt etc, AS (and most others) would send in the appropriate part of V5C to tell them the car was no longer his, indeed probably especially if someone didn't _really_ want the forms filling in correctly. This has nothing to do with SORN.

Absolutely....... but it's got bugger all to do with the OP which is just about SORNing every year, which is a waste of time and resources.

Martin

Well, I've been lurking here in the corner as I neither have or intend to have a vehicle SORN'd, but the resources involved are pretty small, as far as I can tell. It takes probably 5 minutes to fill the form in & stick a stamp on the envelope, and probably about the same at the other end for them to read it & check it against the details they already hold. Not only that, you can do the renewal or initial application of your SORN online, according to the website, which makes it even cheaper.

As there's no charge, the government probably reckon it's worth the money to know just how many of the currently untaxed vehicles that they know about are likely to re-appear on the roads.

Now, if they were to start asking for money to renew a SORN, then I'd be signing the petition pretty darn fast.

Just my 2 penn'orth. :-)

How exactly does re-submitting the information each year help with this? Re-asking the same question multiple times in this thread doesn't seem to help anyone, why is government any different?

It helps because sometimes people forget and there's a fine attached, so that's income. Some of their rules are entirely based on cost, e.g. in cases where a vehicle doesn't quite fit into the PLG taxable status, it'll get PLG even if they have to bend the rules a little because it's £5 per year more expensive than the alternatives. That's what their rules state, according to the people who were dealing with my last v5 alteration attempt.

Indded, it's also a regular reminder to whoever is the keeper that there's a (Possibly disintegrating) vehicle somewhere in the barn at the bottom of the field which is their responsibility. It could even be the final straw that persuades someone to either restore it, sell it or recycle it for parts. If they or the buyer repair it, the government get the fuel tax & maybe the road tax, either way, they get the VAT on the repair or disposal costs.

Of course, if you've got a dozen or so, then I'll admit it's going to be a pain to keep re-sending the details.

It's an easy fine to collect, too, as they know where you live....

Just wandering off topic slightly, has anyone had the subject of a SORN physically checked on?

On or around Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:35:29 +0000 (UTC), Adrian enlightened us thusly:

well, there y'go.

for every vehicle on SORN, every year, the DVLA expend resources on sending out a reminder, and then on processing the thing when it comes in. This gains no-one anything, as nothing has changed and no money is gathered.

If you had to pay for keeping the vehicle on SORN, then they'd be expending their effort in gathering the revenue that resulted, same as they already do with VED.

There's also my (your) waste of time and money, but I agree that's trivial. As for the fine, well, it's only an offence not to renew BECAUSE you have to renew, if they didn't waste time renewing it, no-one could forget to.

But the main point was and still is the waste of resources on the part of the government agency, which resources could be better used.

I don't see how I can put it more plainly than that. If you don't see the waste of resources as a problem, well, that's your perogative.

See what I mean Mr Shackles?

A grovelling apology would now be nice. Unless you're just a troll. ;-)