Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[MooiMeisie]

New law proposed that SORNed cars must be insured.
More interested in creating new laws/red tape than sorting out the serious problem/s that the EU has.

Thanks to Sidelights for bringing it to our notice.



No doubt the UK will enforce it whilst other countries ignore it as usual!

Geoff -

[petermeachem]

It's a consultation that's all. I'd insure it, you'd feel a bit silly if it was stolen.

[Riley Blue]

I have two SORN'd cars, both are insured.
_________________
David

1963 Riley 1.5
1965 Riley 1.5

[JohnDale]

Hi all, I also read about this but as it says in the original post,
' the requirement for compulsory insurance should cover any USE of a vehicle ' Generally,if on SORN ,do not use it even on private land. If I recall correctly, the man driving the tractor was working for the man on the ladder.
Next time choose a better driver,cheers,JD.
_________________
1958 Ford Zephyr Mk2 Convertible
1976 Ford Granada Ghia.

[alastairq]

Besides, rumour has it, that the Brussels effect will not be around for long?

[baconsdozen]

To be honest I thought this was already the case. I'm taking one of mine off the road for a few months,but I'll insure it anyway.
_________________
Thirty years selling imperial hand tools for old machinery(Now happily retired).

[Peter_L]

When we lived in the UK and again, here in Canada, a portion of our House insurance covers 3rd Party liability. This helps protect us in the event that someone were to be injured whilst on our property. There are very little exclusions. So if Mr or Mrs Doe were to fall off the step, or get hit by e.g tractor/lawnmower the insurance protects us from having to break open the piggy bank.

We also pay a slightly increased premium to cover loss through fire/flood/theft on the aforesaid equipment.

........ this consultation paper is old anyway, the article is regurgitated news.

[alastairq]

Public liability cover is included in most household policies.

Strangely, it also covers various public liability requirements away from the property. [or, mine did]

I had to forward a claim decades ago now, when my dog inadvertently ran out of a field [onto a very minor, minor back road]....right in front of a Ford Sierra!

All, about 2 miles from home too. [I felt/was made to feel, really guilty if a really long walk wasn't in the offing 3 days a week]

Whose bumper sustained damage [Ford, plastic, say no more!]

Dog was actually unharmed, although from the song and dance he made, you wouldn't have thought it...[talk about 'milking ' it!!!!]

But, we put the claim through our household insurer, who dealt with the car owner to everyone's satisfaction.

[Ray White]

I had started doing some work on my '26 Dodge Brothers and had every intention of having it back on the road before long so I didn't apply for a SORN. Then the insurance became due so I thought I would take out an off road 'fire and theft' policy because it was cheap. I was alarmed, however, to receive a threatening letter from the DVLA legal department saying that according to their information I had not SORN'd my car or insured it for the road.

Rather than risk a fine I upgraded my insurance to fully comp. It may have only been a matter of months but beware - big brother is watching you!

[Riley Blue]

[Ray White]

No, I am sure it was because I hadn't insured my car for the road that the DVLA knew it would need to be SORN'd or scrapped. It was my fault for not applying for a SORN when I insured it for theft and fire only - I was just alarmed that the authorities were so heavy handed over such a minor infringement. I seems as if there is a determined effort to raise revenue by incriminating the entire motoring population.

As far as I am concerned BIG BROTHER is exactly what modern officialdom is all about. I absolutely refute the notion that we need to notify the DVLA or anyone else when we take our cars off the road. It's a bad law. We shall never have the freedom that previous generations had unless these people have their wings clipped. The very idea that we still have to apply submit a tax form to the DVLA even though no money is due is just oppressive.

The behaviour of the DVLA regarding the issuing of license plates to historic specials etc. is a case in point. The whole system needs scrapping and starting again from the standpoint that these people are here to serve the public not the other way round.

[Peter_L]

We live in an age where technology can be used to collect and analyse data in a manner not even imaginable "back in the day", unless you happened to be George Orwell and he got it wrong by 30+ years.

In the UK and elsewhere, motor insurance data, vehicle taxation data and owner data is shared between authorities including the police as is ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). As computers become even larger and more powerful I am sure that every vehicle will be recorded as it travels around.

I am (reasonably, I think) law abiding and whilst I may not enjoy some of the restrictions placed upon me by certain laws, rules and regulations, it is part of living in 2017 as opposed to (say) 1917.

It is not possible, or desirable, to have every individual accountable for just the laws of their choice.

........... and with that, I will go move the licence plate over from the small trailer to the larger trailer

[lowdrag]

I have e heard nothing at all of this in France. We already have a five year MOT for cars over 25 years old and road tax hasn't existed for any car for about 20 years. Which leads me to think that it is up to each country to either adopt or refuse the proposal. For example the English cannot be pursued for speeding fines occasioned by fixed cameras in Europe but the French have a reciprocal arrangement with Spain and Luxembourg.

[alastairq]

Whilst the system is a pain when transitioning from one procedure, to a more modern one...in the end, it's about making savings on public money.

The lack of insurance, or the paying of VED...or, even, the presence of a current MoT, is now very much more easily enforced.

The Registered Keeper is being made to comply with Laws which have been in place for decades...ie, assume their proper responsibilities, with regards to the vehicle in their charge.


The ANPR is triggered, the computer is pretty instantly checked..and if offences are being committed, the buff envelope is winging its way to the RK's address.

The biggest motorists' complaint under the old system [probably] was, the number of cars on the roads, uninsured. {Given the levels of premiums, esp. for young people....and the low levels of fines if caught, which was more unlikely under the old system...the temptation to 'not bother' was ever greater.

These days, with being unable to pay VED if no insurance or, MoT/exemption, are recorded, the chances of being caught whilst driving that vehicle increase exponentially.

So, the average motorist is happier, the insurers are happier....what's the problem?

Plus, with most of our vehicles [on this forum], money doesn't change hands for VED....so there is little to gain if not continuously insuring the vehicle? [No VED to refund]...However, if we take our vehicles off the road , for repair or maintenance reasons...do we cancel our insurance?

Or do we downgrade it to a lower level of protective cover? If the latter, then the rules are simple....no RTAs cover, therefore, SORN must be declared. In our case, it is all about the level of insurance cover we require?

Since this can all be done online.....and when ready to drive again, proper cover is re-instated...which is recorded, then it takes 30 seconds to acquire VED [no money changing hands, it's all very simple]...

Of course, there are those who swear by the necessity of a one-day-a-year Mot road-worthiness check...[the Law s place the onus on the driver for 365 days of the year]...so the next step should be, before a vehicle can come off SORN, it should also have a fresh MoT?

Why not?

Thankfully, that is not the case.....I mean, we drivers can all be trusted to ensure our vehicles really are roadworthy...can't we??

[UmTumTiddly]

March 31st is very close to April 1st.

It's an April Fool's joke. A 'scam' article for the gullible!