Guys Get Ready For The Police State.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Well heres one, If you crash the car from your mate which is insured what policy do you claim from and isn;t it illigal to have 2 insurance polices on one car?

Only reason I say that is abit years ago someone I know went to court about this and won as he was using his 'can drive any car 3ed party'

[foreigner 0]

Well heres one, If you crash the car from your mate which is insured what policy do you claim from and isn;t it illigal to have 2 insurance polices on one car?

Only reason I say that is abit years ago someone I know went to court about this and won as he was using his 'can drive any car 3ed party'

well , I have crashed my mates car , and no court whatsoever, insurance company paid off everything from my insurance.

 

It would be illegal only if he claimed from his insurance as my insurance wasn't on his car but on mine. So tried and tested.

[steve@cornwall 100]

OK, then...... It does seem a strange one really. For the sake of arguement say I have 2 vehicles one a camper / seasonal use convertible / classic I don't drive in winter. Both have MOT and tax. Daily driver breaks down and I can't afford to fix it so I leave it on the drive, switch insurance to my leisure vehicle. Legal opr not? Seems not because the broken down car is taxed nor SORNED - weird.

 

Wonder how that gels with my "Any vehicle in the care of the insured" motor trade policy? Any vehicle I have in my possession for less than two weeks does not require entering on the MID. - but is still fully insured so I can drive anything to a pre-booked MOT, regardless of other tax, mot, insurance or ownership / registered keeper status. I guess I'll have to keep a copy of the certificate in each vehicle - or will my policy be different when I renew in the new year? will have to wait and see.

 

As usual, no non-standard situation seems to be regarded.

[Rob Thomson 6]

Where do I find exact legislation about keeping car on the road?

Try the "Road Traffic Act 1984" (and amendments), a nice gentle read perfect for a Sunday evening.

 

I think you also need to read the definition of a police state.

[foreigner 0]

OK, then...... It does seem a strange one really. For the sake of arguement say I have 2 vehicles one a camper / seasonal use convertible / classic I don't drive in winter. Both have MOT and tax. Daily driver breaks down and I can't afford to fix it so I leave it on the drive, switch insurance to my leisure vehicle. Legal opr not? Seems not because the broken down car is taxed nor SORNED - weird.

 

Wonder how that gels with my "Any vehicle in the care of the insured" motor trade policy? Any vehicle I have in my possession for less than two weeks does not require entering on the MID. - but is still fully insured so I can drive anything to a pre-booked MOT, regardless of other tax, mot, insurance or ownership / registered keeper status. I guess I'll have to keep a copy of the certificate in each vehicle - or will my policy be different when I renew in the new year? will have to wait and see.

 

As usual, no non-standard situation seems to be regarded.

 

Tha's absolutely correct, you switch insurance straight away. But you have to declare your vehicle sorn straight way under the new rules. It's says it doesn't it.

 

So when you fix , if you manage that before they come to the garage where it's being fixed and crush it, you have to insure it wait for certificate to arrive and tax it ( process of minimum 5 days).

Do not keep certificate in your car as it will confuse coppers, let them do their job and use radio, trust me much easier that way, and then say YES when they tell to keep it in your car.

 

Please can you let us know when you renew.

I'd like to know.

[foreigner 0]

Try the "Road Traffic Act 1984" (and amendments), a nice gentle read perfect for a Sunday evening.

 

I think you also need to read the definition of a police state.

 

come on I cant even read so how would I be able to do that.

 

Thanx for the info. I am afraid the ammendments will be the problem.

[welshpug 1,657]

before they come to the garage where it's being fixed and crush it

 

 

 

come on I cant even read so how would I be able to do that.

 

 

 

what?!?!

Edited December 12, 2010 by welshpug

[foreigner 0]

 

 

 

 

 

what?!?!

 

humour?? lol

[steve@cornwall 100]

Absolutely right (just read right throughit again)

 

If you are keeping your vehicle off the road, make sure that you have submitted a SORN declaration to DVLA. If the vehicle is taxed you need to return the disc (including nil value discs) to DVLA using a V14 form. You can make a SORN declaration at the same time as returning the disc on the V14.

 

Wow, hope it doesn't break down on the first of the month, I'll lose upto 30 days paid for duty It's either badly thought out by caring, normal people or a bloody great con.

 

(renewal is due early in the new year)

[foreigner 0]

 

 

 

 

 

what?!?!

 

 

it clearly says in the article that they come to private land clamp, remove and crush vehicle if not insured and not SORN.

Have you read that article at the begging of this topic?

 

 

 

Absolutely right (just read right throughit again)

 

If you are keeping your vehicle off the road, make sure that you have submitted a SORN declaration to DVLA. If the vehicle is taxed you need to return the disc (including nil value discs) to DVLA using a V14 form. You can make a SORN declaration at the same time as returning the disc on the V14.

 

Wow, hope it doesn't break down on the first of the month, I'll lose upto 30 days paid for duty It's either badly thought out by caring, normal people or a bloody great con.

 

(renewal is due early in the new year)

 

exactly

[Chris_Mi 6]

Foreigner - I take it you are into Tort then?

 

This is all pretty clear cut, there should not be any confusion at all.

 

It is YOU, not the vehicle that is insured for any liability arising from your actions. You have to have a legal relationship (!) with the vehicle for it to be legal to drive it on the road. Usually this takes the form of your insurance document (which stipulates the car that you are driving). If you are lucky, your insurance company/document may state that you (insured) may drive any other vehicle with the owners consent. The consent from the owner creates the legal relationship between you and their car. If the Police pull you over in their car (which must have road tax and mot) all you will have to do is produce evidence that YOU are insured i.e. your insurance documents. If the car is not on the MID then you will have to take your documents to the police station within the statutory time.

 

I really can't see what the problem is. There is no problem that this can be misconstrued at all. All pretty simple stuff really. Just read the RTA 1988, 1991 if you really feel the need.

 

I hear all the time about constraints on civil liberties from many of my non UK european friends. What I say to them is that the biggest constraint on individual freedoms is actually the creation of the European Superstate (and there is some real irony in that too!)

[Chris_Mi 6]

it clearly says in the article that they come to private land clamp, remove and crush vehicle if not insured and not SORN.

Have you read that article at the begging of this topic?

 

 

Absolutely no where in that article does it say that the authorities can come to private land and remove a vehicle.

 

No where. Point me to the evidence sunshine

[foreigner 0]

Foreigner - I take it you are into Tort then?

 

This is all pretty clear cut, there should not be any confusion at all.

 

It is YOU, not the vehicle that is insured for any liability arising from your actions. You have to have a legal relationship (!) with the vehicle for it to be legal to drive it on the road. Usually this takes the form of your insurance document (which stipulates the car that you are driving). If you are lucky, your insurance company/document may state that you (insured) may drive any other vehicle with the owners consent. The consent from the owner creates the legal relationship between you and their car. If the Police pull you over in their car (which must have road tax and mot) all you will have to do is produce evidence that YOU are insured i.e. your insurance documents. If the car is not on the MID then you will have to take your documents to the police station within the statutory time.

 

I really can't see what the problem is. There is no problem that this can be misconstrued at all. All pretty simple stuff really. Just read the RTA 1988, 1991 if you really feel the need.

 

I hear all the time about constraints on civil liberties from many of my non UK european friends. What I say to them is that the biggest constraint on individual freedoms is actually the creation of the European Superstate (and there is some real irony in that too!)

 

 

You are right.

 

Actually all the checks are done on the side of the road it about 2 minutes, you only have to produce papers if they think you are dodgy or as in my case don't keep driving license on you.Which again is another flaw as there is no photo evidence of person in the car and person coming to police station.

 

The problems is that if you have uninsured vehicle you have to declare it sorn or pay fine, they trying to fight uninsured drivers but this is wrong way again.

 

Don't start me on EU. Please don't.

[foreigner 0]

Absolutely no where in that article does it say that the authorities can come to private land and remove a vehicle.

 

No where. Point me to the evidence sunshine

 

give me a minute to find it.

 

Here I go:

 

 

The fight against uninsured vehicles

Latest public estimates are that around 1.5 million of all UK motorists drive uninsured. These drivers cost the UK about £500 million annually, which adds up to an average cost of an extra £30 per car insurance policy.

 

The police already seize about 500 uninsured vehicles every day. To help combat uninsured driving even further, when the new law is introduced it will result in:

 

fines

prosecutions

clamping of uninsured vehicles that have not declared Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN)

Records held by DVLA will be compared with those on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).

 

From early 2011, if it appears from the database comparison that a vehicle has no insurance or no SORN, a letter will be sent to the registered keeper.

 

If the keeper takes no action, the keeper faces:

 

-a fixed penalty fine of £100

- court prosecution and be fined up to £1,000

- having the vehicle clamped, seized and destroyed

 

 

 

 

 

 

So follow your logic and you will find the answer.

Edited December 12, 2010 by foreigner

[Chris_Mi 6]

No I apologise, I read it again, and it is implied that if you don't declare SORN (i.e implication that the car is off the road) then they will clamp.

 

However, I think the context is wrong. I think this is actually referring to an untaxed car on the legal highway (not private).

Anyway, it is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to get a SORN if you are taking the car off the road.

 

I still can't see what the problem is though.

[welshpug 1,657]

DVLA don't clamp on private land.

 

I don't see what the problem is either.

[Arahan 4]

Me neither after reading through to see what all the 7 pages of fuss is about?

[Anthony 1,003]

Records held by DVLA will be compared with those on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).

If this doesn't fill you with dread, you've clearly never had dealings with the DVLA or had cars that were correctly insured but not on the MID. You *will* be guilty until proven innocent just as with the current tax/SORN rules, and as plenty (including members on here) have found out, innocence means nothing when faced with trying to reason with the DVLA and get them to admit to having made a mistake.

 

See Alan_M's post a page or two back as an example of this - he's fighting with the DVLA for apparently having been seen using an uninsured car on the road, when it's actually on private land and has a dead engine. The more naive people on this thread seem to think that a quick phone call would be sufficient to sort out such things, but those people have clearly never dealt with the DVLA...

[foreigner 0]

If this doesn't fill you with dread, you've clearly never had dealings with the DVLA or had cars that were correctly insured but not on the MID. You *will* be guilty until proven innocent just as with the current tax/SORN rules, and as plenty (including members on here) have found out, innocence means nothing when faced with trying to reason with the DVLA and get them to admit to having made a mistake.

 

See Alan_M's post a page or two back as an example of this - he's fighting with the DVLA for apparently having been seen using an uninsured car on the road, when it's actually on private land and has a dead engine. The more naive people on this thread seem to think that a quick phone call would be sufficient to sort out such things, but those people have clearly never dealt with the DVLA...

 

I think I should have asked you to start this thread as you make more sense than me.

Edited December 12, 2010 by foreigner

[Alastairh 47]

I hope they stop accepting cheque to pay for your car tax. They can bounce and you have a free tax disc in your window which you can blag to the buyer of your new car and get you into trouble. Yes I found out the hard way!

 

People do seem to be getting worked up over nothing!

[foreigner 0]

that's a proper scam

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

I heard about this new law from another forum I use.

 

As much as it may be inconvenient for people allowing insurance to lapse for genuine reasons (the insurance on one of my GTI's lapsed last winter whilst I was doing some work on it, it was still taxed, but in pieces in my garage, so under these new rues I could be fined?) it is surely a good move to try and combat uninsured drivers on the roads.

[MrG 3]

I agree, the person driving OR the car has to be insured.

 

I don't see what the issue is either. And the comment that If the car rolls down the hill and causes damage

you are directly responsible for the damage and therefore don't do it if unable to bear results

is pretty poor IMO. The costs could be huge, personal injury, vehicle/property damage and possibly worse. The bill could easily exceed £6 to £10k for damages plus legal costs. I doubt many drivers have that money to pay for that plus the repairs to their car. So to cover all it needs to be insured. Otherwise how on earth will it be paid for? Going to court? Court order? It'll be a massive fine which would have to be drip fed because the driver who doesn't insure their cars or maintains them is a good chance of being on a low income/can't afford the car they use or are reliant benefits of sorts and will not be able to pay for the fine etc. That is not a slur on any benefit users or lower income drivers by the way.

 

Regards SORN rules, well I declare mine sorn over the winter, get the reminder and do the certificate and that's that.

[Cameron 16]

Jesus tittyf***ing Christ GET A LIFE.

 

Some things in life matter and are worth fighting for / getting worked up over. This is NOT one of them.

 

This thread is a prime example of how only knowing half a story can be incredibly dangerous. You clearly think you know exactly what you're talking about, yet you've never heard of the Road Traffic Act, and clearly never read through your insurance fine print! Get your facts straight before you go defending your point like it's gospel. And get life, or a hobby, or something.

[mfield 20]

Why not try the "free man on the land" approach ?