Sorn/technically insured? Help please!

[mills94]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has already been covered but I have had a search and cant quite find any info, basically, I've bought a bike, cant ride till may when the restriction is up. Its taxed and MOT'd, thing is I've bought just Fire and theft insurance (laid up insurance) so with it being technically insured and taxed I take it I dont have to declare it sorn? or do I as its not covered third party and then go through the messing of having to send the tax disc back and bugger about? Any help will be much appreciated!

Jack

[embee]

If it's on the road (physically) it must be taxed (plus insured plus MOT). If you don't have a licence for it you won't be able to insure it for road use, so this option is out anyway.

If you have it physically off the road and aren't going to use it until May, why not send the tax disc off for a refund and declare it SORN? You can either get the form from a Post Office or download it from the DVLA website and stick the tax disc on it (remember to cross the "declare SORN" box) add a stamp and post it.

You get some cash back and just tax it again when you want to use it. Simple.

[Sid Squid]

If it has valid tax, it does not need a SORN.
Obviously I'm not sure of the details of your present insurance, but what you say suggests that the cover you have does not allow it to be ridden, and obviously you can't use or keep it on the road if you haven't got the minimum legal road use insurance, so if the tax expires before you come to put it on the road you won't be able to renew it with your present insurance, and then it will then need to be SORNed until such time as you do put it back into use.

[yorkie_chris]

Laid up cover... does your cert mention covering third party liability as required by road traffic act?

If it's not got 3rd party liability then it should be SORNed not taxed as well due to CIE bollox

[TamSV]

Laid up cover... does your cert mention covering third party liability as required by road traffic act?

If it's not got 3rd party liability then it should be SORNed not taxed as well due to CIE bollox

This. In the absence of Third Party cover, you'll need to SORN it.

[NTECUK]

If you don't SORN a vehicle with out RTA or 3rd party you can get a big fine

[mills94]

Thankyou very much for the replies! I'll pop down the post office tomorrow and get the form, the insurance is only for 'off road' fire and theft, no third party cover, don't fancy getting a fine and giving the thieves money so will sort it tomorrow,

cheers

Jack

[yorkie_chris]

You can SORN online it's dead easy.

[embee]

You can SORN online it's dead easy.

... but if it's taxed and you want to surrender it for a rebate (and why not?) you need to physically send the disc off stuck to a piece of paper.

(PS - good point about the CIE stuff, I'd forgotten that bit, just goes to show how complicated everything has got).

[TamSV]

(PS - good point about the CIE stuff, I'd forgotten that bit, just goes to show how complicated everything has got).

And the last annual report from the MIB demonstrated that, for all this extra trouble, we got no advantage whatsoever in terms of uninsured driving. Awesome.

Good job I'm not one to say I told you so (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2460195&postcount=95). :D

[mills94]

Thanks for all the info, much appreciated!

[aesmith]

You could check your registration on "Ask MID", see if it comes up as insured.

http://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

[mills94]

cheers mate, will do that now and double check! thanks for the link :)

[mills94]

btw, it is classed as insured under the fire and theft policy, thanks aesmith!

[TamSV]

Just to clarify, Fire & Theft Only isn't sufficient. It's only the Third Party element that the regs are interested in. It shouldn't be on the MID, but it might be because;

- your insurers have made a mistake
- the previous owner hasn't cancelled his insurance yet
- a dealer still has the bike listed against their policy

Any one of the above is as likely as the others.

Having said that, if it's on the MID then you're fine. If you're not going to SORN just check AskMID periodically to make sure the situation isn't corrected.

[mills94]

Cheers mate, I did go to the post office and explain the situation a few days ago and they said I should be fine but if I get a warning letter before may, then I will have an excuse at least and will just have to do it, but I will check regular, thanks!

[Juju]

Can I just also add a word of warning, that you have "laid up cover", but are Sorn'ing the vehicle.

Is the vehicle "genuinely" off the road. I don't mean in terms of you using it, but you'd be surprised how wide the definition of "on the road" actually is, and the legal definition of a road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act.

Is the vehicle somewhere the public have access to. It doesn't matter if the land is private if the public have access. For example, the block of flats I live in, has a private car park. But its a car park a member of the public as either a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver can access, for example another driver, visiting, could drive into from a public carrigeway drive through to park and use a visitor space. So despite it being a private car park, if I were uninsured as the bike was parked up, I would probably end up with an IN10.

Its not if its private or public, which is why car parks and the like are subject to the Road Traffic Act, but the test is whether it is a road or space a member of the public might reasonably have access. So a beach is say, not covered, because you wouldn't expect to have access to a beach in a motor vehicle, but a launching splipway would be. Car parks are clearly "roads" despite most of them all being in private hands. A shared driveway leading to houses would be a road, but a gated off driveway to a sole residence is not. In a garage is off road, but if you rolled it out the garage to clean it, (say in a shared block) then you'd be "on the road".

Just be careful, thats all I'm saying.

[Fordward]

the test is whether it is a road or space a member of the public might reasonably have access. So a beach is say, not covered, because you wouldn't expect to have access to a beach in a motor vehicle, but a launching splipway would be. Car parks are clearly "roads" despite most of them all being in private hands. A shared driveway leading to houses would be a road, but a gated off driveway to a sole residence is not. In a garage is off road, but if you rolled it out the garage to clean it, (say in a shared block) then you'd be "on the road"

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that info. Would you mind having a look at the below shared driveway for me?

This first image shows land ownership, and I don't know if that's relevant, but it is private land. There is no public right of way. Might the public reasonably have access? Well it's not gated and there's nothing stopping them coming up that shared driveway, but they would be trespassing and would have no reason to do so, other than the reasons that would affect any property with a private sole use ungated driveway (there's nothing stopping a member of the public driving or walking on those either, but they would be trespassing), couriers, postman, meter readers, etc, or to visit the people living in those three houses.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/landownership_zpsea3d7406.jpg

This second picture shows

In red an area designated as shared access
In yellow two private driveways which are gated (definitely not "roads")
In blue a private driveway which is not gated
In green a shared garage block area

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/driveways_zps58e3138e.jpg

You've said the green area would be classed as a road, ie: need tax as soon as they roll out of the garage.

What about the red 'shared access' area? You've said that these are treated as roads, but that the test is public reasonably having access. The public don't have access to this one IMO. That said visitors driving up to park in the yellow area are members of public too.

What about the blue driveway accessing a single garage? Would that be a "road"? His driveway is not gated off from the red area. Because it's just one driveway is he different from the guys whose garages are in the green area?

[TamSV]

I think the definition of a road differs between the VED regs and the insurance requirements of the Road Traffic Act.

I'm sure it used to be that Road Tax was required only if you were on a publicly maintained road.

You'll only get points on your licence if you drive without insurance. The new offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle brought in with the CIE rules doesn't result in points.

[Fordward]

So if for instance my wife or neighbours who do not have licenses would like to have a little go on my motorbike, could they legally do it on that shared access area?

[TamSV]

From a licence and insurance point of view I would think not. However, you're probably very unlikely to be caught. :)

[Fordward]

From a licence and insurance point of view I would think not. However, you're probably very unlikely to be caught. :)

Its a strange one IMO because on private land with no right of public access, or no reason for the public to be there, it isn't a 'road' (for instance farmers field) and so you don't need license or insurance. This would be my neighbour riding my motorbike with my permission on private land owned by me and my neighbour. What criteria is it that that turns 'shared access' into a 'road'. I don't think theres enough different people with right of access to make it 'public'.

[yorkie_chris]

Aye it's an odd one, like my mates place with a mile of bumpy track to it. No public access there as you'd probably get shot, but there's no gate.

Legal grey area or are we missing something?

[TamSV]

You do get some grey areas because the Road Traffic Act doesn't try very hard to define where it does or doesn't apply.

The public have access to that road and there will be lots of people who use it other than the owners. On that basis I reckon the Act will apply.

You could park an untaxed vehicle on it though :)

[Fordward]

You do get some grey areas because the Road Traffic Act doesn't try very hard to define where it does or doesn't apply.

The public have access to that road and there will be lots of people who use it other than the owners. On that basis I reckon the Act will apply.

You could park an untaxed vehicle on it though :)

The public dont have access (unless trespassing) its a private driveway. The entrance isnt gated, but the vast majority of private driveways arent either and that doesnt make them roads. The only people that use it are the postman, milkman, couriers, meter readers, the owners and visitors to those owners, just as would be the case with any other private driveway leading up to a single property.

The difference here is the ownership of the driveway is split 3 ways, it leads to 3 properties, and all three have to allow the other two access.

I'm playing devils advocate because I'm not convinced we are getting to the bottom of it.

The two concepts of shared access and reasonably expect public use dont match up in this case.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[TamSV]

I can see your point but my thinking is there is access by the public, albeit by invitation or maybe inferred.

It's been some time since I read the Road Traffic Acts but I don't recall them being hugely helpful for issues like this. I may tend to err on the side of caution as a result.

[TamSV]

We probably need one of our resident police officers on this one. Those with a traffic speciality might have some practical experience.

[madcockney]

Another thing that people don't often consider is that any land that is owned by the public authority is considered the same as a public highway. This can affect you in many different ways when it comes to insurance, VED, and action that can be taken against you under law.

From a case that I read several years ago the entrance up to your house's front door is considered as a public way similar to a footpath over a field, but as far as I know it does not affect VED, or Insurance. If an accident concerning a stationary bike on your then it may be claimable under your household insurance, but if you have an accident with a moving vehicle on your property involving yourself or others then I doubt if that is covered by your household policy nor your bike policy if it comes to that. Theft and Fire cover is a different matter of course.

[Fordward]

An accident may well not be covered under any insurance policy, the question is whether the law would require it to be.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[mills94]

Interesting debate^ P.s my bike is is a private garage set back behind my house down our own drive

[Ch00]

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988

A road is as follows

(a)F3 , in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes ,

[Fordward]

Thanks Choo.

I think this answers it and Glass UK being experts in legal rights of way and legislation for the use of vehicles 'off road' I'd trust something they have published.

http://www.test.glass-uk.org/images/stories/members/mem-library/articles/barsby-pvt.pdf

It seems my neighbor could ride my bike around it without license or insurance, because


There is no public right of way
It is not a 'highway' (no through road, etc)
It is not normally used for public access
Public access is not normally tolerated by the owners (anybody with no business walking or driving up there is promptly told to hoof it, usually because they are pikeys having a recce)


So it isn't a 'road'.

It also means if any of our kids had a petrol quad, motorbike or go kart, they could use it there too.

[TamSV]

I asked someone more in the know about such things. There was some use of phrases such as "sometimes", "maybe" and "under certain circumstances" and the killer "depending on all the facts". Enough for me to continue recommending being road legal when asked for my advice.

However, on the sketchy information I provided about the situation outlined in this thread, he thought it would probably be excluded from the Road Traffic Act, although an attending Police officer may not agree. I was pointed at this case which is interesting - a priest cleared of drink driving in the church car park (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/priest-73-in-car-crash-cleared-of-drink-driving-1-4175230).

I wouldn't have thought for a minute this would have been a successful defence. I'm not sure I agree with it in this case - it doesn't seem to me to be in the public interest, but there it is. I do wonder if the court outcome would have been different if injury to a person had been involved.

The case may give you some reassurance though.

Having said that, while you might have a defence, you could still get nicked with all the hassle that entails.

[Fordward]

That church example is very interesting thanks. I'd say a church car park was a public place and by Glass definition it does regularly see public use and public use is tolerated, so having learned what I've learned about it here I'm surprised by that verdict too. Still it will have set a precedent wont it?

If for instance I did get a little PW50 for my six year old which is quite likely very soon, it would primarily be for use at Dads and Lads pay and play sites, but if he were having an hour practice on it of a Sunday afternoon (properly silenced its quieter than my lawnmower) and grumpy old git across the road called the police, better to be abreast of the law than ignorant of it.

I totally take your point about the hassle of getting nicked though. I probably wouldnt allow it for more than 10 minutes anyway for fear of a section 59, which is just a license for a copper to write blank cheques because he wants to keep grumpy old git happy, when he was the only person in the least bit bothered by it. Section 59's are intended for teens on scoots at 2am, tossers on crossers in the local park, and car Cruzers doing doughnuts in Tescos car park, but the wording of it allows it to be applied to almost any vehicle use that somebody else happens to object to.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Fordward]

PS: Grumpy old git lives directly opposite the driveway entrance and has a view straight up the driveway. He's been told in no uncertain terms when he complained that 'it's not a kiddies playground' that it is our private driveway and our kids or any other friends they invite can bike or skateboard round there until their hearts content, but if they so much as set foot on the (totally public) bit of grass opposite (which I cut and maintain BTW) he bangs on the window and shouts 'get off the grass' at them.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/driveways_zps58e3138e.jpg

[TamSV]

tossers on crossers in the local park

Ah, those were the days. :)

That's how my Dad taught me to ride a bike on his ER185 when I was about 10. He used to have to catch me when I stopped because I couldn't reach the ground.

One word of caution about teaching your kids to ride - by the time I was 14 my Dad's road bike had developed a mysterious petrol evaporation issue. Only resolved when he started noting the mileage. :-dd

Hide your keys!

[Fordward]

One word of caution about teaching your kids to ride - by the time I was 14 my Dad's road bike had developed a mysterious petrol evaporation issue. Only resolved when he started noting the mileage. :-dd

Hide your keys!

Hmm, yeah, well at 14 I had my own so the petrol evaporation issue was from the petrol can that my Dad intended for the lawn mower. I much preferred off road though and the bike wasn't road registered, a dead giveaway if seen by a copper, so quick squirts down country lanes to get from one track to the next was the extent of my road riding. My road driving however was a different issue and the petrol evaporation issue there was from my older sisters VW Polo.

[madcockney]

Regarding that church example: it appears to have used the bit of law that states sometimes it can be private and at other times it is public. The church facilities had been rented by an organisations members. If it had been outside of that then it may have been considered "public". The law has been interpreted differently over the years, (probably due to a court case), as I can remember vehicle insurance underwriters stating that accidents in car parks were not covered as it was private land and not the public highway. These days they appear to pay out in car parks. To my knowledge only higher court cases set precedents, though judges can refer to other cases if they have a similarity in considering their judgement.