Continuous Insurance enforcement

Originally Posted by Stig

Doesn't matter if it's bike exempt or not.

Fact of the matter is the police can do an instant check on any vehicle to find out if it is legally on the road. This includes Insurance, Tax and MOT. There should be no need and no requirement to SORN your vehicle in the first place. The whole SORN process is another way of getting innocent road users fined because they forgot to SORN a vehicle they have not been using and was already not being used on the road.

This new addition is just a further unnecessary complication in the already stupid and pointless process. If anyone out there is going to intentionally drive without either Tax, MOT or insurance, they are going to do so regardless of the SORN/Insurance process being introduced. This inconveniences only those that wish to stay legal.

+1

[MisterTommyH]

Just an update on this for anyone that's interested. I finally got a response to my letter.

Apparently, according to the DfT, "The powers for the scheme are in section 22 of the Road Safet Act 2006. It introduced an offence of being a registered keeper of a vehicle with no insurance"

So it sounds like the power, and the offence, are already there in law, but theres been no enforcement. Interesting to know if any of the .org coppers have heard of this?

.........erm....no...ask Bluepete!!

Originally Posted by Tommy H

Just an update on this for anyone that's interested. I finally got a response to my letter.

Apparently, according to the DfT, "The powers for the scheme are in section 22 of the Road Safet Act 2006. It introduced an offence of being a registered keeper of a vehicle with no insurance"............................

Oh yeh............................................ I remember reading that in bed last night. For those of you who would like to read it, it is Here

[embee]

...but

144B
Exceptions to section 144A offence
(1) Blah

(2) "

(3) "

(5) "
The fourth condition is that— (a)
the registered keeper is at the relevant time the person keeping the vehicle,

(b)
at the relevant time the vehicle is not used on a road or other public place, and

(c)
the registered keeper has by the relevant time complied with any requirements under subsection (7)(a) below that he is required to have complied with by the relevant or any earlier time.

So presumably 144A and the exception 144B-5(b) are re-written/amended to enable powers that be to right royally shaft us all at will.
Jeez I hate all that gobbly-de-gook, I've probably completely mis-understood it.

[MisterTommyH]

True, but that section is dependent on section 7a, which states you have to have made the relevant declarations, I.e. SORN.

[embee]

The "requirements" defined in 143 say

143.
Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)
a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)
a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

...in other words the requirements for insurance apply only when used on a road or other public place. The Continuous Insurance proposals as I understand them will require insurance whenever the vehicle has a valid tax disc (VED) regardless of whether it's used on the road or not.
I can't see any reference to SORN, although as stated in the document it may not be the latest version, so I'd expect any such revisions to be added to 143.

Anyway, whatever we may or may not think about it, it'll happen.

Why the f*k can't they just write the rules in English? I wonder sometimes if they are written so obscurely on purpose. Tossers.

[Bluepete]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

.........erm....no...ask Bluepete!!

Ummm, errrr?

Well!

Pah, it's simple,

Ask Red Herring!

Pete

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

.........erm....no...ask Bluepete!!

Originally Posted by Bluepete

Ummm, errrr?

Well!

Pah, it's simple,

Ask Red Herring!

Pete

I can see a trend here...