Continuous Insurance enforcement

[anna]

Some interesting points.

Clearly those people who are law abiding are going to be put to extra annoyances of the bureaucratic paperwork whilst those that they are actually trying to target continue in the same manner.

The point about tax also being attached to the mandatory third party insurance is an interesting one.

I like the idea but in reality it wouldn’t be able to work as the government would need to be seen to be regulated in the same way as other insurance policies are through the FSA and that would also require a number of costly measures that no doubt would be passed to us.

I could also see, if this were to happen, an interesting debate by the insurance companies as they currently put money into a pool to cover those claims that are deal with uninsured drivers. I could see that they stopped putting money into these pools, and demand that the government deal with that area as they are the ones offering the policies on the mandatory level.

Obviously the current insurers would argue that the government were stealing their business, and in line with free market etc agreements in place I am not even sure that the government are able to even offer this as an option. (Someone with more knowledge then I have might be able to offer an insight here).

As with most things, although this sounds a great option I think the logistics of doing so would end up costing tax payers more.

Originally Posted by anna

although this sounds a great option I think the logistics of doing so would end up costing tax payers more.

Anna, a contradiction if I ever hear one. Apart from the fact my point of view doesn't see this as a great option in any way, anything that costs me more from my pocket for a scheme that wouldn't work, even more so.

The bottom line is as I have already said. Those that wish to disregard to current law regarding driving whilst not legal, will do so regardless of any changes. The only people it is going to effect are those who already follow the current law. A pointless inconvenience with a possibility of a crime being committed for doing nothing illegal.

[anna]

Si- not sure what the contradiction in my statement you pointed out was??

I was pointing out that the logic and theory contradicted each other and wouldnt have a benefiting outcome, if that is what you were highlighting?

I certainly wasnt disagreeing with the fact that this will do nothing to reduce those drivers/riders without insurance, and will serve only to line pockets from those who are caught out not necessarily doing the wrong thing.

[yorkie_chris]

If insurance was affordable then there would be no point in not having it, and there wouldn't be any uninsured drivers.

I'd prefer to see a government 3rd party insurance attached to tax disc or something who would have the balls to stand up to all the ambulance chasing c***s making it expensive in first place.

Originally Posted by anna

Si- not sure what the contradiction in my statement you pointed out was??

I was pointing out that the logic and theory contradicted each other and wouldnt have a benefiting outcome, if that is what you were highlighting?

I certainly wasnt disagreeing with the fact that this will do nothing to reduce those drivers/riders without insurance, and will serve only to line pockets from those who are caught out not necessarily doing the wrong thing.

I guess I didn't read what you wrote properly.

Originally Posted by anna

As with most things, although this sounds a great option I think the logistics of doing so would end up costing tax payers more.

To me those two things were a contradiction but to be honest, I tool it out of context.

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

If insurance was affordable then there would be no point in not having it, and there wouldn't be any uninsured drivers.

I'd prefer to see a government 3rd party insurance attached to tax disc

i would prefer to see those that claim a lot pay a lot and no more bump for bump. i'm sick and tired of supporting other peoples poor driving ability.

bad idea as this would allow the gov to shaft us even more with the same excuse as insurance company's ' the price has gone up due to the economical climate'.

[anna]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

If insurance was affordable then there would be no point in not having it, and there wouldn't be any uninsured drivers.

I'd prefer to see a government 3rd party insurance attached to tax disc or something who would have the balls to stand up to all the ambulance chasing c***s making it expensive in first place.

Im not sure what you think the government would be able to do better then the current insurance companies are doing?

If the government were to take over and do 3rd party insurance when issuing tax they would effectively have to also add to the pool of insurance, the one that covers claims from uninsured people. The cost would also be passed onto the tax payer.

The government is not able to stop people going to court with personal injury claims.

Normal insurance companies at least are able to some extent penalise those that act for the accident groups who do personal injury claims, by putting the solicitors who deal with these into a higher premium category when it comes to their own company insurance. This acts as a deterrent for other companies to expand their business into this area. (ok perhaps a small deterrent but it is more then the government can put in place.)

[embee]

And of course the Govt will benefit from the increase in Insurance Premium Tax from 5% to 6% as of now on top of the huge increases in premiums from the companies, plus if you have any Travel Insurance or Extended Warranties the VAT has gone up to 20%.

Last year if your car insurance premium was £500 the Govt added £25, if the premium goes up as generally reported by 20% to £600 the Govt now gets £36, almost half as much again.

Shafted whichever way you turn.

What the government need is a big computer. This computer can hold details of who is the registered keeper of a vehicle. They can then get the computer to run reports to show who keeps a vehicle and who does not have tax, insurance or mot. They can then send out summonses to these people, in three different envelopes to keep their costs up, fining for each offence. They also tell you how many points they are going to give you. This means that you have to send your licence to them to generate even more bureaucracy. They also get a cut of the tax in the stamps and envelope you need to purchase and when you insure, because your premium goes up, a bigger cut of IPT. They can then take all this cash generated and spend it on games consuls, large screen TV's and sky sports for young offenders and any left over they can give to failed asylum seekers because we cant send any back due to the fact that they don't have a passport and it is very expensive for them to illegally live in this country and not work. If this does not generate enough cash then we should look at making it compulsory to have your vehicle serviced by a registered garage at its prescribed service schedule and make it illegal to do any servicing on your vehicle unless you are registered and taxed. You will also get fined and points for this to begin the cycle mentioned above. Any spare cash can go to foreign aid or the MEP's in Brussels.

Vote B1k3r for you local MP.

[embee]

Have you seen the new Tax Return form for 2010/11?

Just 3 lines

1 - How much do you earn?
2 - How much have you got left?
3 - Send it.