Bit confused about new UK road tax laws??
Discussion
This is a huge missed opportunity to stream line the VED system by just adding the tax onto fuel like should have been done 30 years ago, that way very hard to avoid, foreign reg cars still pay for using the roads etc, but then that would be sensible. Business users would be able to claim it back via the tax system if necessary.
If they just removed the need to display a tax disk that would have been better (and saved a few quid posting out tax discs), but not being able to buy a car with remaining tax is just plain idiocy, but then the politicians would have missed the opportunity to screw people who need to drive to work out of even more money, can't let that happen can we.
If they just removed the need to display a tax disk that would have been better (and saved a few quid posting out tax discs), but not being able to buy a car with remaining tax is just plain idiocy, but then the politicians would have missed the opportunity to screw people who need to drive to work out of even more money, can't let that happen can we.
Rick Cutler said:
DONT PUT RFL on FUEL!!!!
£120 a year for my Jag, Put £7,000 a year of fuel in it
The level will be set to catch the money on the school run cars so they would increase fuel by 10%,
Local mum drives 3 miles to school 2 miles to shop and back say 5 miles probably only fills up once a month, these probably equate to over 30% of the cars on Britain's roads.
So if we say local mum fills up once a month £60x12 + £720, means they would only pay £65.46 a year in RFL! So you would really be looking at 20% on fuel so look at £1.62 a litre for fuel!
Wrong way to look at the sums.£120 a year for my Jag, Put £7,000 a year of fuel in it
The level will be set to catch the money on the school run cars so they would increase fuel by 10%,
Local mum drives 3 miles to school 2 miles to shop and back say 5 miles probably only fills up once a month, these probably equate to over 30% of the cars on Britain's roads.
So if we say local mum fills up once a month £60x12 + £720, means they would only pay £65.46 a year in RFL! So you would really be looking at 20% on fuel so look at £1.62 a litre for fuel!
Divide the total number of pounds raised by RFL by the total number of litres fuel sold to give you the extra pence per litre.
To make it a more fair comparison it should be:
Divide (the total number of pounds raised by RFL - the annual cost of administering and collecting the old system + the annual cost of administering the new system) by the total number of litres of fuel sold.
Remember that a lot of people are buying eco-friendly (and therefore either £0 or nearly £0 RFL)...
Brigand said:
It's the buying and selling part of this that has me concerned at the moment. As I understand it, the new system is saying that if Joe Bloggs comes to buy my car one evening after work, for him to be able to drive it home that evening he has to tax it immediately in order to be able to do this legally. Of course, the car will still be taxed by me at that moment, so will a car be able to be taxed twice by two different people?
No system would be able to update that quickly to reflect the change, surely? (ASKMID system can take days at the moment to show insurance matters) What if there is no internet access at that point?
If there is a grace period of even a day, this taxing issue could be avoided, and even if there isn't one, surely there's no way that the 'system' could be updated so quick as to catch Joe Bloggs driving his freshly-purchased car illegally as its not taxed just moments after the purchase has taken place - even if I had gone in and un-registered / un-taxed it as soon as he left my driveway.
... - again though, can you do this before the current owner has cancelled his tax?
Should the authorities be that bothered? They have an extra months tax for every car sold. As long as the grace period is less than a month then they are not out of pocket. Even when the old tax is cashed in the RK has paid to the end of the month. Can't see a problem with that.No system would be able to update that quickly to reflect the change, surely? (ASKMID system can take days at the moment to show insurance matters) What if there is no internet access at that point?
If there is a grace period of even a day, this taxing issue could be avoided, and even if there isn't one, surely there's no way that the 'system' could be updated so quick as to catch Joe Bloggs driving his freshly-purchased car illegally as its not taxed just moments after the purchase has taken place - even if I had gone in and un-registered / un-taxed it as soon as he left my driveway.
... - again though, can you do this before the current owner has cancelled his tax?
I feel for anyone who buys a car and then decides they don't like it after a couple of weeks and chops it in for something different. Ouch!
speedking31 said:
hould the authorities be that bothered? They have an extra months tax for every car sold. As long as the grace period is less than a month then they are not out of pocket. Even when the old tax is cashed in the RK has paid to the end of the month. Can't see a problem with that.
I feel for anyone who buys a car and then decides they don't like it after a couple of weeks and chops it in for something different. Ouch!
But even at £500 RFL, that's a max of £60 a month or £13 a week wasted or whatever it is.I feel for anyone who buys a car and then decides they don't like it after a couple of weeks and chops it in for something different. Ouch!
cuprabob said:
lamboman100 said:
* Oct 1st 2014 = Daily Mail reports on great new digital car taxdisc system coming into effect...
Oct 1st 2016 - Daily Mail reports DVLA have come up with a new initiative of supplying a disc to display on the windscreen of the car and are going local by opening DVLA offices in major towns and cities. Head of DVLA is given a knighthood for coming up with such a revolutionary idea.- Nov 1st 2014 = Daily Mail reports on new digital car taxdisc system spiralling into chaos with crashed computers...
- Dec 1st 2014 = Daily Mail reports on new digital car taxdisc system being scammed by genius crooks and hackers...
- Oct 1st 2015 = Daily Mail reports on new digital car taxdisc system being hit with unplanned spiralling IT costs...
Edited by GrizzlyBear on Wednesday 27th August 14:45
The most controversial change is obviously the fact that you can't transfer the VED when you sell the car.
To be honest, I really don't see the rationale for it. The Vehicle Excise Duty should really be attached to the Vehicle. The clue is somewhat in the name. Making it also dependent also in part on the owner seems rather stupid to me.
To be honest, I really don't see the rationale for it. The Vehicle Excise Duty should really be attached to the Vehicle. The clue is somewhat in the name. Making it also dependent also in part on the owner seems rather stupid to me.
JonRB said:
The most controversial change is obviously the fact that you can't transfer the VED when you sell the car.
To be honest, I really don't see the rationale for it. The Vehicle Excise Duty should really be attached to the Vehicle. The clue is somewhat in the name. Making it also dependent also in part on the owner seems rather stupid to me.
We also have vehicle insurance but no one expects that to transfer with the vehicle. So the name isn't a clue at all. To be honest, I really don't see the rationale for it. The Vehicle Excise Duty should really be attached to the Vehicle. The clue is somewhat in the name. Making it also dependent also in part on the owner seems rather stupid to me.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
We also have vehicle insurance but no one expects that to transfer with the vehicle. So the name isn't a clue at all.
True, (although actually it's usually called Motor Insurance) but then again that has long been a mess - it's a combination of the driver and the car that is insured which doesn't really make a lot of sense but is what we have. Moving from something that for the past 93 years made sense (taxing the vehicle for a set period regardless of owner) to something that makes less sense (taxing the vehicle but terminating the tax when the Registered Keeper changes) seems a retrograde step to me.
JonRB said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
We also have vehicle insurance but no one expects that to transfer with the vehicle. So the name isn't a clue at all.
True, (although actually it's usually called Motor Insurance) but then again that has long been a mess - it's a combination of the driver and the car that is insured which doesn't really make a lot of sense but is what we have. Moving from something that for the past 93 years made sense (taxing the vehicle for a set period regardless of owner) to something that makes less sense (taxing the vehicle but terminating the tax when the Registered Keeper changes) seems a retrograde step to me.
Why not simply wrap the VED into insurance and thus, any car with insurance has VED, any car without VED is uninsured and can be confiscated on the spot and auctioned/crushed. And the cost of collecting VED is farmed out overnight to the private sector?
DonkeyApple said:
Raises a question:
Why not simply wrap the VED into insurance and thus, any car with insurance has VED, any car without VED is uninsured and can be confiscated on the spot and auctioned/crushed. And the cost of collecting VED is farmed out overnight to the private sector?
I like it. Although you still need to employ the monkeys at DVLA to "administer" the whole "who is the registered keeper of what car" thing.Why not simply wrap the VED into insurance and thus, any car with insurance has VED, any car without VED is uninsured and can be confiscated on the spot and auctioned/crushed. And the cost of collecting VED is farmed out overnight to the private sector?
And SORN, I guess.
Bellatrix said:
Apparently one of the advantages is it'll stop tax dodgers and insurance costs might fall as a result.
I don't see how it'll make those who drive with no insurance and/or tax any easier to catch than now
And, more importantly, those who drive with cloned or false plates. The total reliance on ANPR is the Achilles Heel of this whole idea. I don't see how it'll make those who drive with no insurance and/or tax any easier to catch than now
This selling the car thing can't be right, it's a total scam that will be exposed immediately surely?
For example, going forward a year or so well into the new regime, if mr x sells his car, which was taxed to december 31, on 15th september he will be refunded oct/nov/dec tax. He loses the last 2 weeks in sept.
If mr y picks up the car on 15 sept surely he gets billed from oct 1, as the DVLA has already had the tax from mr x up to the end of sept., they know that because that's what they refunded him. mr y has had 2 weeks 'free' tax but the DVLA has lost nothing, the car is continuously taxed with no breaks, just a change of owner 1 month to the next? Not rocket science for computer database surely?
What it will mean is most will try to do the change over nearer the end of the month I suppose. The way it seems to be being suggested is that even if mr x did his change over on 30th sept mr y would not be able to drive it away at, say 5pm, because the car will effectively be untaxed for 7 hours before midnight so to avoid this he has to pay for the whole of September!! Or maybe SORN it for 7 hours.....
Otherwise, whatever you do DVLA get September twice. Nonsense.
For example, going forward a year or so well into the new regime, if mr x sells his car, which was taxed to december 31, on 15th september he will be refunded oct/nov/dec tax. He loses the last 2 weeks in sept.
If mr y picks up the car on 15 sept surely he gets billed from oct 1, as the DVLA has already had the tax from mr x up to the end of sept., they know that because that's what they refunded him. mr y has had 2 weeks 'free' tax but the DVLA has lost nothing, the car is continuously taxed with no breaks, just a change of owner 1 month to the next? Not rocket science for computer database surely?
What it will mean is most will try to do the change over nearer the end of the month I suppose. The way it seems to be being suggested is that even if mr x did his change over on 30th sept mr y would not be able to drive it away at, say 5pm, because the car will effectively be untaxed for 7 hours before midnight so to avoid this he has to pay for the whole of September!! Or maybe SORN it for 7 hours.....
Otherwise, whatever you do DVLA get September twice. Nonsense.
Speed Badger said:
So would I be right in saying the RFL is now attached to a person, rather than a vehicle? In the same way if you sell a car your insurance doesn't carry over for the buyer to use because it's tied to you.
No, all that has changed is that you don't get a paper disc any more. Most of us tax our vehicles either over the phone or on line, those that didn't can still go to the Post Office. Now when the car changes hand the new registered keeper has to tax it and the old one gets a refund. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff