Selling car - new road tax thievery rules??

[Devil2575]

motoroller said:

Wow, looks like I've stirred up quite a hornets nest.

Devil2575 said:

If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.

Please explain how either the VED system or the insurance system represent good value for money. There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims.

The theme of the past 20-odd years of UK motoring is rising cost. The problem is that public transport is nowhere near viable for vast areas of the UK. Transport is a necessity.

VED isn't about value for money. It's taxation that is used to influence behaviour. I don't know what the government does with the proceeds from VED but I suspect it all simply goes to the treasury.

Insurance and value for money? Well I guess you only see the value if you have to claim. Profiteering? What is this based on? What proportion of our premium pays for scammers and false personal injury claims?

Are motoring costs rising? Ok so fuel prices have risen due to the price of oil but other than that. Young drivers pay high insurance premiums because they crash a lot. I pay less than £200 a year.

[TooMany2cvs]

Devil2575 said:

I don't know what the government does with the proceeds from VED but I suspect it all simply goes to the treasury.

Exactly that. It's no more ringfenced or hypothecated than income tax or tobacco duty or corporation tax.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

motoroller said:

There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims.

Really? I can't believe how cheap insurance is in this country. I pay sub £200 for comp on a £20K car in London suburbs. If I clipped someone's wing mirror it would cost more than that.

[Devil2575]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

motoroller said:

There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims.

Really? I can't believe how cheap insurance is in this country. I pay sub £200 for comp on a £20K car in London suburbs. If I clipped someone's wing mirror it would cost more than that.

My car insurance this year was cheaper than the medical insurance for my cat.

[OvalOwl]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

motoroller said:

There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims.

Really? I can't believe how cheap insurance is in this country. I pay sub £200 for comp on a £20K car in London suburbs. If I clipped someone's wing mirror it would cost more than that.

The insurance industry is gambling on you not dinging somebody's mirror. The theory is that they add up all the money they will pay out and average it out over the number of policies they have underwritten. The clever bit is in aligning the premiums with the risk. Young and inexperienced drivers carry a greater risk so their premiums are higher. Similarly if you live in a dodgy area or have a history of accidents you can expect to pay more. But in every case what you pay will be a several of magnitude less than any likely claim.

[Vipers]

Devil2575 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

motoroller said:

There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims.

Really? I can't believe how cheap insurance is in this country. I pay sub £200 for comp on a £20K car in London suburbs. If I clipped someone's wing mirror it would cost more than that.

My car insurance this year was cheaper than the medical insurance for my cat.

Didnt know you could get third party fire and theft for a cat

[blank]

JB! said:

purely money making, the bds.

I'm now only buying/selling at the end of a month.

That will only work out for one person though surely. If a sale is made on the last day of November, seller gets a refund for December on, buyer pays for November on. If a sale is made on 1st December, seller gets refund from January on (as they still had the car on the first of the month), buyer pays for December on.

Buyers need to buy at the start, but sellers need to sell at the end.

I think the only way to avoid it would be to SORN on the last day of a month.

[motoroller]

Devil2575 said:

Insurance and value for money? Well I guess you only see the value if you have to claim. Profiteering? What is this based on? What proportion of our premium pays for scammers and false personal injury claims?

Are motoring costs rising? Ok so fuel prices have risen due to the price of oil but other than that. Young drivers pay high insurance premiums because they crash a lot. I pay less than £200 a year.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Really? I can't believe how cheap insurance is in this country. I pay sub £200 for comp on a £20K car in London suburbs. If I clipped someone's wing mirror it would cost more than that.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/23/cash-for-crash-insurance-fraud-rise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...


My premium on a £2000 car is £850, and I'm in a quiet area outside London. I was recently hit by a false personal injury claim and can't get my no-claims back. Even before that, my premium was £500 and my licence and driving record is otherwise clean.

[TooMany2cvs]

We've got three fully comp policies - each of them is <£100/year. One of the cars is agreed value £5k, another is £3k-worth. Insurance is cheap if you're a low risk.

[motoroller]

TooMany2cvs said:

We've got three fully comp policies - each of them is <£100/year. One of the cars is agreed value £5k, another is £3k-worth. Insurance is cheap if you're a low risk.

I doubt I'm much higher risk than you - my point was about the false claim which is setting me back hundreds of extra pounds per year.

[OttoJ9221]

I don't know if this has been mentioned previously in the thread, but I can certainly imagine a shift in VED policy to include vehicle weight and fuel type like the dutch do. Also maybe something in the direction of the Japanese tax system based on Personal/Business use and engine size.

Also rules would need to be put in place to stop abuse of things such as lower tax for business use. E.g. A minimum of 20K miles per year or you have to pay the difference between business and personal use, if you do not hit this lower minimum in a 12 month period. But with Exceptions for things such as a vehicle being off the road for repair or it is a brand new vehicle to replace an old one in this 12 month period, but can not be done consecutively.

A quick example off the top of my head.

A sub 1 ton, sub 1000cc (Petrol) car for personal use would pay 100 a year 80 for business
A sub 1.5 ton, sub 1500cc (Petrol)or [Diesel] would be (£150)[£175] personal (£135)[£155] for business
So on and so forth.

These numbers aren't based on reality just to provide a quick working example.

Also the system of just having 1,3,6 or 12 months of VED regardless of owner will save many headaches.

[6cylGolf]

confused_buyer said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Remember that next time you increase your charges for your services.

There is a difference between increasing your charges and invoicing twice for the same work.

This exactly. I think this thread started on this point. Everything else suits me but unless you sell on at 23:59 on the last day of the month, on every private car sale where the car isn't sorn, there will be days, weeks, fornights, where the car will have had the VED paid twice over. No if or buts.


There is no defence to this not being a 'scam', perk, desired side effect, what ever you want to call it, for HMRC. They know what they were doing and its gone almost unquestioned. Even when it is questioned here, well....

[MGTS]

Presumably the tax refunds to the old registered keeper (seller) will be sent out by post, so the DVLA savings on the costs of the paper tax disc system will be replaced by the cost of cheques and postage sending the refunds out (although I appreciate that there will be fewer cheques than tax discs as people don't change their car every year).

[MGTS]

Although I just remembered DVLA sends out letter to old keeper advising them of the updated registered keeper, so I guess they will just bung a cheque in with this letter.

However, it would be cheaper and save DVLA money by sending this confirmation by email and the refund payment electronically.

[gretsch drummer]

Sooooo can anyone get onto the tax renew website?

My tax runs out at midnight and the DVLA Tax renew page won't load.....

Sh*t.

[motoroller]

The AA seem to agree

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29430979

[r11co]

The logical solution to this (and the straightforward, simple approach that would have demonstrated this was not designed as a revenue booster) would be to declare that when a car is sold the VED runs to the end of the current calendar month and it is the duty of the buyer to tax from the beginning of the next month (which could be done up to 15 days in advance as per the outgoing system), and have a big publicity campaign stating this so there was no ignorance of the issue.

Simple, feasible, fair, but not done for obvious, grabbing reasons.

Edited by r11co on Wednesday 1st October 09:53

[TwigtheWonderkid]

r11co said:

The logical solution to this (and the straightforward, simple approach that would have demonstrated this was not designed as a revenue booster) would be to declare that when a car is sold the VED runs to the end of the current calendar month and it is the duty of the buyer to tax from the beginning of the next month (which could be done up to 15 days in advance as per the outgoing system), and have a big publicity campaign stating this so there was no ignorance of the issue.

Simple, feasible, fair, but not done for obvious, grabbing reasons.

Edited by r11co on Wednesday 1st October 09:53

This is the first logical solution in the whole thread. I can't really get too bothered about this issue. But at least here's something that would work, as opposed to some of the other nonsense posted.