|
timbob
Original Poster
1,842 posts
122 months
|
I have a conundrum.
I've bought a new car for driving instructing, which will replace my current car. In order to use my 10 years NCB on the instructor policy, I have had to cancel policy in force on my old car (I couldn't mirror my no claims). The new car's policy comes into effect in the next few days (it's under the dealer's drive away scheme currently), and I have timed the old car's policy to cancel concurrently so I'm not duplicating NCB.
I was planning to leave my old car taxed, put it off road at home (uninsured) and organise a buyer for it, but reading the new SORN rules it looks like I need to SORN my car as soon as the insurance runs out and send my tax disc back else I'm going to be hit with a £100 fine for being the registered keeper of an uninsured and unSORNed car. Sending the tax back is going to make it a real pain to sell - as it's only worth a few hundred quid. I could use dayinsure to put some cover in place for a week (during which time I should be able to sell it), but that's going to half the vehicle's value to me.
Is it a non-issue, for example, if I put it off the road and leave it uninsured, is it going to take a week or two for the system to log it before they send me a letter telling me to insure or SORN it ASAP?
Or, at one minute past midnight on the day the insurance expires, am I going to be hit with the automatic fine?
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
This has been done to death hundreds of times on here. The relaity is that you will have a period of time whilst the wheels get in motion. The first thing you'll recieve is a letter, expect this to take up to 14 days, giving you another 14 days to rectify it. if you don't you'll get another warning before any action is taken. As long as you sell the car within a month you'll be fine. So now I'll sit back and wait for the uproar as follows: - CIE is a crap rule which has no effect
- As it affects only the law abiding it should be scrapped
- What about me? I've got a car I only use at 2.38am on the 57th of Julember and it's off road all the rest of the time.
- Blah, blah
I've never understodd why people are so upset about getting money back, rather than spending it on a useless piece of paper.
|
|
|
BertBert
7,203 posts
81 months
|
LoonR1 said: I've never understodd why people are so upset about getting money back, rather than spending it on a useless piece of paper. do what?
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
BertBert said: do what? People who want to have a car taxed when not insured and therefore pay for it, when they can't use it on the road legally. Why spend money you don't need to? Do people want to pay more tax? I know I don't which is why I claim discounts on Council Tax on empty properties between tenants.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,328 posts
20 months
|
LoonR1 said: People who want to have a car taxed when not insured and therefore pay for it, when they can't use it on the road legally.
Why spend money you don't need to? Do people want to pay more tax? I know I don't which is why I claim discounts on Council Tax on empty properties between tenants. In my case, I bought a new car and was selling my old car to my brother. But he was away for 3 weeks. So I wanted to keep my old car off the road for three weeks until my brother could pick it up. But I had no wish to cash in the tax disc. I wanted to sell the car with tax to my brother. Net result, I had to spend £26.50 for temp cover on my old car to keep it insured, against my will, and for no good reason. Very irritating.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
timbob
Original Poster
1,842 posts
122 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: In my case, I bought a new car and was selling my old car to my brother. But he was away for 3 weeks. So I wanted to keep my old car off the road for three weeks until my brother could pick it up. But I had no wish to cash in the tax disc. I wanted to sell the car with tax to my brother.
Net result, I had to spend £26.50 for temp cover on my old car to keep it insured, against my will, and for no good reason. Very irritating. That was my issue - I want to sell with tax, else it'll make collection and driving away a pain for the prospective buyer. Thanks for info folks, much appreciated 
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: In my case, I bought a new car and was selling my old car to my brother. But he was away for 3 weeks. So I wanted to keep my old car off the road for three weeks until my brother could pick it up. But I had no wish to cash in the tax disc. I wanted to sell the car with tax to my brother.
Net result, I had to spend £26.50 for temp cover on my old car to keep it insured, against my will, and for no good reason. Very irritating. You'll comfortably have three weeks grace so no need to panic. Why does everyone think it's instant death for this?
|
|
|
timbob
Original Poster
1,842 posts
122 months
|
LoonR1 said: You'll comfortably have three weeks grace so no need to panic.
Why does everyone think it's instant death for this? For me, it's a case of trying to play by the rules. I've never driven uninsured (even just a spin around a car park in a mate's new toy), or had a car run out of tax or MOT. I know I'll have a few weeks of grace in this situation, but there's a niggling feeling nagging away at me that im technically breaking the new rules by not SORNing my car. A chap is coming to see it this afternoon, so it may only end up being uninsured for a half a day, but what you said above is true - for those that habitually have uninsured cars, £100 is a paltry fine, whereas those of us who do things properly have the added ballache and expense of sorting temporary insurance for no reason in situations such as these.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
It's a £100 fine to start with. Then it's another. Then they may find the car clamped or removed and crushed.
There is not a law in this country that doesn't inconvenience some people all of the time or all of the people some of the time.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,328 posts
20 months
|
How does CIE help catch uninsured drivers.
My understanding is that most people done for no insurance are driving insured cars that they are not insured to drive. Or the car isn't insured at all nor is it taxed.
Seems to me CIE will have no effect on either scenario.
|
|
|
blugnu
1,229 posts
111 months
|
I've has similar, except I had to keep the car I was selling on the road as I don't have a drive.
My insurance company (Chris Knott) were able to add a car temporarily; I think it's a maximum of three weeks per year. It has a £15 arrangement fee, but I think then it was only £10/week or something, which pro-rata isn't great, but it's not awful either.
I presume most insurance companies can do the same. Chris Knott customer service is superb though; I dread to think how long I'd have been on hold if I'd tried to do the same with a big company. Get used to hold music :/
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: How does CIE help catch uninsured drivers.
My understanding is that most people done for no insurance are driving insured cars that they are not insured to drive. Or the car isn't insured at all nor is it taxed.
Seems to me CIE will have no effect on either scenario. Don't be so naive. There are many types of uninsured driver from the chancer to the hardcore. I'd have thought you'd know that with your insurance background. There are something like 320,000 new cars appear on Mid than were previously not there in the first 6 months of CIE. And no these weren't brand new cars either. So it's having an effect on the chances and a few other grades on the way tithe hardcore. As these are now longer tying up the police it allows them to focus on those who continue to ignore the letters and either take the cr off them or more likely catch them on the road.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,328 posts
20 months
|
LoonR1 said: I'd have thought you'd know that with your insurance background. What insurance background is that? And those 320K cars that appeared on CIE, you don't know how many of them were cars that we taxed but not being driven. They had no need to be insured before CIE, but suddenly did have to be insured. Still has no effect on cars being driven uninsured.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: What insurance background is that?
And those 320K cars that appeared on CIE, you don't know how many of them were cars that we taxed but not being driven. They had no need to be insured before CIE, but suddenly did have to be insured. Still has no effect on cars being driven uninsured.
Insurance was an assumption as you seem too level headed about it not to have one! Of people insured cars theyre not using to avoid SORN then they're even more foolish. Why pay even more when there's no need? Would these people pay full Council Tax on an empty property or tax on their ISAs?
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,328 posts
20 months
|
LoonR1 said: TwigtheWonderkid said: What insurance background is that?
And those 320K cars that appeared on CIE, you don't know how many of them were cars that we taxed but not being driven. They had no need to be insured before CIE, but suddenly did have to be insured. Still has no effect on cars being driven uninsured.
Insurance was an assumption as you seem too level headed about it not to have one! Of people insured cars theyre not using to avoid SORN then they're even more foolish. Why pay even more when there's no need? Would these people pay full Council Tax on an empty property or tax on their ISAs? I think you think there is no good reason to have a car taxed but uninsured. But there are many good reasons. For a start there's all the zero tax cars. Classics. Many of those had annual tax but were only insured for the summer or when going on road. Now they either have to be sorned or insured full time. Then there is situations like mine, where the lack of insurance is a temp thing and it's not worth the hassle of sorning and re taxing. Then there are sub 100g cars. Why sorn when your tax is free anyway. Now you have to if the car is going off road and you don't wish to insure it. The whole CIE regs is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and causes for more inconvenience to the law abiding than the criminals.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: I think you think there is no good reason to have a car taxed but uninsured. But there are many good reasons. For a start there's all the zero tax cars. Classics. Many of those had annual tax but were only insured for the summer or when going on road. Now they either have to be sorned or insured full time.
Then there is situations like mine, where the lack of insurance is a temp thing and it's not worth the hassle of sorning and re taxing.
Then there are sub 100g cars. Why sorn when your tax is free anyway. Now you have to if the car is going off road and you don't wish to insure it.
The whole CIE regs is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and causes for more inconvenience to the law abiding than the criminals. It's not but clearly you're firmly entrenched in your position. Spending and retaxing, especially on zero rated cars is neither here nor there. Do you really see uninsured driving as a "nut"? CIE is not a cure all. It is one of many tools being used to combat uninsured driving and it serves a valid purpose. I guess all the people paying an extra £20 - 30 a year on their premiums are happy paying this. If so why bother getting upset at other "levies" we pay such as for fraud? Quote me any law and I mean any law and I will find three examples where it frustrates the law abiding. I assume that will be sufficient grounds for it to be abolished using your logic.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,328 posts
20 months
|
LoonR1 said: It's not but clearly you're firmly entrenched in your position. Spending and retaxing, especially on zero rated cars is neither here nor there.
Do you really see uninsured driving as a "nut"? CIE is not a cure all. It is one of many tools being used to combat uninsured driving and it serves a valid purpose. I guess all the people paying an extra £20 - 30 a year on their premiums are happy paying this. If so why bother getting upset at other "levies" we pay such as for fraud?
Quote me any law and I mean any law and I will find three examples where it frustrates the law abiding. I assume that will be sufficient grounds for it to be abolished using your logic. Not only is CIE not a cure all, it's a cure very little. In fact it's a placebo. People think it's doing them good, but it's all in the mind. I don't see how most laws frustrate the law abiding. How does the drink/drive laws bother anyone apart from drink drivers. The law against murder frustrates murderers etc. But CIE frustrates large numbers of people who have no intention of driving uninsured. But I understand why the insurance industry must like it. They had £26.50 off me to insure a car that never got driven. I work with haulage firms. They often get demonstrators in to try, large lorries, for a couple of weeks. They used to do this as a temp substitution under their policy, at no cost. Now they have to do it as a temp addition, at substantial cost. Paying to cover 2 lorries whilst one is locked up in a warehouse unused. As stated, punishing the wrong people.
|
|
|
3Dee
2,567 posts
91 months
|
timbob said: I have a Conundrum... a new car for driving instructing, which will replace my current car.... Oh WOW! Who makes it? Have you got any pictures to share? Bet it goes well! .....ahhhh! I see now my mistake! 
|
|
|
3Dee
2,567 posts
91 months
|
Hang on! I found it on the Internet... very good at collecting pedestrians with a minimum of damage!  Sorry... Yes! It's friday!
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,768 posts
47 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Not only is CIE not a cure all, it's a cure very little. In fact it's a placebo. People think it's doing them good, but it's all in the mind. That's your opinion, because you're trying to find a way around it. I kno the results it's had on the chancers and know it's having an effect, nt a cure, but a positive effect all the same. TwigtheWonderkid said: I don't see how most laws frustrate the law abiding. How does the drink/drive laws bother anyone apart from drink drivers. The law against murder frustrates murderers etc. Drink driving (3 examples): - I'm over the limit by 0.1mg the day after and lose my licence for 12 months when I had no issue driving
- I was banned after someone else drove into me and they weren't prosecuted, but were at fault and I lost my job
- My kid's just called and is in potential danger, but I had a couple of whiskies when I got home. Do I risk a ban, or let the danger become real and not be there?
Murder(3 examples): - A paedo killed my son 12 months ago, but got off due to contaminated ecidence and is back scouting the local schools, I'm going to kill him.
- I'm a battered wife, my husband has spent the last 10 years trying to kill me and the police are taking no action. I need to kill him before he kills me.
- I'm a soldier servind in Afghanistan. 10 of my nmates have just been killed in an attack and I've just caught the perpetrator. he's not fighting back, but I want to kill him instead of letting him be set free by the namby-pamby "hearts & minds" officers here.
TwigtheWonderkid said: But CIE frustrates large numbers of people who have no intention of driving uninsured. But I understand why the insurance industry must like it. They had £26.50 off me to insure a car that never got driven. The insurance industry couldn't give a stuff either way, althoug £26.50 sure has made a huge difference to my bottom line, after all the industry only lost £600million last year so another 22,641,508 uninsured drivers to find and we're quids in.  Be srious, insurers either pay out through the policies they've sold, or they pay out as RTA insurers, or they pay out from the levy the MIB applies for uninsured drivers TwigtheWonderkid said: I work with haulage firms. They often get demonstrators in to try, large lorries, for a couple of weeks. They used to do this as a temp substitution under their policy, at no cost. Now they have to do it as a temp addition, at substantial cost. Paying to cover 2 lorries whilst one is locked up in a warehouse unused.
As stated, punishing the wrong people. Hardly and if adding a truck is at "substantial" cost to a commercial policy, then they need to find a new broker. Cover like that costs next to nothing.
|
|
