Ed Sheeran Aston

[Mar5hall]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

[Mikebentley]

Mar5hall said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

I don’t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

[Muzzer79]

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

[thebraketester]

Probably cheaper to take the hit than insure it.

[Dohnut]

thebraketester said:

Probably cheaper to take the hit than insure it.

I’m not sure he needs to worry about that.

[Mikebentley]

Muzzer79 said:

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

I thought so but again surely you can’t be convicted on an “assumption “. If the vehicle is not on the public highway for whatever reason it doesn’t require insurance as that’s optional for the owner. If his car was trailered to the garage why would he SORN it? They potentially might need to test drive it and would as he stated be expected to have insurance of their own.

[thebraketester]

Dohnut said:

thebraketester said:

Probably cheaper to take the hit than insure it.

I m not sure he needs to worry about that.

Of course. The whole thing is a non story.

[Lotobear]

From the Durham location that will be the Aston workshop. They should be ashamed of themselves vandalising such a car, I’m really surprised they would take on that sort of work

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mikebentley said:

Muzzer79 said:

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

I thought so but again surely you can t be convicted on an assumption . If the vehicle is not on the public highway for whatever reason it doesn t require insurance as that s optional for the owner. If his car was trailered to the garage why would he SORN it? They potentially might need to test drive it and would as he stated be expected to have insurance of their own.

The offence isn't driving without insurance, which is serious and comes with a fine and points. It's having a car that is taxed but uninsured, which is an offence on its own. Not that serious and no points, just a fine.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mar5hall said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

Like people who buy flags, korans and bibles to set fire to them, people are free to ruin their own property.

[Fady]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mar5hall said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

Like people who buy flags, korans and bibles to set fire to them, people are free to ruin their own property.

There are obviously greater connotations there outside of ownership!!!

[Debaser]

Mar5hall said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

Why does anyone care what he’s done to it? It’s just a machine.

[LightweightLouisDanvers]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mikebentley said:

Muzzer79 said:

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

I thought so but again surely you can t be convicted on an assumption . If the vehicle is not on the public highway for whatever reason it doesn t require insurance as that s optional for the owner. If his car was trailered to the garage why would he SORN it? They potentially might need to test drive it and would as he stated be expected to have insurance of their own.

The offence isn't driving without insurance, which is serious and comes with a fine and points. It's having a car that is taxed but uninsured, which is an offence on its own. Not that serious and no points, just a fine.

Is it not the case that it is NOT taxed but not declared SORN? I fell foul of this with a motorbike a good few years ago. £80 fine but I dont recall the BBC running a story about me?

[dandarez]

LightweightLouisDanvers said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mikebentley said:

Muzzer79 said:

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

I thought so but again surely you can t be convicted on an assumption . If the vehicle is not on the public highway for whatever reason it doesn t require insurance as that s optional for the owner. If his car was trailered to the garage why would he SORN it? They potentially might need to test drive it and would as he stated be expected to have insurance of their own.

The offence isn't driving without insurance, which is serious and comes with a fine and points. It's having a car that is taxed but uninsured, which is an offence on its own. Not that serious and no points, just a fine.

Is it not the case that it is NOT taxed but not declared SORN? I fell foul of this with a motorbike a good few years ago. £80 fine but I dont recall the BBC running a story about me?

I am no fan of Sheeran, but for one I'm glad he's gone to the press because at least we know this part.

Sheeran was prosecuted by the DVLA in a BEHIND CLOSED DOORS HEARING.

Stinks!

[Halmyre]

Mar5hall said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw9v0rlj5go

Sacrilege! Converting such a classic to an electric appliance is pure vandalism..

The prosecution asked for several other offences to be taken into consideration but apparently crimes against music weren't germane to the case.

[TheJimi]

Lotobear said:

They should be ashamed of themselves vandalising such a car, I m really surprised they would take on that sort of work

Dear god.

[Dave.]

Halmyre said:

The prosecution asked for several other offences to be taken into consideration but apparently crimes against music weren't germane to the case.

The goddamn Germans got nothing to do with it!

[DonkeyApple]

Lotobear said:

From the Durham location that will be the Aston workshop. They should be ashamed of themselves vandalising such a car, I m really surprised they would take on that sort of work

Customer: can you electrify this old car?

Aston workshop: yes

Customer: ok

It doesn't seem like a commercial transaction of much surprise.

[Gad-Westy]

LightweightLouisDanvers said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mikebentley said:

Muzzer79 said:

Mikebentley said:

I don t quite understand why he needed insurance. Was the car on the public highway?

He didn't need insurance.

What he need to do was SORN it, which he didn't.

If you don't SORN it, it's assumed the car is on the road, therefore you need insurance.

I thought so but again surely you can t be convicted on an assumption . If the vehicle is not on the public highway for whatever reason it doesn t require insurance as that s optional for the owner. If his car was trailered to the garage why would he SORN it? They potentially might need to test drive it and would as he stated be expected to have insurance of their own.

The offence isn't driving without insurance, which is serious and comes with a fine and points. It's having a car that is taxed but uninsured, which is an offence on its own. Not that serious and no points, just a fine.

Is it not the case that it is NOT taxed but not declared SORN? I fell foul of this with a motorbike a good few years ago. £80 fine but I dont recall the BBC running a story about me?

And presumably tax would be £0 on a car this age anyway. All seems a bit weird to me. Firstly that the offence seems a little contrived but secondly that the DVLA would pursue it.

[kambites]

I suspect this happens all the time with tax-exempt classics. People generally think of the SORN process as a way to avoid paying tax rather than a legal requirement to avoid the need to pay for third-party insurance.