How to unSORN ?
Discussion
saaby93 said:
(
Where does it say that you cant?
Apart from someone above showing that you can, wouldnt you have to SORN it while taxed in order to apply for a tax cancellation if you needed one?
Or do you think you're supposed to cancel the tax before SORN?
The legislation gives 4 valid reasons that require SORN. The main point is SORN itself drives nothing, SORN is a requirement driven by other actions:Where does it say that you cant?
Apart from someone above showing that you can, wouldnt you have to SORN it while taxed in order to apply for a tax cancellation if you needed one?
Or do you think you're supposed to cancel the tax before SORN?
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 22 June 15:57
1. Surrendering the tax disc on a licensed vehicle
2. Expiry of a tax disc on a licensed vehicle
3. Reaching the end of a 12 month SORN period on an unlicensed vehicle
4. Change of keeper of an unlicensed vehicle
None of them suggest that you can choose to SORN without one of the above triggers.
mattmurdock said:
The legislation gives 4 valid reasons that require SORN. The main point is SORN itself drives nothing, SORN is a requirement driven by other actions:
1. Surrendering the tax disc on a licensed vehicle
2. Expiry of a tax disc on a licensed vehicle
3. Reaching the end of a 12 month SORN period on an unlicensed vehicle
4. Change of keeper of an unlicensed vehicle
None of them suggest that you can choose to SORN without one of the above triggers.
Those 4 tax reasons when you must have a SORN1. Surrendering the tax disc on a licensed vehicle
2. Expiry of a tax disc on a licensed vehicle
3. Reaching the end of a 12 month SORN period on an unlicensed vehicle
4. Change of keeper of an unlicensed vehicle
None of them suggest that you can choose to SORN without one of the above triggers.
Unless you can find otherwise it doesn't say you can't declare SORN due to, say, your insurance having expired?
saaby93 said:
mattmurdock said:
The legislation gives 4 valid reasons that require SORN. The main point is SORN itself drives nothing, SORN is a requirement driven by other actions:
1. Surrendering the tax disc on a licensed vehicle
2. Expiry of a tax disc on a licensed vehicle
3. Reaching the end of a 12 month SORN period on an unlicensed vehicle
4. Change of keeper of an unlicensed vehicle
None of them suggest that you can choose to SORN without one of the above triggers.
Those 4 tax reasons when you must have a SORN1. Surrendering the tax disc on a licensed vehicle
2. Expiry of a tax disc on a licensed vehicle
3. Reaching the end of a 12 month SORN period on an unlicensed vehicle
4. Change of keeper of an unlicensed vehicle
None of them suggest that you can choose to SORN without one of the above triggers.
Unless you can find otherwise it doesn't say you can't declare SORN due to, say, your insurance having expired?
It doesn't say (to the best of my knowledge) that you have to surrender any remaining VED
The SORN process was very clear and logical pre-CI - as I've stated elsewhere I'm not aware of any reason why you would SORN with a current valid VED without requesting a refund (unless in last month of the VED when you wouldn't get a refund anyway)
I'm willing to put a bet on that's why the system hasn't been challanged in this way to date......
Introduction of CI to SORN process - well that was a well thought out decision as one would expect from DVLA and as a result we have some challenges to the system....
Edited by B'stard Child on Wednesday 22 June 16:37
B'stard Child said:
Introduction of CI to SORN process - well that was a well thought out decision as one would expect from DVLA and as a result we have some challenges to the system....
From previous threads it wasnt DVLA - they're still playing catchup. Wasnt it insurance industry led by a Greenaway report that appeared to say that all 1.4 million uninsured vehicles were being used on the road?saaby93 said:
B'stard Child said:
Introduction of CI to SORN process - well that was a well thought out decision as one would expect from DVLA and as a result we have some challenges to the system....
From previous threads it wasnt DVLA - they're still playing catchup. Wasnt it insurance industry led by a Greenaway report that appeared to say that all 1.4 million uninsured vehicles were being used on the road?DVLA may well have said said:
ooh cool - you can use our SORN process - we'll manage the penalties - since those pesky motoring forums have got so clued up on the whole SORN penalty thing we are seeing huge reductions in revenue - we could do with another penalty revenue stream to offset the admin/running costs of the whole SORN system
I may or may not have got all that completely wrong - but I doubt itI was so tempted to substitute motoring forums with "Liquid Knight"
Edited by B'stard Child on Wednesday 22 June 16:54
B'stard Child said:
Oh yes - I was aware of that but DVLA must have said
"ooh cool - you can use our SORN process - we'll manage the penalties - since those pesky motoring forums have got so clued up on the whole SORN penalty thing we are seeing huge reductions in revenue - we could do with another penalty revenue stream to offset the admin/running costs of the whole SORN system"
I may or may not have got all that completely wrong - but I doubt it
Again it doesnt look that way"ooh cool - you can use our SORN process - we'll manage the penalties - since those pesky motoring forums have got so clued up on the whole SORN penalty thing we are seeing huge reductions in revenue - we could do with another penalty revenue stream to offset the admin/running costs of the whole SORN system"
I may or may not have got all that completely wrong - but I doubt it
Whoever wrote the rules said that rather than send out a FPN as soon as you detect an uninsured vehicle without SORN, first write to them and ask them to either SORN or insure
Yeah the consensus seems to be that you get a warning first. Almost tempted to push my luck to see how soon I get one purely for research purposes. Though I guess if I got whacked with a £100 fine straight off the bat it would backfire on me!
It's pretty frustrating that in trying to sell a car I'm actually trying my damndest to be as legitimate/honest as possible, yet someone wilfully driving without insurance & fraudulently SORN'd would at the very least not be receiving an automated warning/fine and is in the lap of the Gods in terms of how soon (or at all) they get caught.
It's pretty frustrating that in trying to sell a car I'm actually trying my damndest to be as legitimate/honest as possible, yet someone wilfully driving without insurance & fraudulently SORN'd would at the very least not be receiving an automated warning/fine and is in the lap of the Gods in terms of how soon (or at all) they get caught.
B'stard Child said:
Exactly - CI means you must either re-insure or SORN your vehicle if the insurance lapses
It doesn't say (to the best of my knowledge) that you have to surrender any remaining VED
The SORN process was very clear and logical pre-CI - as I've stated elsewhere I'm not aware of any reason why you would SORN with a current valid VED without requesting a refund (unless in last month of the VED when you wouldn't get a refund anyway)
I'm willing to put a bet on that's why the system hasn't been challanged in this way to date......
Introduction of CI to SORN process - well that was a well thought out decision as one would expect from DVLA and as a result we have some challenges to the system....
The relevant legislation for CIE was introduced in the following SI:It doesn't say (to the best of my knowledge) that you have to surrender any remaining VED
The SORN process was very clear and logical pre-CI - as I've stated elsewhere I'm not aware of any reason why you would SORN with a current valid VED without requesting a refund (unless in last month of the VED when you wouldn't get a refund anyway)
I'm willing to put a bet on that's why the system hasn't been challanged in this way to date......
Introduction of CI to SORN process - well that was a well thought out decision as one would expect from DVLA and as a result we have some challenges to the system....
Edited by B'stard Child on Wednesday 22 June 16:37
Motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
They in turn amend/enforce section 144A-D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with section 144B indicating the exceptions to the law.
Those exceptions in turn refer (eventually) to the legislation Saaby and yourself have linked, in particular Schedule 4, section 5(c) which states:
A person to whom this paragraph applies shall, unless a vehicle licence or a nil licence has been taken out so as to run from the end of the unlicensed period, deliver the required declaration and the required particulars to the Secretary of State in relation to the relevant GB vehicle not later than the day following the end of that period.
Now I agree, that this has not been worded particularly well, as to qualify for an exception to section 144A in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. fixed penalty for no insurance), based on not using the vehicle on a public road under sub section 5(c) of section 144B, you have to comply with any legislation on declarations (as per sub-section 7(a)) which then links through to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Insurance) Regulations 2011.
They in turn link through to the paragraph above in the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, which says that you only have to make a declaration if you do not have tax. So you could argue that having tax negates the need to make a declaration under the new CI rules. However, there are plenty of other subsections stating that the exemptions only apply if a court agrees they apply, so this would only be tested if someone refused to pay and went to court to challenge it.
saaby93 said:
B'stard Child said:
Oh yes - I was aware of that but DVLA must have said
"ooh cool - you can use our SORN process - we'll manage the penalties - since those pesky motoring forums have got so clued up on the whole SORN penalty thing we are seeing huge reductions in revenue - we could do with another penalty revenue stream to offset the admin/running costs of the whole SORN system"
I may or may not have got all that completely wrong - but I doubt it
Again it doesnt look that way"ooh cool - you can use our SORN process - we'll manage the penalties - since those pesky motoring forums have got so clued up on the whole SORN penalty thing we are seeing huge reductions in revenue - we could do with another penalty revenue stream to offset the admin/running costs of the whole SORN system"
I may or may not have got all that completely wrong - but I doubt it
Whoever wrote the rules said that rather than send out a FPN as soon as you detect an uninsured vehicle without SORN, first write to them and ask them to either SORN or insure
mattmurdock said:
The relevant legislation for CIE was introduced in the following SI:
Motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
They in turn amend/enforce section 144A-D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with section 144B indicating the exceptions to the law.
Those exceptions in turn refer (eventually) to the legislation Saaby and yourself have linked, in particular Schedule 4, section 5(c) which states:
That's also the part which tells you how to declare SORN?Motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
They in turn amend/enforce section 144A-D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with section 144B indicating the exceptions to the law.
Those exceptions in turn refer (eventually) to the legislation Saaby and yourself have linked, in particular Schedule 4, section 5(c) which states:
In otherwords the CIE says you must declare SORN if your insurance runs out
the tax stuff says you must declare SORN if your tax runs out
but neither says you must cancel your insurance or tax upon declaring SORN
mattmurdock said:
The relevant legislation for CIE was introduced in the following SI:
Motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
They in turn amend/enforce section 144A-D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with section 144B indicating the exceptions to the law.
Those exceptions in turn refer (eventually) to the legislation Saaby and yourself have linked, in particular Schedule 4, section 5(c) which states:
A person to whom this paragraph applies shall, unless a vehicle licence or a nil licence has been taken out so as to run from the end of the unlicensed period, deliver the required declaration and the required particulars to the Secretary of State in relation to the relevant GB vehicle not later than the day following the end of that period.
Now I agree, that this has not been worded particularly well, as to qualify for an exception to section 144A in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. fixed penalty for no insurance), based on not using the vehicle on a public road under sub section 5(c) of section 144B, you have to comply with any legislation on declarations (as per sub-section 7(a)) which then links through to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Insurance) Regulations 2011.
They in turn link through to the paragraph above in the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, which says that you only have to make a declaration if you do not have tax. So you could argue that having tax negates the need to make a declaration under the new CI rules. However, there are plenty of other subsections stating that the exemptions only apply if a court agrees they apply, so this would only be tested if someone refused to pay and went to court to challenge it.
Just to deal with the last bit (the earlier link - thank you will be some bed time reading for me) I wouldn't fancy arguing that....Motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
They in turn amend/enforce section 144A-D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with section 144B indicating the exceptions to the law.
Those exceptions in turn refer (eventually) to the legislation Saaby and yourself have linked, in particular Schedule 4, section 5(c) which states:
A person to whom this paragraph applies shall, unless a vehicle licence or a nil licence has been taken out so as to run from the end of the unlicensed period, deliver the required declaration and the required particulars to the Secretary of State in relation to the relevant GB vehicle not later than the day following the end of that period.
Now I agree, that this has not been worded particularly well, as to qualify for an exception to section 144A in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. fixed penalty for no insurance), based on not using the vehicle on a public road under sub section 5(c) of section 144B, you have to comply with any legislation on declarations (as per sub-section 7(a)) which then links through to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Insurance) Regulations 2011.
They in turn link through to the paragraph above in the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, which says that you only have to make a declaration if you do not have tax. So you could argue that having tax negates the need to make a declaration under the new CI rules. However, there are plenty of other subsections stating that the exemptions only apply if a court agrees they apply, so this would only be tested if someone refused to pay and went to court to challenge it.
To me it's simple
Expired VED or insurance or both - SORN - no arguements
However expired insurance doesn't mean I have to surrender VED
B'stard Child said:
Just to deal with the last bit (the earlier link - thank you will be some bed time reading for me) I wouldn't fancy arguing that....
To me it's simple
Expired VED or insurance or both - SORN - no arguements
However expired insurance doesn't mean I have to surrender VED
Agreed - the legislation says you have to make the same declaration, but it is triggered by a different reason. The point I was making is the piece outlining the declaration states you only have to make it if you do not have tax, with the implication being that you would only be SORNing if you do not have, or do not want, tax. This is the issue with trying to use one thing to do two purposes, and to my mind is lazy lawmaking. All they needed to do was include a subsection defining a separate Insurance SORN and it would be completely clear. Instead, they make the assumption that both are linked, and that therefore no-one would want to keep a vehicle off road that was still taxed. That appears to be the interpretation the DVLA have taken.To me it's simple
Expired VED or insurance or both - SORN - no arguements
However expired insurance doesn't mean I have to surrender VED
Of course, you could avoid all of this if you have a spare £500,000 - simply deposit it with the government, and you don't have to have any motor insurance at all
mattmurdock said:
B'stard Child said:
Just to deal with the last bit (the earlier link - thank you will be some bed time reading for me) I wouldn't fancy arguing that....
To me it's simple
Expired VED or insurance or both - SORN - no arguements
However expired insurance doesn't mean I have to surrender VED
Agreed - the legislation says you have to make the same declaration, but it is triggered by a different reason. The point I was making is the piece outlining the declaration states you only have to make it if you do not have tax, with the implication being that you would only be SORNing if you do not have, or do not want, tax. This is the issue with trying to use one thing to do two purposes, and to my mind is lazy lawmaking. All they needed to do was include a subsection defining a separate Insurance SORN and it would be completely clear. Instead, they make the assumption that both are linked, and that therefore no-one would want to keep a vehicle off road that was still taxed. That appears to be the interpretation the DVLA have taken.To me it's simple
Expired VED or insurance or both - SORN - no arguements
However expired insurance doesn't mean I have to surrender VED
mattmurdock said:
Of course, you could avoid all of this if you have a spare £500,000 - simply deposit it with the government, and you don't have to have any motor insurance at all
I thought it was way more than £500,000 to self insure???But I guess that's a whole different subject
Being the suspicious minded cynic that I am, what happens when you buy a used car which has a tax disc but is SORNed by the owner/dealer. How would you know? You would insure your car, have a tax disc which appears to be valid yet as far as teh records go it is SORN. First you would know about it would be a tug. "Excuse me, Sir. Are you aware that this car is declared as being off road?" Of course, ignorance is no defence.
saaby93 said:
We could do with some BiB input to say whether a vehicle with SORN marker would be pulled even though it's legal with tax and insurance.
I'd appreciate that too - I'm sure one will comment sooner or laterOr I could start a new thread
saaby93 said:
It's a pity there's no way of cancelling a SORN if you keep your tax going.
If I was in that boat and I don't plan to be.....Dear DVLA
Vehicle Ref XYZ 123Y VW Polo
As a result of insurance covering the above expiring on date XX/XX/XXXX and in order to be compliant with the rules on continuous Insurance on date XX/XX/XXXX I completed an online SORN application.
I now have re-insured Vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX and I am now notifying you that my SORN declaration period has come to an end
Love
Me
Edited by B'stard Child on Wednesday 22 June 17:51
Goodwin said:
Being the suspicious minded cynic that I am, what happens when you buy a used car which has a tax disc but is SORNed by the owner/dealer. How would you know? You would insure your car, have a tax disc which appears to be valid yet as far as teh records go it is SORN. First you would know about it would be a tug. "Excuse me, Sir. Are you aware that this car is declared as being off road?" Of course, ignorance is no defence.
OK
Firstly - Dealers are exempt from SORN and have no need to use it.
Second - You've bought the car - the act of purchase cancels any SORN Declaration
Just waiting for a BiB view on stopping a car as a result of ANPR check with Valid MOT, Insurance, and a VED in the window that covers the current time period.
B'stard Child said:
Firstly - Dealers are exempt from SORN and have no need to use it.
Second - You've bought the car - the act of purchase cancels any SORN Declaration
Point 1. If you buy private the previous owner may have SORN'ed the car due to no insurance as discussed above.Second - You've bought the car - the act of purchase cancels any SORN Declaration
Point 2. Doesn't this make a complete farce of the whole point of SORN. If some dodgy scrote buys a car the seller says it sold and the SORN is cancelled so scrote goes around without SORN marker, insurance or tax. Just because you buy the car doesn't mean its drivable. (sorry don't mean to shoot the messenger)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff