More authoritarian idiocy - illegal to own uninsured car now
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8247837/C...
So the classic you are restoring, that is in bits has to be insured or it will be crushed?
They can f
k right off.
Trace
Telegraph Online said:
Under the new offence of keeping a vehicle while uninsured, the onus will be on drivers to prove that they have insurance, or have completed a statutory off-road notification.
Ah, missed this bit in my Daily Soovy inspired ire! 
However if you are not using a car on the road, why are you criminalised if you have not told the gummint. This is still worth a proper review as it is stupid.
If you are driving a car uninsured though, the powers that be should be able to check your insurance history: i.e. a forgetful moment in an otherwise clean history should not lead to crucifixion but if you have consistently taken the piss, licences should be removed.
Trace
Ace-T said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8247837/C...
So the classic you are restoring, that is in bits has to be insured or it will be crushed?
They can f
k right off.Trace
Wouldn't you have some sort of insurance on your classic anyway? What if there is a fire, or its stolen, or some scrotes break in and destroy it (as happened to someone on here)?
I'm in two minds about this. Given how much extra people pay in insurance premiums as a result of uninsured drivers I can see some merit in it. On the other hand, I dislike the implication of intent to drive unlawfully purely by not having a vehicle insured.
I do wonder why the default is to confiscate and crush cars though - it seems very wasteful.
I do wonder why the default is to confiscate and crush cars though - it seems very wasteful.
powerstroke said:
Sounds like more sledge hammer to crack a nut ledgsation more of the stupid knee jerk response you would expect from the average pen pushing turd...
you'd have more credibility if you could spell legislation, but do carry on.Edited by powerstroke on Saturday 8th January 22:42
My view is that we should be treated like adults unless we show we cannot act like adults.
We need less "failure to complete paperwork" laws and more actual punishments for breaking real laws like driving with no insurance.
Also this will not catch the sort of felon who is not on the DVLA grid, the sort who has a beater he paid cash for and has no documents, only an intervention from the Police will stop him, that is where the big punishment comes in.
Stop thinking of ways to make me piss out straighter you bunch ofs I already do my best to be good.
We need less "failure to complete paperwork" laws and more actual punishments for breaking real laws like driving with no insurance.
Also this will not catch the sort of felon who is not on the DVLA grid, the sort who has a beater he paid cash for and has no documents, only an intervention from the Police will stop him, that is where the big punishment comes in.
Stop thinking of ways to make me piss out straighter you bunch of
s I already do my best to be good.jbi said:
Does this include cars on private land?
If so... they can sod right off
Read the article and you'll see this: If so... they can sod right off
"Under the new offence of keeping a vehicle while uninsured, the onus will be on drivers to prove that they have insurance, or have completed a statutory off-road notification."
Edited by Pothole on Saturday 8th January 22:54
The problem with this new ruling is thus;
You have a car.
You wish to sell the car and buy a new one.
The car currently has tax.
You cannot simply buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
You could cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it, keep it off road, and buy your new car, transferring the Insurance across, but then you devalue the sale price on the old car?
You could sell the old car, and have a 'car-free' period, whilst looking for the new one, but you'll need to cancel your current Insurance policy early, potentially losing a year's worth of No-Claims, and then start a new policy when youi find your new car.
Sounds like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
You have a car.
You wish to sell the car and buy a new one.
The car currently has tax.
You cannot simply buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
You could cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it, keep it off road, and buy your new car, transferring the Insurance across, but then you devalue the sale price on the old car?
You could sell the old car, and have a 'car-free' period, whilst looking for the new one, but you'll need to cancel your current Insurance policy early, potentially losing a year's worth of No-Claims, and then start a new policy when youi find your new car.
Sounds like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Edited by shakotan on Saturday 8th January 23:06
shakotan said:
The problem with this new ruling is thus;
You have a car. You wish to sell the car and buy a new one. The car currently has tax. You cannot buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
So you either have to a) have a 'car-less' period between selling your old car and buying the new one, or b) cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it and then transfer the Insurance to your new car whilst waiting to sell the old one, thus devaluing the car for sale.
Both sound like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Insure the new car on a different policy, then cancel after the old one is sold and transfer the policy over.You have a car. You wish to sell the car and buy a new one. The car currently has tax. You cannot buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
So you either have to a) have a 'car-less' period between selling your old car and buying the new one, or b) cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it and then transfer the Insurance to your new car whilst waiting to sell the old one, thus devaluing the car for sale.
Both sound like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
EDLT said:
shakotan said:
The problem with this new ruling is thus;
You have a car.
You wish to sell the car and buy a new one.
The car currently has tax.
You cannot simply buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
You could cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it, keep it off road, and buy your new car, transferring the Insurance across, but then you devalue the sale price on the old car?
You could sell the old car, and have a 'car-free' period, whilst looking for the new one, but you'll need to cancel your current Insurance policy early, potentially losing a year's worth of No-Claims, and then start a new policy when youi find your new car.
Sounds like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Insure the new car on a different policy, then cancel after the old one is sold and transfer the policy over.You have a car.
You wish to sell the car and buy a new one.
The car currently has tax.
You cannot simply buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
You could cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it, keep it off road, and buy your new car, transferring the Insurance across, but then you devalue the sale price on the old car?
You could sell the old car, and have a 'car-free' period, whilst looking for the new one, but you'll need to cancel your current Insurance policy early, potentially losing a year's worth of No-Claims, and then start a new policy when youi find your new car.
Sounds like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Not to mention that this temporary new policy will be at full price, because you cannot declare any No Claims bonus which is already being applied to the existing policy...
Edited by shakotan on Saturday 8th January 23:12
shakotan said:
EDLT said:
shakotan said:
The problem with this new ruling is thus;
You have a car. You wish to sell the car and buy a new one. The car currently has tax. You cannot buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
So you either have to a) have a 'car-less' period between selling your old car and buying the new one, or b) cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it and then transfer the Insurance to your new car whilst waiting to sell the old one, thus devaluing the car for sale.
Both sound like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Insure the new car on a different policy, then cancel after the old one is sold and transfer the policy over.You have a car. You wish to sell the car and buy a new one. The car currently has tax. You cannot buy a new car until you've sold your old one, as you cannot transfer the Insurance policy to the new car, and leave the old one uninsured, albeit off the road.
So you either have to a) have a 'car-less' period between selling your old car and buying the new one, or b) cash in the tax on the old car, SORN it and then transfer the Insurance to your new car whilst waiting to sell the old one, thus devaluing the car for sale.
Both sound like a royal pain in the arse to me, for no beneficial reason to anyone.
Not to mention that this temporary new policy will be at full price, because you cannot declare any No Claims bonus which is already being applied to the existing policy...
Edited by shakotan on Saturday 8th January 23:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff