new insurance law

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by rayf3262

"Latest public estimates are that around 1.5 million of all UK motorists drive uninsured. These drivers cost the UK about £500 million annually, which adds up to an average cost of an extra £30 per car insurance policy."

So, on the bright side, this time next year I will be able to treat myself to 30 quid's worth of diesel, or maybe a curry....?

no what costs extra is all those premium car drivers who are now being served by ambulance chasing car hire companies that rent them an expensive replacement ride then claim it back from the insurance.

I've seen wan*ers on BMW sites bragging about how they had four/five grands worth of car hire while their motor was being fixed.....sort that ya ba5tard5!!

and anyway, since the vast majority of insurance claims these days are 'knock for knock' how is anyone that much out of pocket FFS?

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

but its the same old argument that Dave has already lost ()

No idea what youre on about

I do actually think this one is a bit silly because the data is already readily available for which cars on the road are individually insured and which ones are not. If theyre going to use that same database to try and enforce the sorn/vel bussiness theyll come badly unstuck because of the nuances of insurance policies as already pointed out.

However the VEL/SORN system is a different beastie because it directly indicates which cars are allowed on the road and which ones are not.

No vel pinging up means almost certainly an offence no insurance shown means worth having a chat with the driver. The effort DVLA will have to put into this one is , i would suggest disproportionate to the benefits.

Far more precise, very useful , highly practical and dead easy to comply with serving every law abiding car owner..............when you want to understand it

We've been pulled on a job using a hire vectra by another areas anpr team for no insurance because thats what it shows as by default


This sites turning into a softie red ken whingers parlour

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by daved

no idea what youre on about

bullshit

no vel pinging up means almost certainly an offence no insurance shown means worth having a chat with the driver. Explain the difference? Not clear why one is different to the other or are you saying the MID Is not as accurate as the dvla VED database?


This sites turning into a softie red ken whingers parlour who else is gonna sort this goddam mess out???

see above

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by lacroupade

see above

No i genuinely have no idea what youre on about "losing"

I worded the phrase you have highlighted VERY carefully

The fact its been highlighted demonstrates that the various systems , the data thats recorded and how its used/prioritised are not properly understood Not a criticism, an observation.

What is the "MID" ? Do you mean "NID" ? as in the ins database?

Barring ins bureau and dvla cock ups...................

A car can regularly show as no insurance held when it is covered elsewhere hence far from assured of an offence when stopping the vehicle, decent quetioning is needed..

Sorn'd or shown as untaxed shows a problem if it drives past you, more accurate not by error but by nature.

Therefore on the basis of productivity 2 pings, identical looking motors, go for the sorn/tax first, you can only pull one car at a time.

All the data collated by DVLA, the NIM and other agencies provides the basis for the anpr databases amongst other things. They provide some FANTASTIC results. The cheesey phrase is denying criminals the use of the road, however its right i worked on these with 2 different heads on. First was traffic intelligence unit and later a general crime intelligence unit. I couldn't believe how easily it helped us catch some pretty heavy duty offenders. I used to maintain several of the databases various levels of crime. Dont forget murderers forget to tax their cars too or use them on a sorn

Im sure the dvla measures linking vel & ins are well intentioned from that point of view of productivity I reckon its borlocks and not necessary in any context.

However I still maintain if your car is taxed, mot'd (no ones had a rant about that yet ) and insured youve got nothing at all to worry about.

All this big brothers watching crap comes from a generation who object to being told to wait at the pelican crossing (yes those caused problems when they first came in I'm told) the next generation of motorists (who have nothing to hide) will just see sorn declarations as part of the process because they wont know any different.

On one final note, covert anpr cameras are now permanently all over the place. All of you will have driven past them hundreds of times. How many of you have been hassled because of them checking your vrm almost instantaneously against dozens of databases)? few if any I'll wager and probably fewer than the number of offences they help to detect each week

[clivvy]

this doesnt seem that big a deal to me. if you are not taxed, then sorn it. if you have no insurance, but tax left on the car, claim your tax back, and sorn it. thats what ive always done.

[kbekl]

Originally Posted by clivvy

this doesnt seem that big a deal to me. if you are not taxed, then sorn it. if you have no insurance, but tax left on the car, claim your tax back, and sorn it. thats what ive always done.

the problem is this if for instance you have just come to the end of you year policy wise and want to take the car off the road to fix it and dont have the spare cash to fork out insurance yet you have just gone past the first of the month you cant just fix the car with the 7 mths tax on it and if you dont have a drive or a garage then you are screwed

[R1cho]

Originally Posted by kbekl

if you dont have a drive or a garage then you are screwed

very good point

[Deleted account DD]

Originally Posted by kbekl

if you dont have a drive or a garage then you are screwed

I presume you mean the car will be parked on the public road ?

If thats the case it should be taxed mot'd and insured anyway

[kbekl]

Originally Posted by daved

I presume you mean the car will be parked on the public road ?

If thats the case it should be taxed mot'd and insured anyway

nope just has to be taxed and mot'd otherwise we wouldn't have dealers policies

[Deleted account DD]

ahh I see , as you will have gathered reading the posts I think its a silly idea anyway

[lacroupade]

Originally Posted by clivvy

this doesnt seem that big a deal to me. if you are not taxed, then sorn it. if you have no insurance, but tax left on the car, claim your tax back, and sorn it. thats what ive always done.

but when you've got several cars, spend a fair bit of time out of the country and have three businesses to run to keep HMRC in business, there are more important things to worry about. I I had one car then no, I probably wouldn't mis things so easily.

Originally Posted by daved

No i genuinely have no idea what youre on about "losing"
I worded the phrase you have highlighted VERY carefully

WHAT I WAS JOKINGLY TRYING TO SAY WAS YOUR ARGUMENTS DID NOT CONVINCE ME - SORRY LOL

I couldn't believe how easily it helped us catch some pretty heavy duty offenders. I CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT, WHAT I DON'T SEE IS HOW THESE NEW PROCESSES HELP?

All this big brothers watching crap comes from a generation who object to being told to wait at the pelican crossing (yes those caused problems when they first came in I'm told) the next generation of motorists (who have nothing to hide) will just see sorn declarations as part of the process because they wont know any different. THAT IS SCARY AND LAME AND JUSTIFIES JUST ABOUT ANY ACTION 'THE SYSTEM' CARES TO TAKE AGAINST JOE PUBLIC.....ITS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. AND YES, I OBJECT TO BEING TOLD TO WAIT AT A PELICAN CROSSING, I'M NOT A F**KING IDIOT.....AND I'LL COMPLAIN WHEN THEY TRY AND INJECT THE CHIP....BUT THEN THE NEXT GENERATION WON'T KNOW ANY DIFFERENT WILL IT...!!

read it and weep

[kbekl]

Originally Posted by daved

ahh I see , as you will have gathered reading the posts I think its a silly idea anyway

i could well be wrong but thats how i saw it

[briggie]

correct me if im wrong ( i probably am ) but even if your car is in a garage it still needs to be decalared as sorn if tax has run out ..... or am i wrong ( again )

[briggie]

Originally Posted by briggie

correct me if im wrong ( i probably am ) but even if your car is in a garage it still needs to be decalared as sorn if tax has run out ..... or am i wrong ( again )

so , going by the above ..... if either your tax or insurance ( or both ) have run out and your car is in a garage .... it still needs to be declared sorn ? ...... fuffing stoopid

[kbekl]

Originally Posted by briggie

correct me if im wrong ( i probably am ) but even if your car is in a garage it still needs to be decalared as sorn if tax has run out ..... or am i wrong ( again )

yes but it is off the road if you dont have either like your house mate

ie say your gearbox was to go again and you had reached the end of your insurance policy (i will assume you pay your own insurance) and the money for your gearbox was the only spare cash you had at the time you would have to take your car off the road and send the tax back unless you insured it and left the car without a gearbox for a little longer so you would be paying insurance to look at it