From 1st.January 20011,if there is no record on the MID (Motor Insurance Database) showing a vehicle is insured,which has not been declared as off road by a Sorn,the registered keeper will recieve a warning letter advising of a fine,prosecution,or clamping.

All vehicles that are not registered by SORN -even if they are not being used are included.

Vehicles that are Sorn registered remain unaffected,and there remains no requirements to insure the vehicle.

More details;

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl

Have they actually given a start date? The proposal was in the 2006 Road Safety Act but the implementation date kept getting put back.

I was under the impression it was from 1st.January 2011.

Maybe they will tell on the MID website.

I got wind of it with a notice included in my renewal forms this week.

Presumably its being sent out now with all of these.

Vehicles without a SORN have seen enforcement action taken for being unlicenced-so I think they will be using that database-but maybe they will all be configured together to give them recourse for enforcement action more speedily.

They already have most angles covered.

Maybe this is being introduced for those whose vehicles DO have Tax and MOT but have not been declared Sorned.

Its a pain for those who may have temporarily taken their car off the road for example because needs work or parts and cancelled their insurance pending that being sorted.

This means now that they will have to Sorn the car whilst awaiting that or else keep insurance in force.

For a motorist who is paying £50-£100 a month for insurance its a blow.

MID say that unisured drivers cost the UK more than £500 million a year.500 vehicles are seized every day.

300,000 offenders are convicted for uninsured driving every year.

But the new rules do not distinguish between a motorist whose car is genuinly off road uninsured to someone driving up the road while uninsured.

Surely the ANR the Police are using already can identify those real offenders.

Looks like another potential backdoor earner for the Government.

I wonder if that is the reason for the delay implementing it, plus the differences between the requirements of the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 in respect of vehicle licences, and Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of insurance.

Currently a vehicle that is not on a public road can be SORN under V.E.R.A.1994, but if that location is a road or other public place under R.T.A.1998, insurance is required.

We've just renewed our insurance and nothing in the paperwork about it, I would think there would be some information/advertising from the government if it was happening so soon.

It seems that the DVLA will be in charge of Continuous Insurance Enforcement with all th problems that will bring.

I wonder how they will cope with a neighbour's land rover. He uses it intermittently for "Mud Plugging" and only insures it for those occasions. For the rest of the year he allows me and several others to use it on our own "RTA only" insurance (You bend it you mend it).

The present wording of the law cannot cope with that just as it cannot cope with hire cars that are only insured during the hire period and lease hire cars where the registered keeper has the responsibility to insure but is not the owner and therefore does not give a damn if the car gets crushed. The latter have special provisions made for them but what will happen to the owners of classice and vintage cars that are only insured for the dutation of the events and where the car is tax exempt. It is a cock-up waiting to happen and the DVLA will no doubt take full advantage in the issuing of penalty charges.

The continuous registration debacle was supposed to bring in £30,000,000 a year but actually costs the taxpayer £18,000,000.

When your insurance ends mid month are your prohibitted from using the car for the first half because it must be SORN'D for the whole month or are you allowed to use it up to the last day of the insurance and only SORN it at the begining of the next month?

There are too many pitfalls that will be used to make the motorist pay more.

I am waiting to see who is the first to post about geting "fined " for no insurance.

Another minefield.....you buy a new car, park up the old one in your drive which still has tax and test left.

Cancel that insurance and transfer to your new vehicle while you try to sell the old one 'taxed and tested'.

Under these rules you are now liable unless you sorn and send back the tax disc.

No refunds for part months but the new buyer must tax it from the beginning of the month so potentially the government get 2 months tax for the single month.

Yet more money grabbing ........how they can keep banging on about honesty when they pull tricks like this beggars belief.

Where is the primary legislation that requires a vehicle to be insured?.

The RTA only requires the driver to be insured; there is no requirement for a vehicle to be insured

That's one of the problems, the proposed s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988 introduces the offence of keeping a motor vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements, as against using a motor vehicle - s.143:

s.144A (1) If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

It then has sections on how a vehicle meets those requirements, but again, except in sub section 5, does not mention 'use', only 'vehicle'.

In this years accounts for the year 2009-2010 the DVLA admit that the Vehicle register is only 97.1% accurate ( 96.7 previous year) which means that there are about 1.25 million vehicles whose record is inaccurate. That probably accounts for the majority of the so-called uninsured vehicles on the road. the rest are hardly going to be put off.

A young lad buys a very cheap car for cash with ten months MOT and tax then gets someone with a declared interest to insure it RTA only for a few pounds and lo and behold it passes all roadside checks. Only the lad driving is not insured. and already banned so TWOCing is not a problem to him but the insurance companies are loosing out.

For this when my insurance on the camper van runs out on the 27th June and i don't use it again untill September. My choice is simple, either I cease to use it for the last three weeks and SORN it or re-insure. either way I lose out. I would normally leave it taxed and only insure for the next outing.

The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank and the DVLA are waiting to pounce with the proposed £1000 penalty charge.

Can't see this is legal even. What if the vehicle is under foreign insurance? It is still insured and quite legal. If someone else has insurance to drive it then again the vehicle is covered by the minimum legal requirements. I see this as a big con and will not stop the problems that should be addressed. Just another tax on the public for cash strapped government.

Basic third party insurance and road tax could be on fuel. That way if you buy fuel you have road tax (VED) and third party cover. If people want fully comp then they have the option to pay for this. Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

I'd rather just see them all lying in the road filling the pot holes, much more useful then.

The provisions are due to come into force tomorrow.

The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2011

Thanks for the link mm.

There was some confusion as to when it was actually starting.

Even the media is confused-I heard one radio station reporting it was from April 1st.

Yes there was confusion.

Although the provisions are now in force, it may be the case that enforcement of them will not begin for a while...

To be on the safe side, I would assume that they are indeed being enforced though.

Yes agreed.

Especially in consideration of those enthusiastic traffic wardens.

Yes agreed.

Especially in consideration of those enthusiastic traffic wardens.

Well for a traffic warden (or similar) to see it, then that would suggest the car is being used on the road without valid insurance, which I fully support. The ones I am concerned with, is the many people who chose to take their car off the road, and do not for one moment consider the need to keep it insured.

No I was thinking about those who maybe live on council estates and are not using the car for one reason or another.

I know someone who has one parked outside his place and is waiting for insurance claim after someone ran into side.Tax is still ok but he has cancelled insurance since its not being driven.

I informed him yesterday of the new rules and he didnt believe me.

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

Hence, we always come back full circle to the question; what the hell is the new rule for?

Good question.

money grabbing rule.

I have read the act am I right in thinking that you will get a fixed penalty for not having insurance or will you also get points etc?

No I was thinking about those who maybe live on council estates and are not using the car for one reason or another.

I know someone who has one parked outside his place and is waiting for insurance claim after someone ran into side.Tax is still ok but he has cancelled insurance since its not being driven.

I informed him yesterday of the new rules and he didnt believe me.

I agree with concerns over those uninsured who are driving-but theres already a very good chance these will be caught bt existing measures such as ANPR.

if its parked on a council estate, its still on the public highway so would need ins, even before this rule

dx

money grabbing rule.

I have read the act am I right in thinking that you will get a fixed penalty for not having insurance or will you also get points etc?

If it was your car Tommy I think prob yes you would get both,

money grabbing rule.

I have read the act am I right in thinking that you will get a fixed penalty for not having insurance or will you also get points etc?

Fixed penalty only (no points unless you're caught using it - same as now) but re-read the relevant part of the Act again. Carefully, and think "SORN fpn cos DVLA lost the form / Interpretation Act". Only, you don't need to think "Interpretation Act" because they've actually repeated the relevant part of that Act into the new legislation! Of course, sending cash through the post unregistered isn't normally recommended........

Pretty unenforceable IMHO. At least the first time you're caught - note that they only "may" offer an FPN in lieu of prosecution, so making a habit of having bundles of tenners lost might not go down well.

My Old man has an old Landie, that he takes of the road and SORNS, it is on private property, not that the SORN notice askes you where you are keeping your vehicle, it is now insured under a multicar policy, however we do not think that it is fair that the DVLA only reimburse you a portion of the tax disc that you surrender, nor the fact that you have to do so, so many days before the end of the month to get even the whole of the next month taken into account, can't they work out daily or weekly rates at the DVLA, don't they own calculators, forgetting the fact that there is one on every desktop in the land!!??