Insuring a taxed but off-the-road bike legally required?

I quickly skim-read a webpage the other day which, if I got the gist right,
said you now have to insure EVERY vehicle you own, whther it is on the road
or not. I think it was theregister.co.uk, but I can't find the link now to
read properly. So I might have got it all wrong....

Now I bought a v5 registered old CG125 last weekend purely as a project
which could take a very long time. It has about 9 months tax remaining which
I'd really rather keep on - in case I get the bugger running and do want to
insure it quickly to get on the road. Do U really have to insure it? What if
I SORN it? I want to be good law abiding chap and not put it on raod without
correct docs, but having to insure something that won't be on the road
seems to be taking the water if true.

Robert

 

I quickly read something too and got it a bit muddled but this is now my,
corrected, understanding.

Only taxed vehicles require insurance, SORN'd ones don't.

Raises the question of what happens to the vehicles that are neither? I
have a number of bikes with logbooks that pre-date the SORN requirement.

 

It's only currently being run up the flagpole, the law hasn't changed yet.

John

 

Hmm. I don't think there's an obligation to maintain insurance on a
taxed vehicle which is kept off road.

I'll be fucking pissed off if there is. Not that it impacts me but it's
just damn wrong.

 

Any idea how I will know when it is law? I've already been fined alst year
for not declaring a SORN and it was just a DVLA cock-up, so they're not my
favourite people.

Time to write to my MP I reckon.

I can add it to bitching about my civil liberties (what's left that is) with
'smart' speed/surveillance cameras going up all over the shop.

Robert

 

The law will almost certainly be changed to require you to insure all
vehicles or make a second SORN type declaration , but this has not happened
yet

--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

its true all vehicles will have to be insured whether sorned or not , don't
know whether its actually enacted yet but its definitely on the way

 

Bollocks. It isn't true at all.

From the VOSA website:

" 3. The new regulations being taken up by the police today are "The
Disclosure of Vehicle Insurance Regulations 2005 - SI 2005/2833", and
were made under powers provided for in the Serious Organised Crime and
Police Act 2005.

4. New proposals, tabled as amendments to the Road Safety Bill in
September 2005, will make it an offence to be the keeper of a vehicle,
the use of which is not insured. This would apply to vehicles that
were not declared as being off the road through a Statutory Off-Road
Notification (SORN) and were not insured. Additionally the proposals
will:

* Provide for a new fixed penalty for people who ignore reminders that
their insurance has expired.

* Issue automatic reminders to those motorists who fail to insure
their vehicle when their previous insurance expires.

It is not enacted. It cannot be until the reminder system is up and
running, for a start.

It is apparently on the way, and this is the only accurate part of
your reply. Thanks for playing.

 

I think that's certainly the proposal:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0113

 

sweller wrote:

I thought that if you swapped your old V5 for a new style one this summer
then you need to SORN it, and if you didn't swap it, then it has lapsed.
I may be wrong. I usually am.

 

amendments to the bill now being raised within parliament intended to have
all vehicles insured irrespective status

that's why i pointed out that nothing has been enacted yet .

 

Irrespective of what status, exactly?

I've snipped my earlier response to you in order to hopefully make it
more clear that the proposal states that the requirement for insurance
will not apply to a vehicle that has been SORNed. Or are you trying
to suggest that there is an amendment tabled that requires *all*
vehicles to be insured, all the time? I'd like to see references for
that, if so.

Well, that was decent of you.

Please snip irrelevant text and sigs from replies.

 

Pip emerged from their own little world to say

We've been here before when, as sweller mentions earlier in the thread.
He read the press release about the amendments without reading the
footnotes
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...q=wessie+sweller+SORN&rnum=1#a881b917c711c838
or http://tinyurl.com/d6k5p

Here's the press release from A Darling at DfT:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0113

Steve Robinson has misread the press release too.

 

Dr Zoidberg wrote

Snot dear though.

I bought my latest VT with the intention of sorning it until the spring,
Auntie Carole pointed out that the cost of adding it fully onto the
cover along with the others was a paltry few quid so why not. So I did
and now I have the comfort and knowledge that if any thieving scrote
should accidentally fall and hurt himself whilst attempting to steal it
that he can live in financial comfort at the expense of my no claim
bonus for the rest of his natural life.

 

Yes. Aiui, if it's a motor vehicle in a public road or place, you would
need TP insurance. If it's on your private land being stored or worked
on, it effectively ceases to be a motor vehicle and is just another
object which would probably be covered against third party risks by your
house insurance, etc.

Which, imo, makes the whole proposed requirement to insure all motor
vehicles that are off-road an utter nonsense.

The question is, who benefits? It looks as if some backdoor whispering
in ears has gone on by the insurance companies. It suits the loony green
tendency in the Govt to introduce this, as it will mean thousands of
cars will hit the breakers, but it also suits the insurance industry
tremendously - all those cars that are offroad and present no
/negligable risk to the public will rake in millions of pounds in
premiums. Truly a nice little earner.

 

Don't talk shit. It's only a Government/Green conspiracy if you want to
sound like a slightly unhinged American.

If a vehicle is off road (that is SORN'd) it doesn't need insurance [1].

I suspect this is more to do with reducing the MIBs exposure to claims
due to uninsured vehicles. Once the fixed penalties are being churned
out by the ANPR machines then there'll be less uninsured drivers.

Taking the majority of past responses within UKRM to those uninsured
motorists I would have thought this would be a popular policy.

The ANPR network also has the 'benefit' of being able to collate vehicle
movements. Data and the derived information is the new power. Go long
on tinfoil.


[1] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0113

 

The dirty fucking bastards.

 

I know you said 'majority' but I for one am not in favour of policies
designed to catch out the honest uninsured motorist.

 

emerged from their own little world to say

and the policy does nothing to address the uninsured drivers of cars
insured by the owners e.g. Little Johnny sneaking out in his mum's car

 

Just you wait. The mere proposal that all vehicles off road will need
insurance, while it might be thrown out now (and was probably mooted as
a tactical exercise for just that purpose), will eventually be
introduced.

So, if that's the case, then I'm right to suspect Gov't and Insurance
Industry fiddling by the back door. I honestly don't know what's worse,
the underhand Green Nazis or the Capitalist Pigs.