Got a car that I’m giving to my daughter. The tax ran out end of February whilst it was in a garage having work done.
I’ve left it there because the work is costing a lot, and I don’t need it. I also didn’t SORN it thinking I’d collect it any day.
Anyway I need to pay a late licence fee of either £80 or £40 plus a bit of interest, that’s no problem.
But do I get a tax disc from about now, or do I need it to start from March? I can’t get that cleared up.
I don’t want to SORN it for a week, or is that what you have to do?
Or if someone can point me to a DVLA help number I’ll ask myself, but they all seem to be set up for collecting money.

Pay the fine and then SORN it.

When the work is complete just tax it from the day (month) of work completion.

The other option is to pay the fine and then tax it…but if you’re still slack for another few months you’ll just lose out.

The DVLA were pretty decent when I did the same thing – daughter was at uni and (ahem) the car was sat on the drive. I paid for a new licence from the start of the month and sent them the amount for the 2 untaxed months. No fine and they seemed very pleased that I had ‘owned up’ 🙂

From the leaflet they’re sending out with the Tax reminders, it appears that the car now has to be insured all the time it’s not SORN as well.

That is correct, new rules – your car must be insured if it is not SORN’d, regardless of where it’s kept. They will send you a kind reminder before fining you currently though.

Just SORN it. It’s free and means you don’t need to insure it.

It’s fully insured.

SORNs free, but I still have to pay a fine for not taxing it.

I think the law change with insurance is that now, you can be fined for merely owning an uninsured car,whereas before you had to be stopped whilst driving the uninsured car to cop for a fine or offence.

In this day and age, you’d have thought it would be possible to do the lot online, month-by-month (Tax can be bought online)

Not using the car for a month? Log on and SORN it and any tax already paid is suspended for a month.

Skint or got an old banger? Pay the tax a month at a time!

It’s not necessary to have a disc in the window any more, so why bother?
Indeed, I haven’t displayed a tax disc on a motorbike for 10 years or more. I’ve been pulled in that time, but the cops never check the disc, they already know you’re taxed before they stop you!

just sorn it and pay the fine. then your up to date and can tax it at your leisure.

Insured car? Unisured car? I thought the law was drivers had to be insured, but cars…? Government pulling another fast one?

I’ve actually been pulled over because ‘according to the PNC your vehicle doesn’t have insurance’, that may well be so Constable, but I DO, and here’s my proof!

just sorn it and pay the fine. then your up to date and can tax it at your leisure

Yep.

Insured car? Unisured car? I thought the law was drivers had to be insured, but cars…? Government pulling another fast one?

I’ve actually been pulled over because ‘according to the PNC your vehicle doesn’t have insurance’, that may well be so Constable, but I DO, and here’s my proof!

Car must be insured and you must be insured to drive it on the road. I thought this was taught in driving 101? You can’t drive an uninsured car (in the UK) on your own 3rd party insurance, and your 3rd party insurance is void if you do – it’s your responsibility to ensure the car is insured AND you’re insured to drive it.

coffeeking – Member

Car must be insured and you must be insured to drive it on the road. I thought this was taught in driving 101? You can’t drive an uninsured car (in the UK) on your own 3rd party insurance, and your 3rd party insurance is void if you do

That’s not how I heard it quoted by a police officer….

I was told that you COULD drive a vehicle on 3rd party insurance that did not possess its own insurance, so long as the vehicle was not registered in your own name (i.e. doesn’t belong to you).

Perhaps he misspoke or I misheard…

we’re not like the U.S where you are insured as a driver no matter what car your in. over here its the car thats insured and youre the named driver who is covered by the insurance.
my basic understanding of it is that the car has to be insured to be on the road, whether its yours or not. your cars insurance extends to cover other insured cars but only 3rd party.

Car must be insured and you must be insured to drive it on the road. I thought this was taught in driving 101? You can’t drive an uninsured car (in the UK) on your own 3rd party insurance, and your 3rd party insurance is void if you do – it’s your responsibility to ensure the car is insured AND you’re insured to drive it.

New one on me. Link to that law?

we’re not like the U.S where you are insured as a driver no matter what car your in

I was told by my Father in Law that it’s actually the car that’s insured regardless of who’s driving it, even to the extent that if you steal it you can (or could at one point) still technically make a claim.

That’s how we can drive their family cars without having our own US insurance policy.

In the UK it’s car + drivers named or specified afaik – as above. Surely it’s more about the small print of your particular policy than the law anyway?

So, are people saying that when the Police give you a ‘producer’ you now (since this ‘new law’) have to a: prove you are insured to drive the car, and seperately b: the car is also insured itself?????

my bad molgrips you are correct. it is indeed the car, not the driver. my point is that the uk covers both (as you point out, im not arguing) car and driver. not just one or the other as in the us.

you have to prove that the car is insured and that you are insured to drive that car.

Link to that law then please.

Must be a new one, since 1983 I’ve been stopped loads of times whilst driving on my ‘any car with owner’s permission’ third party extension, and NEVER been asked to prove the vehicle itself was insured (it wouldn’t have been).

i was just trying to be helpful imparting my knowledge as i was taught it. im not after an arugement. i neither have the time nor the inclination to link it to law. if im wrong im sorry. thats just the way i have been told it on many occasions and by many different people. its never bothered me because ive always had insurance.

I’ve always had insurance too, what are you insinuating?

If you don’t know what the law is, why suggest you do? I don’t know, (I know what it WAS) so I’m asking. Better than just remaining igorant surely?

why yould you assume im insinuating something. you stated above youve always had insurance, so thats fine. like i say im not trying to start an arguement. that is my interpretation of the law. nothing more and nothing less. i was just trying to help. if im wrong then cool, im wrong, i didnt realise it was going to be the basis of someones legal defence.
anyhoo, sorry i got involved. time for a brew.

Must be a new one, since 1983 I’ve been stopped loads of times whilst driving on my ‘any car with owner’s permission’ third party extension

That is my understanding too as the insurers have never mentioned anything other than driving with the owners permission.

Also as ^^ I can’t see how or why you have to insure a car which is sorned as long as it is not driven or parked on a public road. I’ll be very pissed off if I have to insure my old MG while it is tucked away safely and undriveable in my garage. My choice and risk, surely!

you dont have to insure it if its sorned do you? my mini is sorned but not insured. be annoyed if i have to insure it to sit in my garage. like you say, my risk.

You lot have confused me (not difficult 🙂 )

Are you saying ‘insured to drive cars not owned or registered to…) only applies if the other vehicles are insured by someone under their policy elsewhere? Not sure how that works… ans sounds like cobblers. E.g. on a Traders insurance, covers lots of cars that won’t be insured anywhere else…

The new law merely states that any car which is taxed must be insured. You can insure a SORN’d car if you wish but there is no requirement too.

Regarding third party cover for other vehicles on fully comprehensive policies this is now much rarer than it used to be (less than half of FC policies have it now last I heard) and the terms of it vary by insurer (some definitely require that the vehicle you are driving is insured (as my last policy that had it did when I called to check). Mentioned only as a warning not to assume you have it if you drive something else!

i dunno. thats my understanding of it but i appear to be in the minority. which isnt a surprise to me. i always was told that your insurance only covers you to drive other vehicles so long as they have valid insurance on them, but where youre not a named driver on that policy.
this may be (and from the looks of it is) wrong.

As I said there is no one rule for it as it varies insurer by insurer. Some may not require insurance on the other vehicle, some certainly do. Many don’t provide the third party cover for other vehicles at all now.

Ahhh OK, thanks. That makes sense (varying by policy). Without wading through it all again IIRC, someone said ‘it’s the law’.. Clearly not.

The government are acting as if it is law. I think they are pulling a fast one, hence my first comment to that effect.

The vehicle needs to be insured to be on the road. If you’ve parked it and walked away the vehicle is uninsured and any damage it causes (by being badly parked, or by its brake failing, or it going up in flames and damaging things around it etc) would not be covered by your 3rd party insurance who would say you were no longer in control of it.

“It is a compulsory requirement for any person who uses, causes or permits a vehicle to be used on a road or other public place, to have correct and valid insurance against third party risks. Use of a vehicle includes parking it or leaving it unattended on a road (so it does not have to be driven) or allowing another person to use it.”

If you check your policy booklet, every single policy I’ve ever had that had a “drive other cars” ability had the proviso that the other car has to be insured in itself.

So I can drive a vehicle that is uninsured , not owned by me, and kept off road on my insurance? There is no blanket law requiring a vehicle to be SEPERATELY insured?

Wait hang on, I retract that. Must learn to read one of these days! Let me check the date of that law.

Quoting that brings up just four results, none of them law.

If you’ve parked it and walked away the vehicle is uninsured and any damage it causes (by being badly parked, or by its brake failing, or it going up in flames and damaging things around it etc) would not be covered by your 3rd party insurance who would say you were no longer in control of it.

Relevant law for this please.

There is no blanket law requiring a vehicle to be SEPERATELY insured?

There is now, if it isn’t SORN’d.

Quoting that brings up just four results, none of them law.

I never said it was a quote from legislation.

But vehicles are not insured per se, people are to drive vehicles? Even ‘any driver’ policies are in someone’s name. (AFAIK) There isn’t a policy for ‘abc vehicle + any driver’, it would be ‘Joe blogg’s insurance for abc vehicle + any drivers’.

The individual’s srd party cover then extends to when they are not driving covering Coffeekings runaway/consequential loss example above.

The problem is, the Fuzz use individual insurance records to check vehicle cover which is why there are incidents of tow aways when people are actually covered.

<edit> Coffee, not sure that’s true. The person needs their cover to be valid if not SORN’d just as if they were driving. Exactly as per RFL, it dunt matter that you’re not using you have to declare you’re not using now.

There (now) has to be a policy in place on the vehicle, I presume this is why you can only get tax on a vehicle if there’s valid insurance policy covering its use – you don’t get tax for you, it’s for the vehicle so there would be no need for insurance to be shown if there was no legal reason to have insurance on it.

Before then I think you’ll find that just about every insurance company requires an existing policy covering the car to use the DOC section of their policy.

The individual’s cover then extends to when they are not driving covering Coffeekings runaway/consequential loss example above.

Who’s? Assuming I have a spare car, both my other half and have our own DOC policies. I drive the car to the station and drop it there for her to pick up and drive home. Who’s using the car? Who’s policy gets claimed off if it rolls away and kills someone? You could claim mine as I was the last user, you could claim hers as I had finished using it and it was left intended solely for her use. Most insurers also want to be sure it’s not owned by you and that you still have the other vehicle.