Repeal Redundant Road Rules

[S C O R N]

If you’ve read the many threads on here you will have come to the conclusion that all is not right with vehicle law and its enforcement, and even the most vigilant can be caught out. There appears to be a number of Im an orange who regularly post on this site and their legal expertise offers valuable assistance, but what most people need is justice, not academic legal debate on case law. As a large proportion of MP’s and the civil servants who draft the law have legal backgrounds, it might be expected that the quality of the law might be better in the first place, but this would require a practical outlook!

 

Once upon a time in 198?BC (before computers) owning and using a vehicle was a relatively simple affair. You bought the car, filled in the V5 and sent it off to DVLA to register it in your name, bought some road tax and insurance, and got an MOT if necessary, and off you went. If you were stopped by the police, which had to be for a moving traffic offence, you were obliged to produce your documents proving legality. If you did not have them on you, you were issued with a form (HORT1) to take them to your local police station in 7 days, and off you went on your journey. Failure to display the tax disc, even if you had one was, and still is, a separate offence.

 

Computers, and a system of ‘continuous registration’, have added considerable complication to the system and the introduction of computer data bases to check legalities has introduced a whole range of pitfalls, anomalies, and contradictions, many of dubious legality. Even if you accept the law without question, it must be seen that so many injustices and bureaucracies will alienate public support with possible anarchistic results.

 

The registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, but he/she may not be the owner or have control of it. The keeper is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle has a tax disc when driven or parked on public road or property, or a SORN notice if not - continuously. The vehicle and driver must have appropriate insurance if the vehicle is driven on the road. The vehicle must have an MOT certificate from its 3rd year of registration to be on the road. So what goes wrong?

 

From the many posts in these threads, it is apparent that errors are so numerous that many think that they are cynically deliberate to remove vehicles from the road (legalized policy, Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, or to extract revenue. Apart from human error which is present in any system, the systems themselves invite problems. DVLA uses its data base to track drivers licenses, vehicle registered keepers, and vehicle excise duty or SORN. VOSA maintains a data base of MOT tests, and the insurance industry has MID, the motor insurance database. The police have the police national computer (PNC) which they use to confirm if a vehicle/driver is legal. Unfortunately, it appears that they do not all sing from the same hymn sheet! Time delays and inaccuracies in updating data are one of the most common causes of problems, as confirmed by HM inspector of constabulary –

‘ The integrity of information stored on the Police National Computer (PNC) is absolutely vital to its effectiveness in supporting the Police Service of England and Wales to tackle crime and criminal behaviour. At a time when information and intelligence have become invaluable in targeting prolific offenders it is to the shame of the Service that such a valuable tool as PNC has been sorely neglected, to the detriment of data integrity.’

 

Until data is instantly and simultaneously updated on data bases, and we have the power to access and check its accuracy, then there will always be injustices. After all, the system is used to check our validity, so why can’t we check the systems validity.

If a computerized system is to be god, then why maintain expensive duplicate and sometimes contradictory paper systems, particularly if they have no apparent practical purpose.

SORN – as I have previously stated in ‘Repeal the SORN laws’, this is a totally redundant piece of legislation, other than as a revenue generator. By simple logic it can be deduced that if a vehicle does not have a valid tax disc, it must be off the road, unless it is on trade plates, or being driven to a pre-arranged MOT test. SORN notices demand a declaration of innocence contrary to the basis of law of innocent until proven guilty.

VED(tax disc) – If enforcement is to be by computer data base and bureaucrats, not the police, then the legal requirement to display the disc becomes redundant. The disc itself is redundant as well if all enforcers have access to the data base.

MOT – Theoretically, the same redundancy would apply to MOT test certificates if the data base is king. However, I know many MOT stations have difficulties getting on line and are often obliged to issue manual certificates. It is also helpful when selling a vehicle to have old certificates to support history and mileage.

INSURANCE – This is a far more complicated issue, as the certificate has to cover not only the vehicle, but an eligible driver, who need not be the keeper or owner. This is also made more difficult by villains who buy insurance by installments, and once in possession of a certificate, stop payments. The police have difficulty in establishing clerical error from deliberate deception, but have the power to seize the vehicle and arrest the driver. The only way to be certain is to carry a certificate and make certain it is on the data base, but the present system only confirms the car is insured by a ‘policy holder’, who may not have the same name as the driver!

There now looms an even more insidious piece of proposed legislation, requiring every vehicle without a SORN certificate to be insured – see Uninsured motorists risk a £1,000 fine and losing their car... even if they don't drive it | Mail Online

The excuse for this is to prove every vehicle is insured! The reality is a new set of traps to create more revenue and dispose of more vehicles. It must be stopped before it becomes law.

If you want to stop crime catch and deter the criminal. Don’t entrap the innocent and make them into criminals.

K I S S - Keep It Simple Stupid

 

Please sign up to Petition to: Create an independent appeals process for challenging unjust SORN penalties. | Number10.gov.uk and see

S.O.R.N Appeal . Right behind you 'sornappeal'

Edited January 25, 2009 by S C O R N
'Im an orange' should read 'legal beagle'-won't accept!

[S C O R N]

In the second sentence above, 'Im an orange' should read 'banana', but it won't edit! Perhaps this is indicative of errors which appear in computer and data base systems!!!

[patdavies]

Please be assured that under English law, there is no requirement whatsoever to insure a vehicle. What is required is that the driver is insured to use a particular vehicle.

 

I posted a new thread recently about how you can check the DVLA vehicle status, VED status, MoT status and insurance status on-line. Unfortunately, the mods did not decide to make it a sticky.

 

In your original post, for insurance, you also seem to forget the complication of DOC cover.

[S C O R N]

Your thread and links above are valuable references, but do not offer total protection. I take it by DOC you mean 'driving other cars'. This is the point I was trying to make. Anyone other than the policy holder needs to carry a certificate with named driver and proof of identity to satisfy police enquiry. To say that a driver needs to be insured, not the vehicle is technically correct, but in practice most certificates primary reference is the registration number on which a PNC or MID search is carried out, and if a corresponding name is not found then things get complicated. The proposed new legislation will make this a mine field.

[Spunkymonkey]

Please be assured that under English law, there is no requirement whatsoever to insure a vehicle. What is required is that the driver is insured to use a particular vehicle.

 

Just to complicate it a little more, there's actually no requirement to have insurance at all. All you have to do is deposit a stated amount with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court (whoever the hell he is) and you're exempt the need for even third party insurance.

 

Until the Road Traffic Act 1991, the required deposit was £15k but the RTA1991 S.20 increased it to £500k, which is a little less feasible. Still, it is refundable (unlike insurance premiums) and I believe even earns minimal interest. If I had the cash it'd be sooooo tempting for next time I was stopped:

 

"Can I see your insurance, Sir?"

"No, Officer, I don't have any because I don't need it"

"Oh, really, Sir?"

"Yes, Officer, really. Now, if you don't mind, I'll be on my way...."

[S C O R N]

Rather like typing 'sorn' into the DVLA computer, which produces 'fine £40'!!!!

[Guest funforus]

Please be assured that under English law, there is no requirement whatsoever to insure a vehicle. What is required is that the driver is insured to use a particular vehicle.

 

Er . . . . No. Whilst there is a driver in control of a vehicle this may be the case. However any vehicle in a Public Place whether moving or not and whether under the control of a person inside (or on) it or not has the potential to cause harm and creates a third party liability.

 

There are lots of obscure references in the Road Safety Acts (RSA) and elsewhere that amend the Road Traffic Acts (RTA) and lots of fascinating and at times very funny case law. One case decided liability when horsing around with lighter fluid in a car, in a car park . . .

 

In practice unless a driver who brings their own RTA compliant insurance is in positive control of a vehicle then an insurance identifying that vehicle should be in force.

 

Don't agree with me? Nor did the MSA until their (late) expert reviewed the complexities some three or four years ago after a couple of test cases in 'Public Places' after a RSA changed the requirements. Now even competition cars sitting in the paddock have RTA compliant insurance let alone when on the public highway.

 

These are the interpretations used to tow away 'uninsured vehicles' left in 'Public Places' - which might also include privately owned but publicly accessible car parks, bays, service yards etc.

[Raykay]

Bit of a thread revival................

 

 

The insurance requirement is that there is cover for the use of that vehicle on a road or other public place, by that person - s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988.

 

 

The words 'or other public place' were added as an amendment by The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000.

 

 

If the paddock was considered to be a public place within the meaning of the act, then insurance would be required as in any other public place.