 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / February 2008'ere, a petition for you all to sign.
and if not, I want to know why... :-) http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/  SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > and if not, I want to know why... :-) > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ Done Derek Austin Shackles wibbled > and if not, I want to know why... :-) > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ Fully agree, nice one Austin. SignaturePaul - xxx '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch' '98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed' Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough' done jon Dakar 4.2 > and if not, I want to know why... :-) > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ > and if not, I want to know why... :-) > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ A good idea Austin, PROVIDED that the new licence is displayed on the vehicle BEFORE the vehicle is actually used or parked on the road. There's no chance of excuses for delay in that case, they should be happy with that. Martin >> and if not, I want to know why... :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >vehicle BEFORE the vehicle is actually used or parked on the road. There's >no chance of excuses for delay in that case, they should be happy with that. I'm sure they'd write that into it... in any case, there are NO excuses for not having a licensed vehicle - to use the "14 days" get-out clause, you must ALRAEDY have applied for a license, by post (or presumably now online), before the old one expired. The 14 days is to let them post it back to you. contrary to popular belief, that you get 14 days before you have to apply... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >and if not, I want to know why... :-) > >http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ > >and if not, I want to know why... :-) > > > >http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ I can't see a problem in renewing it every year. Helps keep a track on vehicles. Surely this is a good thing? Signature*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. The date being 24 Jan 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> decided to write: >>>and if not, I want to know why... :-) >>> >>>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/ > I can't see a problem in renewing it every year. Helps keep a track on > vehicles. Surely this is a good thing? It's a pain in the neck. They send out reminders before the first day that you can renew tax/sorn and you can be fined if you forget. Surely if you own a vehicle it should be your responsibility until you notify the DVLA that you have sold, exported or destroyed it. SignatureRichard Porter ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com "You can't have Windows without pains." > > I can't see a problem in renewing it every year. Helps keep a track on > > vehicles. Surely this is a good thing? > It's a pain in the neck. They send out reminders before the first day > that you can renew tax/sorn and you can be fined if you forget. Surely > if you own a vehicle it should be your responsibility until you notify > the DVLA that you have sold, exported or destroyed it. I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. It's all very well saying it should be your responsibility to register any changes only when they happen but many simply wouldn't bother. Signature*Never miss a good chance to shut up.* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put on > fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. It's an easy way of knowing what exactly is on the road and an attempt to make sure everyone is insured and has the appropriate documentation up to date. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put on >> fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. > >It's an easy way of knowing what exactly is on the road and an attempt to >make sure everyone is insured and has the appropriate documentation up to >date. but for vehicles that are NOT on the road, it's a waste of time and resources to keep saying so every year, which is my point. I've been had several times for failure to SORN, because I have several SORN vehicles at any given time, and in many cases, none of them end up going back on the road, but they're still more or less complete and therefore not scrapped. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > >> I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put > >> on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. > > > >It's an easy way of knowing what exactly is on the road and an attempt > >to make sure everyone is insured and has the appropriate documentation > >up to date. > but for vehicles that are NOT on the road, it's a waste of time and > resources to keep saying so every year, which is my point. > I've been had several times for failure to SORN, because I have several > SORN vehicles at any given time, and in many cases, none of them end up > going back on the road, but they're still more or less complete and > therefore not scrapped. But presumably you keep them complete in the belief that one day you might put them back on the road? I can see SORN being a inconvenience for honest people but then most laws ain't needed for those. ;-) Of course it might be in the light of number plate recognition picking up many more 'illegal' vehicles on the road SORN could be modified in some way. But that also relies on vehicles being able to be traced in some circumstances. SignatureIs the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >Of course it might be in the light of number plate recognition picking up >many more 'illegal' vehicles on the road SORN could be modified in some >way. But that also relies on vehicles being able to be traced in some >circumstances. They can be traced, they're registered to me and declared SORN. My objection is that having declared a vehicle off-road, I have to keep on so declaring, every year, for each vehicle. Waste of my time, waste of their time and postage and resources. IF the vehicle is on the road without tax, it's still just as SORN as it was when I first declared it. Nothing is gained by repeating the declaration. They'd have more resources to pursue genuine dodgers if they didn't waste resources on this. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > but for vehicles that are NOT on the road, it's a waste of time and > resources to keep saying so every year, which is my point. Yeahbut you are a honest, law abiding, citizen. Those ads they have about having your car crushed just make me laugh. The scroats that are driving around unlicensed and/or no insurance and/or no MOT vehicles worth £1000 or less aren't going to pay the tax disc. If they could SORN it without having to renew, it's just another loophole for them to use. A lot of laws these days are brought in under this mishaprehension that everyone wants to obey the law. Trouble is a significant number of people are perfectly happy to operate outside it. > I've been had several times for failure to SORN, because I have several > SORN vehicles at any given time, <cough> So you are a slow learner? <thwack> <ouch> B-) SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail >> but for vehicles that are NOT on the road, it's a waste of time and >> resources to keep saying so every year, which is my point. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >or less aren't going to pay the tax disc. If they could SORN it without >having to renew, it's just another loophole for them to use. this is a red herring - most of those vehicles are not registered to a known address anyway. SORN in principle is good, it provides an instant check that the thing is not meant to be on the road. It's still not necessary to declare SORN more than once. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> The scroats that are driving around unlicensed and/or no insurance >> and/or no MOT vehicles worth £1000 or less aren't going to pay the tax [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is a red herring - most of those vehicles are not registered to a > known address anyway. Fairy Nuff. > SORN in principle is good, it provides an instant check that the thing > is not meant to be on the road. It's still not necessary to declare > SORN more than once. Hum, so I buy cash in hand, no reciepts, one of your SORN vehicles, you don't know me from Adam. Some time later I put the vehicle onto the public highway, it gets spotted, who do they come looking for you or me? In a year who gets the fine for not renewing the SORN? The SORN non-renewal fine could be looked at as an incentive for you to make sure you do the V5 bit properly when you sell, if only to ensure you are no longer (in theory) legally responsible for that vehicle. Without a SORN renewal this mis-registration of keeper might not come to light for years if at all. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail >Hum, so I buy cash in hand, no reciepts, one of your SORN vehicles, you >don't know me from Adam. Some time later I put the vehicle onto the public >highway, it gets spotted, who do they come looking for you or me? In a >year who gets the fine for not renewing the SORN? I'd send in the V5 with your name on it, anyway, cash in hand or otherwise - 'cos if not I'd still be liable for it. >The SORN non-renewal fine could be looked at as an incentive for you to >make sure you do the V5 bit properly when you sell, if only to ensure you >are no longer (in theory) legally responsible for that vehicle. Without a >SORN renewal this mis-registration of keeper might not come to light for >years if at all. yeah, but if you have it on the road registered to me, then the fines come to me, so there's every incentive for me to send in the V5, even if you give me a false name and address, I've still notified that I'm no longer the keeper. and if you do give false details, I guess sooner or later it'd get flagged up as such and the motor would come up as "not registered" or suchlike when the dibbles checked it. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>> The scroats that are driving around unlicensed and/or no insurance >>> and/or no MOT vehicles worth £1000 or less aren't going to pay the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > vehicle. Without a SORN renewal this mis-registration of keeper might > not come to light for years if at all. Again, so what? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >> Without a SORN renewal this mis-registration of keeper might not come >> to light for years if at all. > > Again, so what? You'll be the one they will be come looking for n years down the line. And the DVLA being the DVLA they won't let go unless you have some pretty irifutable evidence regarding your disposal of the vehicle. Saying you sold to a bloke for £50 5 years ago won't cut any ice... SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail Dave Liquorice wibbled > >> Without a SORN renewal this mis-registration of keeper might not > come >> to light for years if at all. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vehicle. Saying you sold to a bloke for £50 5 years ago won't cut any > ice... Your earlier argument said AS was already operating within the law ... and as such even if someone paid cash, didn't want a receipt etc, AS (and most others) would send in the appropriate part of V5C to tell them the car was no longer his, indeed probably especially if someone didn't _really_ want the forms filling in correctly. This has nothing to do with SORN. SignaturePaul - xxx '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch' '98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed' Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough' >>> I can't see a problem in renewing it every year. Helps keep a track >>> on vehicles. Surely this is a good thing? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > register any changes only when they happen but many simply wouldn't > bother. Pardon me for asking, but just what is the NEED to re-register the vehicle every year, or register it in the first place except as a revenue generator? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > Pardon me for asking, but just what is the NEED to re-register the > vehicle every year, or register it in the first place except as a > revenue generator? Plus of course just filling out false information each and every year. Can't see much point in regular SORNs other than to squeeze loot out of forgetful welshmen ;-) SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put > > on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. > > It's all very well saying it should be your responsibility to > > register any changes only when they happen but many simply wouldn't > > bother. > Pardon me for asking, but just what is the NEED to re-register the > vehicle every year, or register it in the first place except as a > revenue generator? If you can't work that out for yourself I can't be bothered telling you. Signature*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and put >> > on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each year. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >If you can't work that out for yourself I can't be bothered telling you. It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP. I'm starting to think you're a troll. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > >> > I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and > >> > put on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > >If you can't work that out for yourself I can't be bothered telling you. > It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP. It is confirming various details. > I'm starting to think you're a troll. I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of the authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. Signature*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > In article <d8akp3hrj0tl3b04aqrmsjtq21b30fqhuk@4ax.com>, > Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of > the authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. Or asking WHY they need to know such? What does it benefit me? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > > I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of > > the authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. > Or asking WHY they need to know such? > What does it benefit me? Well, if a larger stronger nastier neighbour took a fancy to your vehicle and pinched it and said to anyone who asked it was his and had never belonged to you, how could you prove him wrong? Or the police clearly see a vehicle looking the same as yours run down a child and kill her? And decide it has to belong to you? Signature*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >Well, if a larger stronger nastier neighbour took a fancy to your vehicle >and pinched it and said to anyone who asked it was his and had never >belonged to you, how could you prove him wrong? Or the police clearly see >a vehicle looking the same as yours run down a child and kill her? And >decide it has to belong to you? Oh FFS... As I said in my other reply, it's NOT about registrastion and the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner. prat. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > >Well, if a larger stronger nastier neighbour took a fancy to your > >vehicle and pinched it and said to anyone who asked it was his and had > >never belonged to you, how could you prove him wrong? Or the police > >clearly see a vehicle looking the same as yours run down a child and > >kill her? And decide it has to belong to you? > Oh FFS... As I said in my other reply, it's NOT about registrastion and > the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner. Ok then. Read GbH's point *carefully* and give your answer to it. To remind you he asks just why registration is necessary in the first place. Not SORN, but registration. I'll look forward to it. Signature*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > >Well, if a larger stronger nastier neighbour took a fancy to your > > >vehicle and pinched it and said to anyone who asked it was his and had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > remind you he asks just why registration is necessary in the first place. > Not SORN, but registration. I'll look forward to it. Am I missing something here? Of course registration is necessary in the first place, but this is all about having to notify SORN every year when there's no need. If you forget, you would still have committed an offence or if you used it without licence whilst SORNed or you sold it without notification etc., the only difference is the extra penalty for forgetting, which only you don't get paid for but can cost you. Martin >> In article <dfrlp31fvuceivkmo1ujqvngq5ek39dd7s@4ax.com>, >> Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Martin Of course?? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > >> In article <dfrlp31fvuceivkmo1ujqvngq5ek39dd7s@4ax.com>, > >> Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Of course?? Absolutely....... but it's got bugger all to do with the OP which is just about SORNing every year, which is a waste of time and resources. Martin > Absolutely....... but it's got bugger all to do with the OP which is just > about SORNing every year, which is a waste of time and resources. Well, I've been lurking here in the corner as I neither have or intend to have a vehicle SORN'd, but the resources involved are pretty small, as far as I can tell. It takes probably 5 minutes to fill the form in & stick a stamp on the envelope, and probably about the same at the other end for them to read it & check it against the details they already hold. Not only that, you can do the renewal or initial application of your SORN online, according to the website, which makes it even cheaper. As there's no charge, the government probably reckon it's worth the money to know just how many of the currently untaxed vehicles that they know about are likely to re-appear on the roads. Now, if they were to start asking for money to renew a SORN, then I'd be signing the petition pretty darn fast. Just my 2 penn'orth. :-) SignatureTciao for Now! John. > As there's no charge, the government probably reckon it's worth the > money to know just how many of the currently untaxed vehicles that they > know about are likely to re-appear on the roads. How exactly does re-submitting the information each year help with this? Re-asking the same question multiple times in this thread doesn't seem to help anyone, why is government any different? It helps because sometimes people forget and there's a fine attached, so that's income. Some of their rules are entirely based on cost, e.g. in cases where a vehicle doesn't quite fit into the PLG taxable status, it'll get PLG even if they have to bend the rules a little because it's £5 per year more expensive than the alternatives. That's what their rules state, according to the people who were dealing with my last v5 alteration attempt. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> As there's no charge, the government probably reckon it's worth the >> money to know just how many of the currently untaxed vehicles that they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > what their rules state, according to the people who were dealing with > my last v5 alteration attempt. Indded, it's also a regular reminder to whoever is the keeper that there's a (Possibly disintegrating) vehicle somewhere in the barn at the bottom of the field which is their responsibility. It could even be the final straw that persuades someone to either restore it, sell it or recycle it for parts. If they or the buyer repair it, the government get the fuel tax & maybe the road tax, either way, they get the VAT on the repair or disposal costs. Of course, if you've got a dozen or so, then I'll admit it's going to be a pain to keep re-sending the details. It's an easy fine to collect, too, as they know where you live.... Just wandering off topic slightly, has anyone had the subject of a SORN physically checked on? SignatureTciao for Now! John. > >> Ok then. Read GbH's point *carefully* and give your answer to it. To > >> remind you he asks just why registration is necessary in the first [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Martin > Of course?? See what I mean Mr Shackles? A grovelling apology would now be nice. Unless you're just a troll. ;-) Signature*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >See what I mean Mr Shackles? > >A grovelling apology would now be nice. Unless you're just a troll. ;-) I don't do grovelling. I will apologise for the implication that it was you who started on about registration, since it wasn't. However, my comments were based not solely on this thread. You seem to have a habit of taking a contrary point of view regardless, in this group. This may of course only be an impression I've formed, and not deliberate policy on your part, but nevertheless, it IS the impression I've formed. In general I don't contemplate killfile entries lightly; since apart from the clearly terminally stupid or malicious types who seek only to post complete drivel or pointless profanity, (normally seem to get them in school holidays) almost everyone has something worth reading to say sometimes, even if I don't always agree with them. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! Austin Shackles (Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Oh FFS... As I said in my other reply, it's NOT about registrastion and > the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner. > > prat. Sorry, Austin. I started out unable to see what the problem was, and you're not helping. And, fwiw, I've currently got (IIRC) 5 on SORN. >Austin Shackles (Austin Shackles ><austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net>) gurgled happily, sounding [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >And, fwiw, I've currently got (IIRC) 5 on SORN. well, there y'go. for every vehicle on SORN, every year, the DVLA expend resources on sending out a reminder, and then on processing the thing when it comes in. This gains no-one anything, as nothing has changed and no money is gathered. If you had to pay for keeping the vehicle on SORN, then they'd be expending their effort in gathering the revenue that resulted, same as they already do with VED. There's also my (your) waste of time and money, but I agree that's trivial. As for the fine, well, it's only an offence not to renew BECAUSE you have to renew, if they didn't waste time renewing it, no-one could forget to. But the main point was and still is the waste of resources on the part of the government agency, which resources could be better used. I don't see how I can put it more plainly than that. If you don't see the waste of resources as a problem, well, that's your perogative. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of the >authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. and it's eff-all to do with that - they KNOW I'm the registered keeper, although that, in fact, proves nothing about ownership. Let me make it completely plain, this is NOT ABOUT REGISTRATION. It's about waste of time and resources inherent in my telling them repeatedly that yes, this vehicle is still not on the road, once I've told them it's off-road, there it should rest unless or until it goes back on the road, when it needs to be licensed, or scrapped or sold, when it becomes someone else's responsibility. It's more the way you appear to disagree with more or less anything in this group on principle. As for trolling, pretty much every post you make, it seems to me, disagrees on principle with anything that's posted. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > >I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of the > >authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. > and it's eff-all to do with that - they KNOW I'm the registered keeper, > although that, in fact, proves nothing about ownership. Ownership isn't necessarily the issue but who is the current keeper of the vehicle. > Let me make it completely plain, this is NOT ABOUT REGISTRATION. Then why jump on me when GbH asks me:- 'Pardon me for asking, but just what is the NEED to re-register the vehicle every year, or register it in the first place except as a revenue generator?' As by that some *do* want to bring registration as such into the thread. > It's about waste of time and resources inherent in my telling them > repeatedly that yes, this vehicle is still not on the road, once I've > told them it's off-road, there it should rest unless or until it goes > back on the road, when it needs to be licensed, or scrapped or sold, > when it becomes someone else's responsibility. It makes it an active act where you are prompted to do something. Rather than just ignore or possibly forget to do it when a change is made. As human nature being as it is many will do. *You* may not being an organised individual, but these things happen because many aren't. > It's more the way you appear to disagree with more or less anything in > this group on principle. That simply isn't true. And you can easily prove it to yourself by searching on my name and this group. > As for trolling, pretty much every post you make, it seems to me, > disagrees on principle with anything that's posted. See above. Signature*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >I certainly could 'troll' by asking just why some seem so scared of the >> >authorities knowing who owns a vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > human nature being as it is many will do. *You* may not being an organised > individual, but these things happen because many aren't. I 'think' I can see your point, but can't agree with it. Whether a vehicle is SORNed or not, one is still legally obliged to notify a change of ownership. Bearing that in mind I don't see how repeatedly having to notify the DVLA that a car is still off the road once it has been declared as such helps keep track of a vehicle. It would still be an offence if it were sold without notifying the DVLA, so I can't see why it is necessary. Mike. > >> It's about waste of time and resources inherent in my telling them > >> repeatedly that yes, this vehicle is still not on the road, once I've [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > made. As human nature being as it is many will do. *You* may not being > > an organised individual, but these things happen because many aren't. > I 'think' I can see your point, but can't agree with it. Whether a > vehicle is SORNed or not, one is still legally obliged to notify a > change of ownership. > Bearing that in mind I don't see how repeatedly having to notify the > DVLA that a car is still off the road once it has been declared as such > helps keep track of a vehicle. It would still be an offence if it were > sold without notifying the DVLA, so I can't see why it is necessary. That would be going back to what existed only a few years ago. The DVLA decided on SORN to try and help sort out the number of 'untaxed' vehicles around. Since it costs no more than a stamp I really can't see what the fuss is about. I can't find any figures that would prove or disprove whether it has done what it set out to do. My guess is it has worked to some extent. Signature*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >> It's about waste of time and resources inherent in my telling them >> >> repeatedly that yes, this vehicle is still not on the road, once I've [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > around. Since it costs no more than a stamp I really can't see what the > fuss is about. Even less than a stamp if you tax or SORN on line, Dave - IF the various people concerned would talk to each other! Last month I tried to tax my shopping trolley, a 1993 Peugeot something-or-other but failed as the DVLA had no record of it being insured. Rang the insurance company who confirmed it was correctly insured. Turns out they batch up the info and send it Royal Mail once a month or so.... Blimey, you could have done this on line back in the days of Sinclair ZX and Amstrad. Probably. Going back to an earlier post (sorry, lost it) re has anybody had a SORN inspection? Not exactly, but I had my E inspected some years ago in order to retain the original registration. Bit of a hoot, really - half the body was in Reigate, the rest in Woodhatch, the engine/gearbox in Merstham - it was basically smeared over half of Surrey. Oh, and the instruments were in Manchester. Never mind, the suit seemed happy to climb over piles of junk in a lock-up to confirm that the bulkhead was there as this is apparently the bit wot defines the car. Geoff MacK >> Bearing that in mind I don't see how repeatedly having to notify the ^^^^^^^^^^ >> DVLA that a car is still off the road once it has been declared as such >> helps keep track of a vehicle. It would still be an offence if it were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >around. Since it costs no more than a stamp I really can't see what the >fuss is about. See what I mean? I'm not advocating getting rid of SORN, and never was, and neither is Mike G. it's the repeated declaration that's the waste of resources, and it's not just the stamp, it's the waste of resources by the DVLA as well. And yes, you can do it online, but it's still a waste of resources, for no gain that I can see. If there was an annual charge for SORN, as with VED, there'd be a reason for renewing it annually. But there isn't. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP. I'm starting to think you're > a troll. He is, catch up Austin ;-) Mr. Killfile is your bestest friend. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP. I'm starting to think you're >> a troll. > >He is, catch up Austin ;-) Mr. Killfile is your bestest friend. he's very close to it. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>> It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP. I'm starting to think you're >>> a troll. >> >>He is, catch up Austin ;-) Mr. Killfile is your bestest friend. > >he's very close to it. Fer chrissakes, put him in there and then stop wittering on and on about him. > Fer chrissakes, put him in there and then stop wittering on and on > about him. About who? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >>> I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and >>> put on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you can't work that out for yourself I can't be bothered telling > you. Cos if you blew the cobwebs out of your mind and thought about it? What does it benefit me to do it? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >>>> I'd say the main reason the excise duty hasn't been abolished and >>>> put on fuel tax is the need to register the vehicle details each [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Cos if you blew the cobwebs out of your mind and thought about it? >What does it benefit me to do it? OK I'll give you a real life example of how it can work in your favour. I sold a car for scrap and the V5 either got lost in the post or wasn't entered correctly at the DVLA. It was the notification of a failure to SORN that alerted me to the error and allowed me to get it corrected. An annual SORN provides a regular check on what vehicles are where. It costs very little and isn't exactly hard to complete. Why change it just to benefit the lazy or feckless who can't manage to fill out a simple form on time? I've sat on the fence over this whilst the thread has raged on but perhaps it time to point out that there are other views and folks often don't express them due to some of the regulars having a tendency to call anyone who contradicts their views a troll or worse ;( > I sold a car for scrap and the V5 either got lost in the post or > wasn't entered correctly at the DVLA. It was the notification of a > failure to SORN that alerted me to the error and allowed me to get it > corrected. Why is a yearly SORN the only way to notify you? It's still needless to do it every year. There's *no* valid excuse for repeating it every year other than to catch people out who forget and slap a fine on them. > An annual SORN provides a regular check on what vehicles are where. It > costs very little and isn't exactly hard to complete. Why change it > just to benefit the lazy or feckless who can't manage to fill out a > simple form on time? If more companies and organisations took that attitude, we'd be snowed under with repeat forms every month. > I've sat on the fence over this whilst the thread has raged on but > perhaps it time to point out that there are other views and folks > often don't express them due to some of the regulars having a tendency > to call anyone who contradicts their views a troll or worse ;( One side doesn't think things through though. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I sold a car for scrap and the V5 either got lost in the post or >> wasn't entered correctly at the DVLA. It was the notification of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Why is a yearly SORN the only way to notify you? It's still needless >to do it every year. No, I accept that as a genuine benefit. If I sell something on SORN and send the form in, I promptly forget all about it. If for any reason DVLA fail to take note (including that the form never got there) it'll still be registered to me. DVLA won't notify me, seeing from their point of view, I'm still the keeper. However, if I get a SORN renewal in 3 months or whatever, I'll be going "WTF!? I sold that 3 months ago!" In the given scenario, that would be the only way it'd come to light. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > No, I accept that as a genuine benefit. If I sell something on SORN and > send the form in, I promptly forget all about it. There's one born every minute! :-P Yearly SORNing isn't the solution to that problem, just one letter sent out to confirm the change or for you to call them would do it, it's no justification for a yearly SORN check. After all if you're that bad at keeping up with things, if you moved or went on holiday for a long time, or got the letter but put it down somewhere and forgot about it, you'd be in the sh.t again. > In the given scenario, that would be the only way it'd come to light. Only because the current setup does not offer any confirmation of the passage of responsibility other than the yearly SORN. It's no substitute for doing it properly. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> No, I accept that as a genuine benefit. If I sell something on SORN and >> send the form in, I promptly forget all about it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >passage of responsibility other than the yearly SORN. It's no >substitute for doing it properly. What's your definition of doing it properly? I've given an example of how the current system works, what alternative would you propose and how would it be as effective at checking the process of transferring ownership has been completed correctly? >>> No, I accept that as a genuine benefit. If I sell something on >>> SORN and send the form in, I promptly forget all about it. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > checking the process of transferring ownership has been completed > correctly? Registration is not proof of ownership! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > I've given an example of how the current system works, what > alternative would you propose and how would it be as effective at > checking the process of transferring ownership has been completed > correctly? A follow-up letter from the DVLA would do fine, the idea that the whole yearly repeated SORN business is justifiable because it can flag up that the process didn't complete is daft. For a start, if you SORN a car then sell it the next day and send off the V5, it'll be a year before you get notification that the V5 didn't get there. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I've given an example of how the current system works, what >> alternative would you propose and how would it be as effective at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a car then sell it the next day and send off the V5, it'll be a year >before you get notification that the V5 didn't get there. I think Austins already covered this, a followup letter is fine, but in the event of someone (thats me in thecase I highlighted) forgetting to followup if that letter isn't received an annual SORN serves as a reminder. I'm afraid that there are perfectly sane thinking people out here that think the current system is OK. They're not trollsand they have thought it through for themselves! > I think Austins already covered this, a followup letter is fine, but > in the event of someone (thats me in thecase I highlighted) forgetting > to followup if that letter isn't received an annual SORN serves as a > reminder. It's hardly suitable. As I said, it can be up to a year after the event that you get the "reminder" and the "reminder" letters aren't guaranteed themselves, if you could forget the followup letter, or if that followup letter isn't received, then the same thing can happen with the yearly SORN reminders. > I'm afraid that there are perfectly sane thinking people out here that > think the current system is OK. They're not trollsand they have > thought it through for themselves! Not really. It's not suitable as a means of confirming correct transfer of ownership, the fact that it can do so in a very untimely and unreliable fashion is a byproduct of the excessive beaurocracy that it signifies. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I've given an example of how the current system works, what >> alternative would you propose and how would it be as effective at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a car then sell it the next day and send off the V5, it'll be a year > before you get notification that the V5 didn't get there. I think you've hit a point there, apart from my wish for someone to attempt to justify 'registration' it would seem repetitive SORN is merely an admission that DVLA are not fit for purpose in that they cannot be trusted to keep records! I'm currently attempting to register my new acquisition. Swansea claim they cannot do it because I am not resident in Mainland UK, wherever that is, Coleraine refuse to recognise Swansea's documentation and require me to complete a new registration application by hand. FFS is it any surprise I think they're all a waste of space! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I'm currently attempting to register my new acquisition. Swansea claim > they cannot do it because I am not resident in Mainland UK, wherever > that is, It's that big kinda islandy thing, generally known as Great Britain, and consisting of England, Scotland, Wales. If you aren't resident in one of those three, then - no, you don't register your car with DVLA Swansea. > Coleraine So you're in NI? Right. So you don't register with Swansea. Next. > refuse to recognise Swansea's documentation and require me to complete > a new registration application by hand. And that's Swansea's fault? How? > FFS is it any surprise I think they're all a waste of space! I'm sure the feeling's reciprocated. > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one of those three, then - no, you don't register your car with DVLA > Swansea. However the documentation V5? insists one does! >> Coleraine > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And that's Swansea's fault? How? And there was me thinking it was now joined up government. >> FFS is it any surprise I think they're all a waste of space! > > I'm sure the feeling's reciprocated. I very much doubt they could find their arse with both hands let alone feel their ineptitude exists! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> I'm currently attempting to register my new acquisition. Swansea claim >>> they cannot do it because I am not resident in Mainland UK, wherever >>> that is, >> It's that big kinda islandy thing, generally known as Great Britain, >> and consisting of England, Scotland, Wales. If you aren't resident in >> one of those three, then - no, you don't register your car with DVLA >> Swansea. > However the documentation V5? insists one does! Re-read it. If you're taking it outside GB, it doesn't. > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Re-read it. If you're taking it outside GB, it doesn't. Whatever, so obtuse that the process becomes incredably boring. SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Re-read it. If you're taking it outside GB, it doesn't. I did and cannot find anything to that effect, maybe it's in the Welsh on the back? The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which is ficticious and not GB which is the statutary entity! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >> GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding >> much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >ficticious and not >GB which is the statutary entity! How can Mainland UK be fictitious? It's a socking great lump of terra firma, if it doesn't exist I'd have sunk on my way back home tomight ;) >>> GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding >>> much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > firma, if it doesn't exist I'd have sunk on my way back home tomight > ;) It is a myth! The country is the United Kingdom, UK for short. The UK is by statute The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Check in your passport if you don't believe me. Great Britain is correctly described above. NB there is no mention of Mainland UK at all. It is ficticious, it does not exist, it isn't, it if it wasn't nailed to the perch it would fall off! It is a connivance concocted by those too lazy to know any better, in particular the various courier companies who feel they need to surcharge carriage to Northern Ireland and have not the whit to describe it correctly. One would expect an part the UK government to know what constitutes the country and to correctly use the statutary description. I think there are specific laws about describing it incorrectly but these seem not to matter any more. Now I understand what they mean by it but why must they invent a new name for it. Is it not a spade, why call it a shovel! It is Great Britain, NOT Mainland UK. Anyway managed to register my acquisition this morning, curious, in spite of it being disowned by Swansea, it is not considered a first registration in Northern Ireland. SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>> It's that big kinda islandy thing, generally known as Great >>>>>> Britain, and consisting of England, Scotland, Wales. If you aren't >>>>>> resident in one of those three, then - no, you don't register your >>>>>> car with DVLA Swansea. >>>>> However the documentation V5? insists one does! >>>> Re-read it. If you're taking it outside GB, it doesn't. >>> I did and cannot find anything to that effect, maybe it's in the Welsh >>> on the back? > Anyway managed to register my acquisition this morning, curious, in > spite of it being disowned by Swansea, it is not considered a first > registration in Northern Ireland. <goes to fetch a V5C> Right, here y'go... The front of section 10 - the bit that if it were a normal GB transfer the new keeper would get says... "THIS SECTION CANNOT BE USED WHEN TRANSFERRING A VEHICLE BETWEEN GB AND NI. THIS _WILL NOT_ PRODUCE A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE" The capitals and underlining are THEIR emphasis, not mine. The back of section 11 - Permanent Export - says "Transfers between GB and NI must be notified to the appropriate licencing authority" The instructions are quite clear that any export - which it seems fairly emphatic that GB to NI is - should see the main bit of the V5C handed to the new owner and the purple section 11 sent back to DVLA. I fail to see how it could be much clearer, really. > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I fail to see how it could be much clearer, really. Them bits were no longer with the V5 I had. The back of all I had was in Welsh! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> The instructions are quite clear that any export - which it seems >> fairly emphatic that GB to NI is - should see the main bit of the V5C >> handed to the new owner and the purple section 11 sent back to DVLA. >> >> I fail to see how it could be much clearer, really. > Them bits were no longer with the V5 I had. The back of all I had was in > Welsh! So what bit DID you get? > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So what bit DID you get? SFAIR the V5C, the bit with all the vehicular details, as space for the new keeper, me, couple of of signature boxes, that's about all, can't check because DVLNI (Belfast) kept it, assuring me I would get a new one in the post. Quite why they cannot exchange the information without me having to copy it longhand onto a duplicate piece of paper for them to type into some blackhole escapes me. Mind you their capacity for losing information on transfer is legendary these days, so maybe it is better that we remain in the mid 19th century? At least they've progressed beyond cleft stick technology, now using the penny post! Mind you they still haven't grasped the concept of the credit card, progress there has reached the heady heights of debit cards. The gentleman checking that forms are filled in right @ front of house couldn't grasp the concept that he should take note of my comments and cause action on them rather than me fill in a complaints form. He is the face of DVLNI, IT IS his job to respond to his customers!! I guess he'll be out of one soon enough. I'm led to believe Coleraine will be assimilated by 2009! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Them bits were no longer with the V5 I had. The back of all I had was >>> in Welsh! >> So what bit DID you get? > SFAIR the V5C, the bit with all the vehicular details, as space for the > new keeper, me, couple of of signature boxes, that's about all, can't > check because DVLNI (Belfast) kept it, assuring me I would get a new one > in the post. Just a single double-sided page? Front is a title page, back has the details on? > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Front is a title page, back has the details on? No back had same as front but in Welsh. SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> SFAIR the V5C, the bit with all the vehicular details, as space for >>> the new keeper, me, couple of of signature boxes, that's about all, >>> can't check because DVLNI (Belfast) kept it, assuring me I would get a >>> new one in the post. >> Just a single double-sided page? >> >> Front is a title page, back has the details on? > No back had same as front but in Welsh. f.ck knows what it was, then, but it doesn't sound like the half of the V5C you should have been given. > GbH ("GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > f.ck knows what it was, then, but it doesn't sound like the half of > the V5C you should have been given. It wasn't awfully helpful in terms of instructions! I think Swansea could have been more useful since they saw it all! 'You done it wrong' is not awfully helpful! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which is > fictitious and not > GB which is the statutory entity! I suppose technically "Mainland UK" excludes the Isle of Wight, Anglesey and all the Islands off Scotland. That could make registration awkward in such places. Jim >> The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which >> is fictitious and not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jim Of course the IoM and the Channel Isles are not part of the UK! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >> The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which >> is fictitious and not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jim Nor the Isle of Sheppy nor Eel Pie Island, not so sure about Thanet or Ely. SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >>> The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which >>> is fictitious and not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nor the Isle of Sheppy nor Eel Pie Island, not so sure about Thanet or > Ely. I had a holiday on the Isle of Sheppey with my parents as a young child. I didn't realise until now that it was my first trip "abroad"! Jim >> The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which >> is fictitious and not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and all the Islands off Scotland. That could make registration awkward > in such places. I was rather pissed off to read the other day (in Wikipedia, so it may not be true) that Anglesey is now technically regarded as part of the mainland. Thomas Telford and Robert Stephenson have a lot to answer for. >>> The correspondence from Swansea specifically said Mainland UK, which >>> is fictitious and not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not be true) that Anglesey is now technically regarded as part of the >mainland. Thomas Telford and Robert Stephenson have a lot to answer for. Where was that, then? I don't see it. It says it's part of Great Britain, but that's not synonymous with the British Mainland. SignatureIan D |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message