There are occasions when the sheer crass stupidity of ministers driven by 'free market' dogma brings out the Victor Meldrew in me. This was one, this morning:
How can anyone think that removing the one essential check that a motorist is insured could be a step forward for all other motorists?
Motor insurance works on what might be called a 'herd basis'. If we're all insured the cost for each of us is reasonable. Once some are not insured the cost for those insured rises as they bear the burden of the free rider.
Now we know that Tory ministers approve of tax haven free-riding, which has the same effect for all honest tax payers, but it's now clear that they want to introduce the advantages of crime for the free rider at cost to the rest of us to other sectors.
I sometimes just don't believe it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Presumably though, their will be realtime checks to the MID ? http://www.askmid.com and not just a relaxation of all checking? I would hope so
The policy is to use cameras on either police cars, or in towns and motorways. SO if person A is driving down the M40 and passes a police check, they will be stopped and their car removed from the road.
That is a better way then taking out a policy, buying tax, then cancelling or not paying the rest of the year. This is happening at the moment.
I appreciate your moment, however real life sometimes has more cunning people than yourself.
Respectfully – I think not
I prefer a chance to block abuse to a random chance
This is a foolhardy change
The notes to Editors below the article gives information about,
– The Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) scheme to tackle uninsured motorists was launched in June 2011. Under the scheme it is an offence to be the keeper of an uninsured vehicle. Information is cross checked between the Motor Insurance Database (MID) and DVLA keeper records
– Under CIE, keepers of vehicles which appear to be uninsured are sent reminder letters. Those who take no action receive a fixed penalty notice of £100, followed by enforcement action — wheelclamping, impounding and ultimately prosecution by the courts (the maximum fine in Court is £1,000).
And does it work?
That would be because you cannot tax a vehicle without there being current insurance on that vehicle?
If the DVLA system sees no insurance on the vehicle it will not proceed.
If the post-office system sees no insurance, ditto.
The post-office used to scan the barcode on the insurance certificate, now the MOT and insurance are checked from the renewal paper.
Given that an uninsured vehicle, when stopped by police, is impounded, I always check the insurance online..frequently.
Incidentally, if the vehicle is being willfully driven without insurance, it is then scrapped.
Note also that the tax disc is being ended, because the status of the vehicle can be checked online now….all police can check vehicle and person status online, even while patrolling.
But do they….the statement is that the check is not needed….do the Post Office now check on line?
If they do I am wrong
I doubt it…
When renewing road tax online the check is made electronically against the Motor Insurance Database DVLA have as part of the process. All this change does is extend that process to a ‘manual’ renewal at a post office or by post with DVLA.
But not everyone does it online….
So those without insurance will now go to a Post Office
Are you really stupid enough not to work that out?
But those without insurance will not get taxed at a post office as they check the same database.
Stupid huh?
Do they?
They checked at the Post Office when I renewed mine last Saturday morning.
Also, can we stop calling it “road tax” please. That was abolished in 1937. It’s now a charge on having a polluting vehicle.
If any deaths occur in provable consequence of this idiocy, then the “responsible” (actually grossly irresponsible) minister should be arraigned for criminal act manslaughter (if he knew and understood what he was doing) or gross negligence manslaughter if (far more likely) he did not know.
Equally, anyone seriously injured, and unable to claim damages from an uninsured driver should personally sue the Minister for those damages.
The above may not be (surely isn’t) practical law, but it is sure as hell is real justice – something the Neo-Cons and neo-liberal dogma junkies wouldn’t recognize if it bit them on the backside, since justice cannot have a price pit on it, or be traded in the market.
To paraphrase Nye Bevan (speaking about a VERY different breed of Tory, who wouldn’t recognize the Cameroonies as Tory) – these Cameroonies really ARE lower than vermin!
My first thought was absolute agreement, but I suspect the change might actually be less stupid than it looks – IF, and only if, they get the message out that they don’t need to check the paper annually because they’re doing it on-line all the time (just like with the dropping of the paper tax disc in favour of ANPR enforcement). But that’s not what the minister said, and ‘cutting red tape’ is a stupid justification for downplaying the importance of insurance and letting people think they can get away without it.
I think the point is this:
“The changes to insurance checks have been made possible because DVLA regularly checks existing databases for insurance under Continuous Insurance Enforcement rules. DVLA’s records are compared regularly with the Motor Insurance Database to identify registered keepers of vehicles that have no insurance.”
So in fact, rather than making the check once or twice a year on renewal of the vehicle tax, it’s now done on a more routine basis.
And does it work?
For example, does the motorist know?
And if not, do they change their behaviour as a result – which is the outcome we want?
I doubt it
I stick to my point
This fails all behavioural thinking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/jessicainvestigates/10146140/How-many-uninsured-drivers-are-on-the-road.html
Things do seem to be improving. Claims that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) deals with have gone down from in excess of 37,000 in 2005 to about 25,000 a year now. The number of such cars on the UK roads is estimated to have fallen from about 2 million in 2005 to 1.2 million now.
I say its working.
So the system I am lamenting worked
I rest my case
spokesman for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) said the body received approximately 160,000 reports from members of the public of potentially untaxed vehicles last year.
200,000 drivers in all were spotted having not paid VED last year, by the public or by the authorities – or by both, he added.
Spotted yes – but action???
Richard.
When you tax your vehicle at a post office (note that only some are allowed to tax vehicles) the tax renewal document is barcode scanned. The MOT and insurance on the vehicle are checked against databases.
No insurance = no tax
No MOT = no tax
Now, go back to when you had to produce the MOT and insurance certificates. False MOTs´ were a dime-a-dozen. So were false insurance certificates (after all, all you had to do was buy insurance, get a certificate, and then cancel it)
If a roadside check throws a no-ins response the driver is asked if they have insurance (after all, you can drive anothers vehicle, with permission, on your own insurance).
No insurance always means impounding of vehicle.
The average motorist knows they need insurance its the law. They know they need to deal with the MOT and tax. I think we are going to see an increase in cameras looking out for these cars. More fines for people, more money brought in.
You have not actually quoted number of cases….
Why don’t you do a freedom of information on the Police to find out haow many people are being caught.
http://www.theaa.com/insurance/news/electronic-car-insurance-certificates-update.html
My insure is Zurich the last two previous years have been ne of the Uk biggest. I haven’t been sent a certificate for the past few years. They can be faked and changed by criminal minds.
Here is the consultation document https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206962/Consultation_Document_-_Removing_Insurance_Check.pdf
I am not in favour of this change; I think it may increase claims to the MIB in respct of uninsured drivers
That is my concern too
Literally the free-rider problem
In the Isle of Man they are just introducing ANPR at the moment, we still have tax discs and rural post offices!
Twenty comments so far. How has no one made a pun on his name yet?
Isn’t he placing far too much faith in the Goodwill of motorists?
Okay, I’m sorry. But, seriously, this is absurd.
But what is changing?
Most people insure on line, so no-insurance = no tax.
Obtaining a false insurance certificate is no problem, you can probably download a decent copy off the net. Or buy, get certificate, then cancel and retain the certificate.
Where is the change..
If your vehicle is uninsured you are automatically breaking the law anyway, unless you have sorned it.
Is this going to lead to more uninsured drivers ?
ANPR cameras are constantly checking ´plates as you drive….the police in my county have regular blitzes on the roadside, they do not even have to get out of their car since the ANPR checks tell them which car/truck/van passing is not taxed/insured/mot´ed.
The ANPR system has over 14 million hits every day…each one run against the dvla, vosa and mi databases.
Local councils now run vans equipped with ANPR to check parked cars….the net is drawing in..
But there are over a million uninsured cars
That’s not working then, is it?
But, then, nor is the policy of requiring insurance to get a tax disc.
People who don’t insure their vehicles aren’t going to tax them either. Or do you think that someone will think ‘I’m going to commit a criminal act which could have grave implications for myself and other motorists, but I’ll be sure to pop into the post office so that I can give the taxman his £200?’
It’s an unnecessary inconvenience to law-abiding people that doesn’t achieve what it’s supposed to. It can be done more efficiently. Identifying people who don’t comply with the law remains an enforcement issue. You’re just slagging off the government for the sake if it.. this is nothing to do with ‘free market dogma’, it’s about technology making our lives just that little bit easier.
Exactly. There are over a million uninsured cars at the moment, and the regulations on tax discs and insurance certificates have not been altered yet.
It is an offence to keep a vehicle uninsured, unless you have declared it off road (SORN).
The reality is that even when people are stopped when driving without insurance, and the vehicle is seized and scrapped (even if new), people will still drive uninsured. Mainly it is the already disqualified, who cannot get insurance anyway, or the young, for who the prospect of paying several thousand pounds for basic cover is uninteresting or not affordable.
Add to that the driver who is added to mum or dads insurance, but is not insured because they drive the car more than mum or dad…
Then there is the self-employed person who uses the car for work, and does not inform the insurer. The ¨mobile mechanic¨, who ¨only carries tools¨ (uninsured, since the policy has to include ¨carriage of own goods¨)
The night worker (yes, if you work shifts you have to inform the insurer since night workers are up to 8 times more likely to have a driving accident).
Do you drive your car to work?
Two jobs?
Maybe you should read the POLICY…..most car insurance covers the driver for ¨commuting to and from a single place of work¨
All vehicles can be taxed online, with exceptions if you have to alter taxation class.
As you can see, not as cut and dried.
Don´t knock ANPR, it´s very efficient and effective.
If you buy a new car, the tax, MOT and insurance all fall due at the same time. You can’t renew road tax online. You have to take the paper certificates to the Post Office. They aren’t on the database. If they are fraudulent, who is to tell.
Not quite the case.
You can renew road tax online after DVLA send you the renewal form, up to 1 month before the due date and thus MOT etc is covered (just done it so I know it to be true)
Also, assuming you have an existing policy insurance renewal is not connected to the date the new car was bought. (just done that also)
And – I’ve renewed online for at least the last 6 years for 2 new cars.
However if they are willing to drive without insurance, then I would suggest they cant be bothered to pay for tax in the first place.
Also some insurance companies say that if you have no tax, then you have no insurance even if you are covered.
So in the end you had a meldrew moment, all over nothing.
In Jersey, we got rid of Vehicle Tax over 20 years ago, the payment as well as the disc, as we didn’t have the economies of scale to make it worth the bother. However, we have to display an insurance “disc” (actually square) instead, printed on a special patterned and watermarked background, so there is still difficult-to-forge visible evidence of being insured.
Someone I know had a friend staying with her, and paid for this friend’s car licence when he bought a car.
He has just rewarded her by driving off in a drunken state in her stolen car. When stopped by the police, who checked up on him, it turns out that he has not even passed his test! So much for checks.
But they did check him, and found he hadn´t passed his test!
You said so!
In any case, he stole the car so he wasn´t insured anyway. It is not possible to be driving a stolen vehicle and have insurance to cover you for that vehicle!
There is a fine line between doing reasonable checks, and a police state.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. There were two different cars I am talking about. My neighbour paid for the cartax for his car two months ago. It was not checked that he had a driving licence then. He told her he had passed his test when he was in the army. He had not.
It was only discovered that he did not have a driving licence this week when he stole her car and drove it away.
There is no check on a drivers licence status when a car is taxed, no matter where it is taxed.
A driver who is disqual is unable to obtain valid insurance.
A car thief is always uninsured when driving a stolen car.
A good job the car was stolen, otherwise your friend would have been in deep doodoo!
Still do not understand. The car he stole was taxed and insured for her to drive.
He stole that one.
The car that was taxed and insured by her but in his name was driven by him without a licence and without him having passed his test. Anyone can tax a car without having a driving licence. But you cannot get insurance without having one. The registered keeper is responsible for making sure it is properly taxed and insured. All she did was believe him when he said that he had passed his test in the army, and then pay for his licence.