Safe Speed Forums

Anyone else seen that there is to be a new offence announced in the Road Safety Act 2006 which was recently passed.The offence is " Being the registered keeper of a vehicle which the use of which is not insured". Can result in fixed penalty notices and/or seizure of uninsured vehicles. My rally car isn't insured because there's no engine in it! What about all the cars which are being built/laid up/only insured part of the year?

144B Exceptions to section 144A offence

(1) A person ("the registered keeper") in whose name a vehicle which does not meet the insurance requirements is registered at any particular time ("the relevant time") does not commit an offence under section 144A of this Act at that time if any of the following conditions are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that at the relevant time the vehicle is owned as described-

(a) in subsection (1) of section 144 of this Act, or
(b) in paragraph (a), (b), (da), (db), (dc) or (g) of subsection (2) of that section,
(whether or not at the relevant time it is being driven as described in that provision).

(3) The second condition is that at the relevant time the vehicle is owned with the intention that it should be used as described in paragraph (c), (d), (e) or (f) of section 144(2) of this Act.

(4) The third condition is that the registered keeper-

(a) is not at the relevant time the person keeping the vehicle, and
(b) if previously he was the person keeping the vehicle, he has by the relevant time complied with any requirements under subsection (7)(a) below that he is required to have complied with by the relevant or any earlier time.
(5) The fourth condition is that-

(a) the registered keeper is at the relevant time the person keeping the vehicle,
(b) at the relevant time the vehicle is not used on a road or other public place, and
(c) the registered keeper has by the relevant time complied with any requirements under subsection (7)(a) below that he is required to have complied with by the relevant or any earlier time.
(6) The fifth condition is that-

(a) the vehicle has been stolen before the relevant time,
(b) the vehicle has not been recovered by the relevant time, and
(c) any requirements under subsection (7)(b) below that, in connection with the theft, are required to have been complied with by the relevant or any earlier time have been complied with by the relevant time.
(7) Regulations may make provision-

(a) for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) and (5)(c) above, requiring a person in whose name a vehicle is registered to furnish such particulars and make such declarations as may be prescribed, and to do so at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, and
(b) for the purposes of subsection (6)(c) above, as to the persons to whom, the times at which and the manner in which the theft of a vehicle is to be notified.
(8) Regulations may make provision amending this section for the purpose of providing for further exceptions to section 144A of this Act (or varying or revoking any such further exceptions).

(9) A person accused of an offence under section 144A of this Act is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception; but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.

144C Fixed penalty notices

(1) Where on any occasion the Secretary of State has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under section 144A of this Act, the Secretary of State may give the person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty to the Secretary of State.

(2) Where a person is given a notice under this section in respect of an offence under section 144A of this Act-

(a) no proceedings may be instituted for that offence before the end of the period of 21 days following the date of the notice, and
(b) he may not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the end of that period.

In short, another load of bollocks and "easy money" from the saps who will pay up without questioning why they are opening their wallets

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Or.... another means of tackling the menace of uninsured vehicles.

If a vehicle is laid-up for work, get a 'laid-up' policy. It's been a few years since I had one of those but it only cost a few quid I seem to remember.

Mike.

A frined had a laid up policy on his car, it cost him half his years normal premium, so not exactly cheap.

Also once this becomes a legal requirement insurers will ramp up the cost, I've seen this in relation to certain legally required insurances relating to high risk (H&S) works.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

What makes you think the uninsured are going to give a stuff about yet another offence?


If I'm not using it and it isn't on a public highway, then why should I pay anything?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

As I said, it has been a while since I had a laid-up policy and from what I remember it was about 10% of a full policy at the time.



Acknowledged.



They probably won't but, it may close a loophole that they would have used to keep the car on the road. Registered in a mate's name, not registered to anyone etc etc. If it gives the police the opportunity to remove more uninsured drivers from the road it would help though.



If you are absolutely sure that your pride and joy is going to come to no harm then you shouldn't, personally that fire and theft only cover gives me peace of mind just in case something happens.

Perhaps I'm being naive but, what can I say... I'm a 'glass is half full' kind of guy

There aren't any loopholes at present, everybody knows that if you use a motor vehicle on the road without having insurance then you are comitting an offence and there is no defence for that whatsoever.

Forcing people to have insurance on a vehicle won't reduce the amount of uninsured vehicles out there at all as it is the driver who has to be insured, not the vehicle itself.
This is nothing more than another way to screw money out of people.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Where did you get the information from? It differs considerably from the advance info sent to me.

If it is actually brought in, which is not certain at the moment, the offence will be "being the registered keeper of a vehicle which is NEITHER insured OR subject to a SORN declaration.

There is a statutory defence that the vehicle was beyond your control at the relevant time. So that should cover it being stolen and dumped or parked on the road while in the care of a garage.

The "Road Safety" Act 2006
Apparently part of this is going to come into effect on the 27th. Why are they still going ahead with it? Surely it isn't wanted?

_________________
Andrew.

as far as i know the only part coming in to force on the 27th is three points for mobile phone use.

At time of posting i have no information about introduction dates for the rest of it. If they do introduce the rest of it.

That's my precise understanding also.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Assuming this is it:
The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2007

Yep, those people who dare to use a mobile phone safely while driving must be punished.

Also there's a bit about charging different (presumably higher ) fees for driving tests.

We will have to pay to renew photocard licenses. (Maybe I should do mine now then?)

There's something about 'safety arrangements' at level crossings. Not sure what all that means. Probably 'restrictions'.

_________________
Andrew.

Well, this is the blurb:

So if you have a vehicle registered, you have to have insurance on it even if it's locked in a garage?
Sounds like there are too many chances of making mistakes with vehicles which are off-road now.
I guess they have lost control of the ones which are on-road so they're going after the ones which they can catch easier?

_________________
Andrew.

Ho ho ho!

The cost of "laid-up" insurance might be small NOW....

...hands up everyone who thinks it's going to stay the same if it becoems a legal requirement???? (even if the risk doesn't change one jot)!

Hands up- might be a good idea (find local MP, STICK HAND UP, AND WHEN ASKED QUESTION, NOD VIGOUROUSLY )

So am I correct in thinking that would rule out a laid-up policy then? (which only covers Fire and Theft)

Mike

Not quite, no.

Either insured OR SORNed.

It does look like an awful lot of trouble for nothing, however.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So what happens in my case then Paul.....

I have a garaged vehicle that hasn't been on the road since 1985 (and hence doesn't need to be SORN'ed according to current law).

Do I now have to insure my "long term project" in order to comply with the impending new law or what?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?