"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Austin Shackles wrote:
On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:15:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
(News)"
enlightened us thusly:

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.

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

Austin Shackles (Austin Shackles
) 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.

Oily wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Austin Shackles
wrote:
On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:15:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
(News)" enlightened us thusly:

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.

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

Of course??


--
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Austin Shackles wrote:
On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:04:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
enlightened us thusly:

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.

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.

"GbH" wrote in message
...
Oily wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Austin Shackles
wrote:
On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:15:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
(News)" enlightened us thusly:

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.

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

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

Oily wrote:

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. :-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 2008-01-26, John Williamson wrote:

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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:
On 2008-01-26, John Williamson wrote:

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.

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?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On or around Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:35:29 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
enlightened us thusly:

Austin Shackles (Austin Shackles
) 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.

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.
--
Austin 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 message
from John Williamson contains these words:

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.

Some of us still have cars off road that can't be sorned and I still
think the long term plan is to ultimately prevent such cars from ever
returning to the road.

--
Roger Chapman