On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:54:47 -0000, "GbH"
enlightened us thusly:


I'm still having difficulty in understanding the benefit(s) of
registration.
I know that's not what your petition is about but no registration no
need for SORN.
The ONLY beneficiary I can see of registration is the revenue!

Well, yeah. It's so they know where to send tax demands, mainly. I'm not
sure "they" would allow a setup where they couldn't keep tabs on us all
though... so a petition or any other action to scrap vehicle registration is
foredoomed. The change to SORN should make sense and emphasising the waste
of resources is most likely to work at the moment when everyone is supposed
to be getting more efficient.

funnily enough, they mostly seem to try to implement the greater efficiency
by adding more managers. This, of course, doesn't work.
--
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!

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:45:38 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

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.

Start thinking then

There are two different opinions on this, both have thir pluses and
minuses and both are perpetuating the discussin in there own ways.
Which side is trolling?

Maybe we need a rule that for accusing the other viewpoint of trolling
similar to the one for mentioning hitler

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:39:05 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2008-01-29, Austin Shackles wrote:

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 **** 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.

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?

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Tim Jones wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GbH wrote:
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.

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.

I'm not sure how that was a benefit to you, so the registration got
screwed up, so what?

In this case the vehicle wound up with an honest scrappy who was
prepared to help me sort the problem. It's not difficult to envisage
other less desirable and more costly results ;(

Tim Jones wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:39:05 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2008-01-29, Austin Shackles
wrote:

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 **** 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.

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?

Registration is not proof of ownership!

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

Tim Jones wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Tim Jones wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GbH wrote:
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.

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.

I'm not sure how that was a benefit to you, so the registration got
screwed up, so what?

In this case the vehicle wound up with an honest scrappy who was
prepared to help me sort the problem. It's not difficult to envisage
other less desirable and more costly results ;(

What's 'the problem' that needed sorting, a totalitarian process that
doesn't benefit you in any way?

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

On 2008-01-30, Tim Jones wrote:

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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:20:09 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Tim Jones wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Tim Jones wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GbH wrote:
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.

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.

I'm not sure how that was a benefit to you, so the registration got
screwed up, so what?

In this case the vehicle wound up with an honest scrappy who was
prepared to help me sort the problem. It's not difficult to envisage
other less desirable and more costly results ;(

What's 'the problem' that needed sorting, a totalitarian process that
doesn't benefit you in any way?

Unless I'm mising something if the vehicle had wound up back on the
road it would have been me that got the letters about speed cameras,
parking tickets and maybe even congestion charges?

The central record of vehicle "ownership" is used for many purposes,
some good and some not so good, aslong as it is used for these
purposes I believe that it is in all of our interests to keep it as
accurate as possible and that an annual SORN is more effective at this
as anything else would be.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:31:44 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2008-01-30, Tim Jones wrote:

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.

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!

In article ,
GbH wrote:
Registration is not proof of ownership!

It shows you are the registered keeper. A receipt for purchase proves
ownership. You've not really thought this one through, have you?

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.