On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000, Austin Shackles
 wrote:

>and if not, I want to know why... :-)
>
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SORN-rules/

In article ,
   Alex  wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000, Austin Shackles
>  wrote:

> >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?

-- 
*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)" 
 decided to write:

> In article ,
>    Alex  wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000, Austin Shackles
>>  wrote:

>>>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.

-- 
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

In article ,
   Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > 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.

-- 
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4f666caaabdave@davenoise.co.uk...

> 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.

-- 
William 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.

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:10:38 +0530, "William Black"
 enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
>news:4f666caaabdave@davenoise.co.uk...
>
>> 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. 
-- 
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!

In article ,
   Austin Shackles  wrote:
> On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:10:38 +0530, "William Black"
>  enlightened us thusly:

> >
> >"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
> >news:4f666caaabdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> >
> >> 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.

-- 
Is 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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:21:01 퍍, Austin Shackles wrote:

> 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 drivingaround 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-)  

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:26:35 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
 enlightened us thusly:

>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.
-- 
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 or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:01:09 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
 enlightened us thusly:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:21:01 +0000, Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> 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.

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. 
-- 
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!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>   Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>> 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.

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?

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

On 2008-01-25, GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:

> 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 ;-)

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In article ,
   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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.

-- 
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:01 퍍, Austin Shackles wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> 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 foryears if at all.

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:13:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
 enlightened us thusly:

>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.
-- 
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 or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:07:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
 enlightened us thusly:

>In article ,
>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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.

It's not re-registering, as you well know, DP.  I'm starting to think you're
a troll.
-- 
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!

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:01 +0000, Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Again, so what?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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?

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

In article ,
   Austin Shackles  wrote:
> On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:07:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>  enlightened us thusly:

> >In article ,
> >   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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.

> 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.

-- 
*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.

On 2008-01-25, Austin Shackles  wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:29:37 -0000, GbH wrote:

>> 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...

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>   Austin Shackles 
> wrote:
>> On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:07:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
>> (News)"  enlightened us thusly:
>
>>> In article ,
>>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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.
>
>> 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.

Or asking WHY they need to know such?
What does it benefit me?

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

In article ,
   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
> > 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?

-- 
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.  

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. 
-- 
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 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.

prat.
-- 
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 or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:40:41 +0000, Ian Rawlings
 enlightened us thusly:

>On 2008-01-25, Austin Shackles  wrote:
>
>> 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.
-- 
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!

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.

-- 
*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.

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.   

> 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.

-- 
*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.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:28:47 +0000, Austin Shackles
 wrote:

>On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:40:41 +0000, Ian Rawlings
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On 2008-01-25, Austin Shackles  wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

On 2008-01-26, Dean Dark  wrote:

> Fer chrissakes, put him in there and then stop wittering on and on
> about him.

About who?

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4f6721a7c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> 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

Oily wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
> news:4f6721a7c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> 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 
news:4f67227ce4dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> 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.

Dave Liquorice wibbled

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:29:37 -0000, GbH wrote:
> 
> >> 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...

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.

-- 
Paul - 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'

"GbH" <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote in message
news:13pmc53u4pnd1e@corp.supernews.com...
> Oily wrote:
> > "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
> > news:4f6721a7c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> >> 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 <fngdp0$41t$1@stable.tornevall.net>
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

The message <fnhjf0$7l3$5@registered.motzarella.org>
from Adrian  contains these words:

> > 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.

> Not at all - but you do need to request a V5C if you haven't got one for 
> 'em.

I have updated to V5Cs.

> Seriously, the FBHVC is strongly onto this sort of thing. If you're not a 
> member of an FBHVC-affiliated club, hassle your club to join - or join a 
> club that is.

FBHVC?

-- 
Roger Chapman

In article ,
   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
> >> 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??

See what I mean Mr Shackles? 

A grovelling apology would now be nice. Unless you're just a troll. ;-)

-- 
*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.

In article ,
   Mike G  wrote:
> >> 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.

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.

-- 
*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.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4f67ac9122dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Mike G  wrote:
>> >> 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.
>
> 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.


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

On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:16:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
 enlightened us thusly:

>In article ,
>   Mike G  wrote:
>
>> 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.

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.

-- 
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!

In article ,
   Austin Shackles  wrote:
> On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:16:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>  enlightened us thusly:

> >In article ,
> >   Mike G  wrote:
> >
> >> 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.

> 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.

 I'll try once more. *Any* database is only of much use if as up to date
as possible. Look at the electoral register - they require you to give
details of who is living in your house regularly  - even if there have
been no changes for years. Relying on an individual only contacting them
when there is a material change simply doesn't work. Many would forget or
just wouldn't bother. So you make it an act of commission rather than
omission.

 If you'd ever run any database - like say a car club one - you'd know
this to be the case. Now you can't force anyone to give you up to date
information for this - but the government can. And I think this thread has
confirmed just why it has to be as it is.

-- 
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
<Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:

>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article ,
>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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.

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 ;(

On 2008-01-29, Tim Jones  wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Tim Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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?

> 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 ;(



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

On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:42:04 GMT, wildenfarm@btopenworld.com (Tim
Jones) enlightened us thusly:

>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.

Although I think if you notify DVLA you get a form letter saying "thank you
for notifying us that you are no longer the keeper of".  ISTR getting
several such over the last year or three.

but you'd not necessarily notice if that didn't arrive.  I grant you've
found a positive benefit to annual SORN renewal.  Mind you, according to
DVLA they never make such mistakes, of course... That'll be how I've not got
a V5 for the motor outside, then.  Somehow, I doubt the dealer I bought it
from didn't send it in, seeing as they must send in several per week.  I
KNOW the dealer had the V5 and I KNOW that I filled in my details on it...

so now, I have to send the green slip and a V62.  Which will be going by
registered and signed-for post...
-- 
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 or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:45:38 +0000, Ian Rawlings
 enlightened us thusly:

>On 2008-01-29, Tim Jones  wrote:
>
>> 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.

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.
-- 
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 or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
<Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> enlightened us thusly:

>Tim Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 the stated circumstances, I'd want to know that I was still the
registered keeper so I could get it sorted.

I'd not want anything registered to me floating around who-knows-where, and
in the event that the keeper change got screwed up, that would likely be the
way I found out.
-- 
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 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 shit 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.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Tim Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
>>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 the stated circumstances, I'd want to know that I was still the
> registered keeper so I could get it sorted.
>
> I'd not want anything registered to me floating around
> who-knows-where, and in the event that the keeper change got screwed
> up, that would likely be the way I found out.

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!

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

In article ,
   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.

Quite the contrary. SORN was introduced to help prevent abuse of the VED
system. And to try and keep a track on every vehicle off the road which
hasn't been scrapped. For some reason some apparently don't want this. I
can only guess why.

-- 
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Austin Shackles wrote:
> 
> Although I think if you notify DVLA you get a form letter saying "thank you
> for notifying us that you are no longer the keeper of".  ISTR getting
> several such over the last year or three.
> 
I got one of those a couple of years ago - for a car that was still 
mine, I had all the documentation in order and the car was parked 
outside my house at the time.  DVLA are certainly not infallible!

I have signed the petition, though not because I think that renewing a 
SORN is a dreadful chore, but because I think that the penalty for not 
renewing is excessive for the gravity of the "crime".

Jim

Jim Warren wibbled

> Austin Shackles wrote:
> > 
> > Although I think if you notify DVLA you get a form letter saying
> > "thank you for notifying us that you are no longer the keeper of".
> > ISTR getting several such over the last year or three.
> > 
> I got one of those a couple of years ago - for a car that was still
> mine, I had all the documentation in order and the car was parked
> outside my house at the time.  DVLA are certainly not infallible!
> 
> I have signed the petition, though not because I think that renewing
> a SORN is a dreadful chore, but because I think that the penalty for
> not renewing is excessive for the gravity of the "crime".

That's my reasoning.  To financially punish someone if they forget  to
conmfirm what's already on record is a bit much, methinks.

-- 
Paul - 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'

On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:54:47 -0000, "GbH"
<Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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 shit 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"
<Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:

>Tim Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article ,
>>>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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 shit 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"
> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>
>> Tim Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
>>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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"
<Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:

>Tim Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Jones wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
>>>> <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>   GbH <Geoff_Hannington@IEE.ORGasm> 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 foll