# New Insurance Law



## Guest

A new insurance law is about to be put into place, ensuring that cars are contantly kept insured unless the DVLA is notified beforehand.






I personally think its a good thing to get these uninsured chancers off the road :thumb:


----------



## DamBuilder

Agreed, it is a good idea but I bet premiums don't come down though!!!


----------



## Ninja59

CIE has actually been in force since feb/march time, the first letters will be sent out next month a major part of my dissertation focused on a proper solution to the stupid way they are carrying this process out.

the actual legal statute goes back to 2006. The Road Safety Act 2006 to be precise (NOT the Road Traffic Act 1991 i hasten to add)

here is the process they are using: -










my Database solution in my dissertation would allow the 3 main vehicle agencies (DVLA,MIB and VOSA) to share information simply by clicking to see relevant vehicle information from that area. rather than producing other lists/tables of information madness....probably lose our data at some point or in an insecure way.


----------



## uruk hai

I hope I'm worong but I think this will make little difference to the people who have never passed a test and just buy a car and drive it without ever having tax or insurance !


----------



## The Cueball

So does this mean that people have to insure their cars even if they are sorn'd?!?

I can't watch the video btw..hence the question...

:thumb:


----------



## toomanycitroens

I doubt it will stop the scrotes who should be neutered, what happens about all the foreign registered old bangers from Romania/Lithuania etc. you see all over inner city's.
Oh dear I'm starting to rant.
It's a start I suppose.


----------



## chisai

If it's SORNed, it doesn't need taxed.


----------



## uruk hai

Apparantly there will be a system that works in the same way sorn does for tax !

If you don't renew your insurance you have make a statutory declaration, so for those who don't have insurance they'll do this and carry on driving !

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

If the car is declared SORN then you don't have to have insurance as the car should be off the road


----------



## Superspec

When my kit car was SORNd over winter I kept it insured in case it got nicked


----------



## Shiny

Superspec said:


> When my kit car was SORNd over winter I kept it insured in case it got nicked


You can still do this :thumb:

Basically, if a vehicle is taxed, it must be insured. You can no longer keep a taxed vehicle without insurance and insure it as and when you want to drive it.

The idea behind this is to stop the "chancers", people who may have a second car laid up and taxed or whose insurance has run out that think they have less chance of being stopped by the police for driving uninsured because their vehicle has a tax disc on it.

It means the authorities will have a database that links insurance, tax and MOT and will hopefully mean controlling the situation easier. Take away the temptation to drive uninsured and it is less likely to happen.

On the down side, those people that have garage queens, sunny day cars, track cars etc, that they leave in their garage taxed all year round and only take out for a drive once or twice a year and arrange "day insurance" will now either have to insure their car for a year (which may be very expensive for them) or SORN it, which will mean retaxing and insuring it in advance of a sunny weekend that they want to use it.


----------



## R7KY D

The sort of people that drive without insurance don't care anyway , Why should they , They have people like me prepared to pay higher premiums for their arseholeism


----------



## kh904

Well i've been looking into deregistering my car from the DVLA & getting a different type of insurance - As the current sytem is designed to screw the motorist as much money as possible!

There is NO LAW requiring people to pay VED, congestion charge etc. etc.!!! 

If you genuinely disagree with something, do something about it!


----------



## bigmc

kh904 said:


> Well i've been looking into deregistering my car from the DVLA & getting a different type of insurance - As the current sytem is designed to screw the motorist as much money as possible!
> 
> If you genuinely disagree with something, do something about it!


I've seen the hassle that comes with that and tbh it's just not worth it for a few hundred quid a year, you'll end up getting pulled over every 5 minutes and having to wait for at least an hour whilst the coppers bang their heads together.


----------



## kh904

bigmc said:


> I've seen the hassle that comes with that and tbh it's just not worth it for a few hundred quid a year, you'll end up getting pulled over every 5 minutes and having to wait for at least an hour whilst the coppers bang their heads together.


Very true, but more and more people are exercising their rights & the general public (including the police) are unaware of them, but they are slowly understanding this & not accepting it!


----------



## uruk hai

kh904 said:


> Well i've been looking into deregistering my car from the DVLA & getting a different type of insurance - As the current sytem is designed to screw the motorist as much money as possible!
> 
> There is NO LAW requiring people to pay VED, congestion charge etc. etc.!!!
> 
> If you genuinely disagree with something, do something about it!


I'll be interested to see where this actualy goes as I constantly hear people saying what they are going to do without ever actualy doing it ! So I will be interested in how you go about deregistering and if you decide to drive your car without any VED ?


----------



## kh904

uruk hai said:


> I'll be interested to see where this actualy goes as I constantly hear people saying what they are going to do without ever actualy doing it ! So I will be interested in how you go about deregistering and if you decide to drive your car without any VED ?


There are people in the UK who have started to do this (it's a lot more common in Canada & parts of the US where the law is the same as UK - We exported our law there with the British empire).

I believe the process starts by sending the DVLA a letter claiming back ownership of title IIRC - whenever you register something you hand ownership over to the registrar & you become the registered keeper (you hirer your own car from the DVLA)!

I shall post examples later on at home 

On a side topic, from what i understand, all UK citizens were declared legally dead during the great fire of london in 1666 (by an act passed through westminster) & all property was handed over to the state who became trustees IIRC.

Any child born today has up to the age 7 to claim back their title (or they are assumed dead/lost at sea beyond reasonable doubt).

This Act still exists today!


----------



## bigmc

Don't post examples we've seen them before we need instructions on how to do it if you're going to be helpful.


----------



## kh904

bigmc said:


> Don't post examples we've seen them before we need instructions on how to do it if you're going to be helpful.


No problem, I will have to research this myself as i'm not yet 100% sure on the exact process & comfortable to do this myself! You have to understand the process (& your lawful rights) properly otherwise they can enforce the statute - if you don't know what to say/do!

I understand the basic concept of the law and can feel comfortable using it when dealing with policy enforcers (eg police'officers' & CPO's) with other things such as fines, stop & search/account etc etc but not yet with the car.... yet.

I know one part of the process if you get stopped by the police officer (not police man) or CPO/warden etc is never give them your ID or full name & date of birth etc when they ask. By law you don't have to give it, even if they say you do by law (that is a lie), only if you've committed an actual crime.
If you give your ID or name & address, DoB etc, you've created a Joinder & accepted contract & given the Statute authority over you.

The other is understanding the words they use ie 'Driving'! If they say you are driving, refute it & say you are travelling. You are not carrying any 'passengers', they are 'guests', 'Vehicle' etc etc. These words are commercial activity (if you're a taxi driver or delivery driver etc)!


----------



## bigmc

kh904 said:


> No problem, I will have to research this myself as i'm not yet 100% sure on the exact process & comfortable to do this myself! You have to understand the process (& your lawful rights) properly otherwise they can enforce the statute - if you don't know what to say/do!
> 
> I understand the basic concept of the law and can feel comfortable using it when dealing with policy enforcers (eg police'officers' & CPO's) with other things such as fines, stop & search/account etc etc but not yet with the car.... yet.
> 
> I know one part of the process if you get stopped by the police officer (not police man) or CPO/warden etc is never give them your ID or full name & date of birth etc when they ask. By law you don't have to give it, even if they say you do by law. Only if you've committed an actual crime.
> If you give your ID or name & address, DoB etc, you've created a Joinder & accepted contract & given the Statute authority over you.


I wasn't being abrupt with my last post, I've just re-read it and it comes across a bit curt. 
I understand the lack of law requiring the ID thing and have used it before when stopped by an employee of Police ltd. I'm interested in the car thing though and I'd like to try it on an old scrapper first to prove the facts and methodology.


----------



## kh904

bigmc said:


> I wasn't being abrupt with my last post, I've just re-read it and it comes across a bit curt.
> I understand the lack of law requiring the ID thing and have used it before when stopped by an employee of Police ltd. I'm interested in the car thing though and I'd like to try it on an old scrapper first to prove the facts and methodology.


Don't worry, i'd didn't take it that way :thumb:

I understand that most people can't comprehend it on face value and want some explanation/proof.


----------



## Shiny

What's happened to DW recently? Every post seems to be turning into conspiracy theories, anti establishment and the like.


----------



## bigmc

Shiny said:


> What's happened to DW recently? Every post seems to be turning into conspiracy theories, anti establishment and the like.


Ever thought we're sick of getting bent over for insurance, tax etc?


----------



## uruk hai

Shiny said:


> What's happened to DW recently? Every post seems to be turning into conspiracy theories, anti establishment and the like.


You do have a point !


----------



## The Cueball

Shiny said:


> What's happened to DW recently? Every post seems to be turning into conspiracy theories, anti establishment and the like.


maybe the fight back has begun.... :doublesho

On the subject of the vehcile issue:



> Freemen have been brainwashed into believing some stuff that started in America years ago where some loonies interpreted the law that there is a difference between "driving" and "travelling". "Driving" is acting in commerce, whereas "travelling" is private.
> 
> They also claim they have a "conveyance" and not a "vehicle". They believe only "driving a vehicle" (commerce) requires a licence, "travelling in your conveyance" (private) does not.
> 
> But when you study the interpretation of law they rely on, it is incorrect, and what they fail to tell you many who have tried this in America have been successfully prosecuted and some have ended up with jail time.
> 
> But as the failures come, there are many more recruits signing up to the woo. Richard Harrison (pleasuredome) who started this thread ended up in jail.
> 
> Mary Gye from the Liverpool area who posted on fotl forums as girlgye apparently had three succesful businesses before getting involved in this. She lost the lot, got her car crushed, and ended up in jail.
> 
> Josh Novak, Mika and Terry Bouffard were all prosecuted. I know of one case where the defendant actually wrote to the judge telling him to view certain youtube videos so the judge would have a better understanding of law.
> 
> But when challenged freemen cannot back up their claims with anything of substance. They either point you to a youtube video or a fotl website.


Interesting....

:thumb:


----------



## uruk hai

> [But when challenged freemen cannot back up their claims with anything of substance. They either point you to a youtube video or a fotl website.


That mirrors my experiance when dealing with these people


----------



## The Cueball

uruk hai said:


> That mirrors my experiance when dealing with these people


That is the reason I do lot's of reaserch and try and get back to the source documents, rather than links n videos...

Why use a youtube nutter, when you have a declassified CIA document! :lol:

I have looked into being a free man and everything that means, but I have yet to find someone with the life I want in that kind of place...not to be a snob, but they all just seem a tad dirty, no hopers with nothing much going for them.... I don't want to live like a hobbet, so I chose to live as free as I can (i.e. stay out of trouble, follow *most* laws, etc) that way, I can have the life I want and still be free!

I have asked the question, but no-one with my standard of living answered, I only got abuse for working with corporations and in finance! :lol:

:thumb:


----------



## uruk hai

Its not the standard of liveing that I don't understand its the standard (or lack of ?) morality, perhaps it's me who doesn't get it


----------



## kh904

Shiny said:


> What's happened to DW recently? Every post seems to be turning into conspiracy theories, anti establishment and the like.


It's not a conspiracy theory - this is actual fact/law regarding Law vs Statute!!!

:thumb:


----------



## kh904

uruk hai said:


> Its not the standard of liveing that I don't understand its the standard (or lack of ?) morality, perhaps it's me who doesn't get it


I understand the moral issue, but the flipside of the argument is why should you pay a duty for using your own car (VED)? AFAIK the roads are paid for via council tax.
The income tax goes to pay the interest on the debt we owe to private bankers (not public services).


----------



## The Cueball

uruk hai said:


> Its not the standard of liveing that I don't understand its the standard (or lack of ?) morality, perhaps it's me who doesn't get it


I would bounce that back to the lies and deceit that the public are told every day of their lives by the government, the media and the police...

There are very bad things going on, and some very big lies being forced onto us.....

We are under statutes and not laws, we do have to enter into their contracts to let them charge us, we are paying private people for the use of public money, and it is all true...

Can we really, honestly do anything about it - imo NO....

So while I want to know the truth, and I am interested in certain things and angles, I am not going to waste what I have worked for and give up my live for it....

:thumb:


----------



## kh904

The Cueball said:


> maybe the fight back has begun.... :doublesho
> 
> On the subject of the vehcile issue:
> 
> Interesting....
> 
> :thumb:


Very interesting!

But why in many of these youtube clips i've seen, that the police just let them go without any charge (no drivers licence etc)?
I've also seen a video filmed in a court, where the court is abandoned because the Magistrates couldn't get statute jurisdiction (it was regarding council tax).

Maybe those people in examples you've mentioned made a fundimental error somewhere?


----------



## The Cueball

kh904 said:


> Very interesting!
> 
> But why in many of these youtube clips i've seen, that the police just let them go without any charge (no drivers licence etc)?
> I've also seen a video filmed in a court, where the court is abandoned because the Magistrates couldn't get statute jurisdiction (it was regarding council tax).
> 
> Maybe those people in examples you've mentioned made a fundimental error somewhere?


I sometimes allow people to "get away" with things if new stuff has came to light, or I am not happy with the road I am on, or I want to think about things...

Doesn't mean I don't come back with 2 barrel fulls though and get them later on...

As you said, maybe the people quoted did make a mistake, I don't know, but the first one was pretty clued up and one of the "first" in the whole thing...IIRC

:thumb:


----------



## RandomlySet

kh904: there is no "moral issue" to deal with, as the Magna Carta states that every human has the right to travel....

I have thought about de-registering my car too, but daren't risk it with the cupra.... If it's not registered then you do not have to pay Tax, Insurance, MOT etc.... However, any safety concious (sp) individual would ensure that his/her car is in a safe condition, and possibly get an MOT anyway.....

It's got absolutely nothing to do with conspiracies etc

basically, if your car is registered to the DVLA (state), you are just the keeper. And as the keeper, you are looking after the states property, therefore, you have to conform to their rules upon looking after that property. Now, if you take the car away from them, and they have ZERO claim to that property, they cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with it!

Let's taking babysitting for example. If I was to let Cueball look after my child (I have no children BTW), and I laid down some rules (no chocolate after 6, bed before 9, half a bowl of coco pops in the morning etc), I would expect him to follow those rules. Now, if he has his own kids to look after, he can let them do what he wants them to do. I would have no say how he controls them.....


----------



## bigmc

The Cueball said:


> We are under statutes and not laws, we do have to enter into their contracts to let them charge us, we are paying private people for the use of public money, and it is all true...
> 
> Can we really, honestly do anything about it - imo NO....
> 
> So while I want to know the truth, and I am interested in certain things and angles, I am not going to waste what I have worked for and give up my live for it....
> 
> :thumb:


It won't get sorted out until enough people start doing stuff about it. I think we need a tax system such as council tax to keep the state of our streets nominally good, I disagree with lots of my income tax going to things I don't want it to go towards though, this is the biggest bug bear for me.


----------



## bigmc

-Mat- said:


> kh904: there is no "moral issue" to deal with, as the Magna Carta states that every human has the right to travel....


When the magna carta was drawn up in 1215 there was no need for licencing, insurance etc as the choices were horse or feet, no cars/bikes etc, yes the law is an ass and needs bringing upto date but people would still complain (as I do fervently) that they've got it wrong.


----------



## The Cueball

bigmc said:


> It won't get sorted out until enough people start doing stuff about it. I think we need a tax system such as council tax to keep the state of our streets nominally good, I disagree with lots of my income tax going to things I don't want it to go towards though, this is the biggest bug bear for me.


Have you seen the program on at the moment with the street that gives up all council services for a few months, and they have to sort it all out themselves...

It makes a very good point about that sort of thing...It's on the BBC I think...

One part of me agrees with you, why should I pay for things I don't want or need... but people I know, and people I love do need them, so it's all worth it at the end of the day...

The work shy, liars etc etc...I totally agree with, but what can you do with them... if it was me, I would make them serve the community i.e. sweep the streets, clean the rivers, etc etc and pay them with tokens which do now allow alcohol, nicotine or sky TV... but I am a nasty f***r and I hate people like that!

:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## bigmc

The Cueball said:


> Have you seen the program on at the moment with the street that gives up all council services for a few months, and they have to sort it all out themselves...
> 
> It makes a very good point about that sort of thing...It's on the BBC I think...
> 
> One part of me agrees with you, why should I pay for things I don't want or need... but people I know, and people I love do need them, so it's all worth it at the end of the day...
> 
> The work shy, liars etc etc...I totally agree with, but what can you do with them... if it was me, I would make them serve the community i.e. sweep the streets, clean the rivers, etc etc and pay them with tokens which do now allow alcohol, nicotine or sky TV... but I am a nasty f***r and I hate people like that!
> 
> :lol:
> 
> :thumb:


No I haven't seen the programme, do you recall what it's called I'll kepp an eye out or sky+ will.
I've said for ages benefits should be paid in vouchers with "No Alcohol, Cigarettes or Luxuries" stamped across them.


----------



## RandomlySet

bigmc said:


> When the magna carta was drawn up in 1215 there was* no need for licencing, insurance* etc as the choices were horse or feet, no cars/bikes etc, yes the law is an ass and needs bringing upto date but people would still complain (as I do fervently) that they've got it wrong.


And there is still no need for them now (or at least statutes designed to make a profit)....

There are 3 basic laws within the Magna Carta that covers pretty much every imaginable scenario
No Human shall harm another Human _(That covers everything from GBH, to Murder, Rape etc)_
No Human shall cause another human any loss _(That covers theft, shoplifting, motoring bumps, loss of earning via GBH etc etc)_

I think the 3rd is:
No Human shall break a contract with another human

They are the only 3 laws we need in this land! Statutes are only there for 1 thing, and 1 thing only!


----------



## kh904

Have you looked into the whole de-registering your car thing Mat?


----------



## The Cueball

bigmc said:


> No I haven't seen the programme, do you recall what it's called I'll kepp an eye out or sky+ will.
> I've said for ages benefits should be paid in vouchers with "No Alcohol, Cigarettes or Luxuries" stamped across them.


It's called The Street That Cut Everything, on BBC1

All these "experts" about how they would spend the council money suddenly found out pretty quickly what a good deal they get! :lol:

Plus, they are all hard people when in front of no-one but when faced when the people who actually "need" a little bit more from the pot, they have no answer for them...

All bl00dy moaners!!!

:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## RandomlySet

kh904 said:


> Have you looked into the whole de-registering your car thing Mat?


Kinda.... I think it's similar to deregistering your person, and getting an affidavit (sp)..... Just don't fancy risking the Cupra.... I mean, you will continuously get pulled etc by the police because you wont be on any database, however, if you know your rights, and talk to them politely, I'm sure they'll realised they can't do anything because doesn't belong to them (the state).....

Also, for those who doubt this, would you care to explain how a guy got pulled by the fuzz, gave them a bag of weed, he had no tax/insurance/mot, and they still let him drive off.... His name is John Harris BTW


----------



## bigmc

-Mat- said:


> And there is still no need for them now (or at least statutes designed to make a profit)....


There is a need for licencing though as it proves a minimum standard, you can't just let every tom dick and harry have access to something that's potentially going to kill/maim someone. Right to travel is one thing, owning a car and driving it isn't a right it's a privilege.


----------



## RandomlySet

I agree to that, but it shouldn't be for profit. But then again, who is to judge anyone? Could open a whole can or worms if I;m honest.

But yes, in principle, I agree that there should be licencing.


----------



## uruk hai

kh904 said:


> Very interesting!
> 
> But why in many of these youtube clips i've seen, that the police just let them go without any charge (no drivers licence etc)?
> I've also seen a video filmed in a court, where the court is abandoned because the Magistrates couldn't get statute jurisdiction (it was regarding council tax).
> 
> Maybe those people in examples you've mentioned made a fundimental error somewhere?


I've commented on this in another thread so I won't take the thread any "further" off topic or waste any more time.



The Cueball said:


> I would bounce that back to the lies and deceit that the public are told every day of their lives by the government, the media and the police...
> 
> There are very bad things going on, and some very big lies being forced onto us.....
> 
> We are under statutes and not laws, we do have to enter into their contracts to let them charge us, we are paying private people for the use of public money, and it is all true...


I am aware of certain things, some I believe and some I don't !

I don't know any more or less than the next man although perhaps I do see some of it from a different angle to many.

This is my last post in another thread that has strayed completely off topic, I should know better than to contribute once they take this route :lol:


----------



## The Cueball

uruk hai said:


> This is my last post in another thread that has strayed completely off topic, I should know better than to contribute once they take this route :lol:


Awwwwww Boooooooooooo!!!!



:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Shiny

So how does this all fit in with the legal ownership (the name on the purchase receipt etc). Surely you register your car "with" the dvla and not "to" the dvla, with registered keeper on the v5? 

Then what happens with road traffic act and the statutory legal requirement for a motor vehicle to be insured a minimum of tpo on the public highway? Or if a vehicle is not registered, then the fact it cant be used on a public highway?


----------



## RandomlySet

statutes only apply to "persons" not humans though. if you don't consent to a statute, you cannot be done. It's as simple as that


----------



## kh904

Shiny said:


> So how does this all fit in with the legal ownership (the name on the purchase receipt etc). Surely you register your car "with" the dvla and not "to" the dvla, with registered keeper on the v5?
> 
> Then what happens with road traffic act and the statutory legal requirement for a motor vehicle to be insured a minimum of tpo on the public highway? Or if a vehicle is not registered, then the fact it cant be used on a public highway?


Once you register the car it's theirs. You could say (in property terms) they are the freeholders, and the registered keeper is the lease holder. You can sell the lease (car) to other people but the freeholder still owns it.
You have to pay a service/maintenance charge to the freeholder (which rarely goes to upkeep the property), same with the car.
You are exactly that, just the registered keeper (on behalf of the DVLA). I like the babysitter metaphor someone used earlier.

Obviously your car should be maintained to a safe standard, MOT or not. Remember your MOT is only passed the standard for that day! It doesn't mean you shouldn't check ithe standard for the rest of the year.
AFAIK the US doesn't have an MOT (but maybe someone can confirm this???).

As Mat stated earlier, Common Law pretty much covers most aspects.

I want to try and bring it back on topic:

Anyone heard of the possibility of setting up a car insurance fund? I can't remember where i heard it from, but you get a group of drivers (say 1,000), and pay a one-off amount, say £1000 each into a ring-fenced fund with some Government department - so there's £1mil. This is the drivers insurance, if they have an accident the fund pays out as usual, and the insurance fund is then topped up. So instead of paying for eg. £500 every year regardless if you haven't claimed, each member only pays a little to top up the fund when there's a claim.
If some one is having too many accidents/draining the fund, you kick them out of the group.

Sounds great in theory! I can't remember if it's a practical possibility or not, or where i heard it from.


----------



## The Cueball

Shiny said:


> Then what happens with road traffic act and the statutory legal requirement for a motor vehicle to be insured a minimum of tpo on the public highway?


This is not what the road traffic act states...



> Part VI Section 143
> This Section makes it unlawful for any person to:
> Use a motor vehicle on a road, or To permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road without their being in force a policy of car insurance *or security in respect of third party risks.*


Just wondering if you didn't know that, or didn't want to mention the part in bold?


----------



## Shiny

Not many people on DW will have the security needed available to them 

Years back, i think it used to be a deposit of £500k. Tradex recently paid an injury claim of £13m following a road traffic accident, so i'm not sure if the deposit of £500k is still sufficient.

I believe the Royal Mail insure their own vehicles, as does the Queen. Might not still be the case though, i'm a bit out of touch on general motor insurance these days.

I'm still not convinced that the DVLA own my car. If i don't own it, i can't really suffer a loss, therefore all i can insure for is TPO.



> Anyone heard of the possibility of setting up a car insurance fund? I can't remember where i heard it from, but you get a group of drivers (say 1,000), and pay a one-off amount, say £1000 each into a ring-fenced fund with some Government department - so there's £1mil. This is the drivers insurance, if they have an accident the fund pays out as usual, and the insurance fund is then topped up. So instead of paying for eg. £500 every year regardless if you haven't claimed, each member only pays a little to top up the fund when there's a claim.
> If some one is having too many accidents/draining the fund, you kick them out of the group.


Isn't that what Insurers do 

I'm not convinced it will work, £1k per driver won't cover the potential liabilities. You are only allowing £1k per person to be paid out per claim.


----------



## kh904

Shiny said:


> Not many people on DW will have the security needed available to them
> 
> Years back, i think it used to be a deposit of £500k. Tradex recently paid an injury claim of £13m following a road traffic accident, so i'm not sure if the deposit of £500k is still sufficient.
> 
> I believe the Royal Mail insure their own vehicles, as does the Queen. Might not still be the case though, i'm a bit out of touch on general motor insurance these days.
> 
> I'm still not convinced that the DVLA own my car. If i don't own it, i can't really suffer a loss, therefore all i can insure for is TPO.
> 
> Isn't that what Insurers do
> 
> I'm not convinced it will work, £1k per driver won't cover the potential liabilities. You are only allowing £1k per person to be paid out per claim.


The DVLA own the registered car, that's why they can take it away & crush it if you don't pay their fees. 
Your car insurance loss is for indemnity i think??? It pays out your financial loss of the market value of the car to replace it & put you in the same position before an accident. 
You can take life insurance for you partner, you don't own your partner but still insure their life.

Re: the insurance fund, yes that's what insurance companies do on a larger scale, but we have little control of the fund & subscribers & that's being abused! 
I think you misunderstand how it would work, the potential to be be paid out in any claim would be £1mil (the total in the pot). 
If there's no claims in the year, nobody has to pay a renewal until there is a claim.

Eg. there's a claim made of £10k, so it comes out of the pot, leaving £990K. At renewal time (a year later for eg), the 1000 people pay £10 to top it up (or the driver at fault pays extra etc).
If there's a particular driver who is very risky (keeps making massive claims), the people/policy holders can vote whether or not to keep him/her in the fund.
So decent responsible drivers are not being abused financially & disproportionally (unlike what the insurance companies do now) even when you have NEVER made an insurance claim (like me - touch wood :lol: )

Alternatively, you an put any security/asset as collateral (ie house, jewellery)


----------



## The Cueball

Shiny said:


> Not many people on DW will have the security needed available to them
> 
> Years back, i think it used to be a deposit of £500k.


That's not really the point though.... 

It was only 15k up until a few years ago, and it is now 500k...

:thumb:


----------



## Rob_Quads

Personally I doubt its going to make much difference at all.

Those that flaunt the law are now just going to be flaunting more laws. Out of the 100 that break the law knowing they break the law this might stop 1?2%. How much has been invested in this new solution etc.

If the police are serious about getting uninsured drivers off the road the money would be much better spent on extra police officers where they do area control i.e. one day you block every road in and out of a city with ANPR cameras. Spend 1 day at each major city / town and you will get more people off the road than this scheme will ever do.


----------



## centenary

kh904 said:


> The DVLA own the registered car, that's why they can take it away & crush it if you don't pay their fees.
> Your car insurance loss is for indemnity i think??? It pays out your financial loss of the market value of the car to replace it & put you in the same position before an accident.
> You can take life insurance for you partner, you don't own your partner but still insure their life.
> 
> Re: the insurance fund, yes that's what insurance companies do on a larger scale, but we have little control of the fund & subscribers & that's being abused!
> I think you misunderstand how it would work, the potential to be be paid out in any claim would be £1mil (the total in the pot).
> If there's no claims in the year, nobody has to pay a renewal until there is a claim.
> 
> Eg. there's a claim made of £10k, so it comes out of the pot, leaving £990K. At renewal time (a year later for eg), the 1000 people pay £10 to top it up (or the driver at fault pays extra etc).
> If there's a particular driver who is very risky (keeps making massive claims), the people/policy holders can vote whether or not to keep him/her in the fund.
> So decent responsible drivers are not being abused financially & disproportionally (unlike what the insurance companies do now) even when you have NEVER made an insurance claim (like me - touch wood :lol: )
> 
> Alternatively, you an put any security/asset as collateral (ie house, jewellery)


The DVLA do not own anyone's car!

The reason why DVLA can take 'your' car and crush it is because they have the ability under statute to use this penalty, one of several, if someone doesnt pay their road tax.


----------



## bigmc

centenary said:


> The DVLA do not own anyone's car!
> 
> The reason why DVLA can take 'your' car and crush it is because they have the ability under statute to use this penalty, one of several, if someone doesnt pay their road tax.


They do own your car, that's why you're only the registered keeper and the V5 says something along the lines of "you're not the owner but registered keeper".


----------



## Rob_Quads

bigmc said:


> They do own your car, that's why you're only the registered keeper and the V5 says something along the lines of "you're not the owner but registered keeper".


Its says..

"THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP"
"It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle"

Its does not say we own your car. its just saying you need to have other proof of purchase i.e. a receipt of something to prove you own the car a V5 is not proof in it self.


----------



## bigmc

Its all about registration, you register the car with the dvla.
The legal definition of registration is to give up ownership.


----------



## kh904

bigmc said:


> Its all about registration, you register the car with the dvla.
> The legal definition of registration is to give up ownership.


Well some one has written to the DVLA under the FOI Act:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vehicle_definition_and_registrat

They haven't given a clear answer, but they do say you have to follow their rules under 'Statute' (which is only applicable by consent between the 2 parties involved).


----------



## Exotica

bigmc said:


> Its all about registration, you register the car with the dvla.
> The legal definition of registration is to give up ownership.


As in when you are born your parents are conditioned to sign your birth certificate, you now belong to the state.


----------



## Shiny

bigmc said:


> Its all about registration, you register the car with the dvla.
> The legal definition of registration is to give up ownership.


So the school now owns my kids?


----------



## bigmc

Exotica said:


> As in when you are born your parents are conditioned to sign your birth certificate, you now belong to the state.


Correct, that's why your kids can be made a ward of court if need be.


----------



## kh904

Shiny said:


> So the school now owns my kids?


No, ultimately the 'international private bankers' do via the state (UK Ltd) - it's literally slavery in the modern sense.

AFAIK when you register kids in school, i don't think you sign over legal ownership (i've never seen the school contract). You are just registering the fact they are going to that school & to follow the school rules.
But they can fine the parents if you take children out of school to take them away on holiday during term time etc.

Just a clarification, as i understand, the state owns the 'PERSON' not the human, but the human represents the PERSON with their consent (if they gain jurisdiction).

For eg. The human 'Joe' belonging to the 'Blogs' family has a legal 'PERSON' called 'MR JOE BLOGS' (in capital letters - it has a different legal status or persona). I guess it's your personal Ltd company (created at birth at registration).
The authorities (Police officers & commercial courts etc) will want to gain legal/statute jurisdiction over the human (who is under common law jurisdiction) & waive their common law rights.
They get consent by asking your name/ID, by giving it you've created a joinder (agreed that you represent the JOE BLOGS) & agreed to contract by their statute rules.
When you go to court (usually commercial) you give them authority & jurisdiction by doing certain things eg the court stands when the magistrates enters, or standing in the dock!
They will threaten & intimidate you to gain consent if they have to!

You can refuse consent/statue jurisdiction:
(Understand what they say & do)


----------



## Exotica

Since 1066 and the norman conquest the King/Queen/Crown has had a monopoly on the ownership of everything (Think the doomsday book). 

The Queen/Crown owns all the land in the UK through the "divine right of kings". Meaning they believe they have the divine right to own everything. And I mean everything, all land, all the sea's, all the animals & all the people upon the land.
Because the Queen/Crown owns everything the "people" below the Queen/Crown have to ask permission in order to use anything that the queen supposedly owns. And for this use we have to pay a useage TAX!. 
This permission is granted via Royal Charter. The first things granted were titles to nobility who swore allegience to the Queen/Crown in exchange prominent families were given estates to run for the benefit of the Crown (To Raise taxes).
Borough's, Counties and district Councils and the like are given Royal charter in order to be "incorporated" (so they can raise taxes & (Self-govern = meaning to pick and choose how to levy the taxes on the people incoporated in the borough). 
A better word may be franchised. As the United Kingdom is the main corporation & everything else is a franchise of that corporation.
Even today whatever you register, your children, your car, your new business, it has to be registered so that it can be incorporated into the master corporation ie: the United Kingdom.
I believe everything is a form of royal charter or the seeking a benefit derived from the crown. A Decree ! or Permission to do/act in a certain way. Hence we have Application & Registration.. We beg & plead to the crown to open a business. We beg & plead the crown to incorporate our children so they can have the benefits of the United Kingdom.. etc.


----------



## Exotica

Get a cuppa, good read here

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=68357


----------



## kh904

Great info Exotica! A very interesting read!


----------



## ant_s

Wohooo another mind bender for me lol

But anyway back to OP, as a few have said this that break the law now, will break the law no matter what. IMO the only way to cut the law breaking, is make punishment harder.


----------

