Re: 'ere, a petition for you all to sign.

#41

Roger (Roger <roger (AT) nospam (DOT) zetnet.co.uk>) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quote:

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?

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/

Have a read of the newsletters for the kind of high-level communication
they've got.

#42

On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:10:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

Quote:

See what I mean Mr Shackles?

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

I don't do grovelling. I will apologise for the implication that it was you
who started on about registration, since it wasn't.

However, my comments were based not solely on this thread. You seem to have
a habit of taking a contrary point of view regardless, in this group. This
may of course only be an impression I've formed, and not deliberate policy
on your part, but nevertheless, it IS the impression I've formed.

In general I don't contemplate killfile entries lightly; since apart from
the clearly terminally stupid or malicious types who seek only to post
complete drivel or pointless profanity, (normally seem to get them in school
holidays) almost everyone has something worth reading to say sometimes, even
if I don't always agree with them.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\

Quote:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

#43

On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:16:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

Quote:

In article <13pmd7ms1rr0n80 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
Mike G <metier (AT) lycos (DOT) co.uk> 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...
------------------------------------------------\

Quote:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

#44

In article <jm0rp35v82007ni3sf9qp219m03b2n13ch (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS (AT) ddol-las (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:10:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

See what I mean Mr Shackles?

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

I don't do grovelling. I will apologise for the implication that it was
you who started on about registration, since it wasn't.

I suppose that's better than nothing.

Quote:

However, my comments were based not solely on this thread. You seem to
have a habit of taking a contrary point of view regardless, in this
group.

Which group? You've cross posted. If you mean alt.fan.landrover I no
longer read it and have removed it from this reply.

Quote:

This may of course only be an impression I've formed, and not
deliberate policy on your part, but nevertheless, it IS the impression
I've formed.

Fine. Well, if all you want is a series of 'AOLs' in every thread there's
not much point in reading them. The idea surely is to debate a point?

Quote:

In general I don't contemplate killfile entries lightly; since apart
from the clearly terminally stupid or malicious types who seek only to
post complete drivel or pointless profanity, (normally seem to get them
in school holidays) almost everyone has something worth reading to say
sometimes, even if I don't always agree with them.

Who you wish to killfile is your business. If you think I'd lose sleep or
somehow be offended if you told the world you'd killfiled me, you're
mistaken.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

#45

In article <tc1rp3hilvpctigi49tpcf2cjvr7k5v341 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS (AT) ddol-las (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

On or around Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:16:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

In article <13pmd7ms1rr0n80 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
Mike G <metier (AT) lycos (DOT) co.uk> 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 (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

#46

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
<Geoff_Hannington (AT) IEE (DOT) ORGasm> wrote:

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article <13pjpclbsnjklcb (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
GbH <Geoff_Hannington (AT) IEE (DOT) 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 ;(

#47

On 2008-01-29, Tim Jones <wildenfarm (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

#48

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

Quote:

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...
------------------------------------------------\

Quote:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

#49

On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:45:38 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<news06 (AT) tarcus (DOT) org.uk> enlightened us thusly:

Quote:

On 2008-01-29, Tim Jones <wildenfarm (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> 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...
------------------------------------------------\

Quote:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

#50

On or around Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:39:56 -0000, "GbH"
<Geoff_Hannington (AT) IEE (DOT) ORGasm> enlightened us thusly:

Quote:

Tim Jones wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:33 -0000, "GbH"
Geoff_Hannington (AT) IEE (DOT) 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...
------------------------------------------------\

Quote:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!