On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS (AT) ddol-las (DOT) net> wrote:

In article <2srhp3933af4184944kqfpdcmvnbicnog7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Alex <nospam.alex (AT) cbmsys (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
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 (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The date being 24 Jan 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> decided to write:

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 <80dc6a664f.news (AT) user (DOT) minijem.plus.com>,
Richard Porter <dontusethis (AT) address (DOT) uk.invalid> 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.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> wrote


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"
<william.black (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

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

In article <fb3jp3tqg2d7b8r39hjt3b6b6ochpcvr5n (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS (AT) ddol-las (DOT) net> wrote:
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 (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

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.

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.

<cough> So you are a slow learner? <thwack> <ouch> B-)

--
Cheers new5pam (AT) howhill (DOT) com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:26:35 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

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

On or around Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:01:09 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<new5pam (AT) howhill (DOT) com> enlightened us thusly:

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