Morris Minor Owners Club

I see in Octane this month that the rules seem to be changing for SORN vehicles. It says from January 2011 that it will be an offence to own a registered vehicle that is not insured unless a SORN road license declaration has been completed. My restoration project pickup has never been SORN'd, is off the road and has been since before 1990 before the SORN rules came in. Does anyone know if it will now need to be SORN'd now?

Ring the DVLA they will give you the latest info.

If a vehicle is kept in private premises - it's none of DVLA's business. It only needs to be insured if it is in a place with public access....... What about all the vehicles in museums! ?

I read it as providing the vehicle is SORNed it does not need insurance. I would expect a collection in a museum to have some sort of insurance against fire etc.
I agree that it is an imposition being forced to renew insurance cover if the vehicle is off the road for restoration, the insurance has lapsed but the tax disc is still valid.

My convertible is currently off the road and being restored, but is still fully insured. If nothing else, it ensures that I will have the money to purchase another should something untoward happen. Maybe my bank account isn't as big as yours Mike

I was quoting a hypothetical situation

From January 2011 you will have to declare SORN if your car is not insured for use on the road.

What about all the vehicles in museums! ? and scrap yards.sounds a bit daft to me

Vehicles in scrap yards aren't "vehicles" anymore they are just lumps of metal. As for museum cars, I'd expect most are SORNed anyway

Vehicles in scrap yards aren't "vehicles" anymore they are just lumps of metal.

Thanks to the environment(al) agency they are 'controlled waste' requiring certification etc..

Unless the SORN legislation changes, then you don't need to SORN a car that predates the system. As for doing a SORN on a car that has road tax - the system sounds daft but plausible.
It is already a requirement for the vehicle to have insurance if it is parked on the road and not used - therefore there is no real need to change the SORN system to cover uninsured cars. However it probably makes it easier to prosecute the registered owner* if the V5C details are correct.


* and probably just as hard to find the crims who know how to dodge the fines that non-crims end up paying.

Well yes, I was just trying to simplify somewhat (controlled waste indeed )

At the moment my minor is taxed but not insured...

Better insure or sorn then....

More useless bureaucracy.

I heard about this a while ago when it was just a proposal (and in fact responded to the 'public consultation', which was no doubt ignored), and it really is completely daft. If the intention is to have fewer uninsured vehicles on the road then it's not going to have much effect. All that uninsured drivers need to do is to declare their cars off the road and continue as before, seeing as if you're happy to drive uninsured then you're probably not going to baulk at driving a car that's been SORNed. The only people it has any hope of catching are those who let their insurance slip by a few days, but as there's going to be reminders and a grace period I doubt many of these people will be caught anyway.

Also the database on which it's based is hardly 100% accurate. I was stopped on my motorbike a while ago and accused of having no insurance by a policeman. Fortunately he believed me when I said I was properly insured and just made me produce my documents at the station. The desk sergeant there said that the database is often incorrect or out of date.

It does, however, serve the interests of the insurance industry who'll benefit from people taking out or not cancelling policies they don't need. I suspect that's the real reason they've been pushing for this.

So the Car cannot be left parked in the road with no insurance . There must be loads of car parked with tax and no insurance wating for repair so more cars to be scraped early