Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DVLA & Vehicle Road Tax after death of registered keeper
888 views
Skip to first unread message
Martin Brown
Aug 20, 2019, 9:09:39 AM8/20/19
to
Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
on the roads. Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if you
had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it seems
completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of a
months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
on the roads. Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if you
had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it seems
completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of a
months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
spuorg...@gowanhill.com
Aug 20, 2019, 10:46:09 AM8/20/19
to
On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 14:09:39 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
The government get to keep the surplus, and all those surpluses add up.
> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
Owain
Tim Jackson
Aug 20, 2019, 12:50:54 PM8/20/19
to
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>
> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>
> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
> on the roads.
Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>
> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>
> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
> on the roads.
Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Roland Perry
Aug 20, 2019, 1:06:20 PM8/20/19
to
In message <qjgre4$11ve$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:09:25 on Tue, 20 Aug
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
the granularity).
>Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
>
>It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
>inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
>There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
>
>In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
>fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
>newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
>
>It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if
>you had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it
>seems completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of
>a months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
Talk to your MP about that, assuming they aren't 110% preoccupied with
Brexit.
>Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
>car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
A very sensible conclusion.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>
>https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>
>It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>use on the roads.
I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is taxed.
>simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>
>https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>
>It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>use on the roads.
And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
the granularity).
>Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
>
>It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
>inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
>There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
>
>In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
>fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
>newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
>
>It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if
>you had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it
>seems completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of
>a months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
Brexit.
>Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
>car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 20, 2019, 1:06:20 PM8/20/19
to
In message <MPG.37c630283...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
17:50:38 on Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
remarked:
the estate.
--
Roland Perry
17:50:38 on Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
remarked:
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>
>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
I do wonder quite how this works if the new "owner" is the executors of
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>
>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
the estate.
--
Roland Perry
Andy Burns
Aug 20, 2019, 1:27:45 PM8/20/19
to
Tim Jackson wrote:
> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
> transfer to someone else.
If you use the tell-us-once service, it notifies DVLA, but there's
> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
> transfer to someone else.
several days delay.
Ian Jackson
Aug 20, 2019, 3:01:40 PM8/20/19
to
In message <MPG.37c630283...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim
Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes
dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
place, and get it SORNed until the will has been sorted out, or would
they be liable to be booked for driving an untaxed vehicle? While it's
on the road, is it subject to being seized and impounded? Although the
deceased is unlikely to be done for committing the offence of having an
untaxed vehicle on the road, who is (say) liable for the charges
incurred if it's seized - and if they are not paid, will the vehicle be
confiscated and disposed of?
--
Ian
Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes
>On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
>
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>
>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>
What happens if a vehicle is parked on a public road when its keeper
>
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>
>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>
dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
place, and get it SORNed until the will has been sorted out, or would
they be liable to be booked for driving an untaxed vehicle? While it's
on the road, is it subject to being seized and impounded? Although the
deceased is unlikely to be done for committing the offence of having an
untaxed vehicle on the road, who is (say) liable for the charges
incurred if it's seized - and if they are not paid, will the vehicle be
confiscated and disposed of?
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Aug 20, 2019, 3:53:50 PM8/20/19
to
In message <ijkFkmkt...@brattleho.plus.com>, at 20:01:01 on Tue, 20
Aug 2019, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
has passed to the executors. And no, I don't have an instant answer for
that.
--
Roland Perry
Aug 2019, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>>> on the roads.
>>
>>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>>
>>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>>
>What happens if a vehicle is parked on a public road when its keeper
>dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
>place, and get it SORNed until the will has been sorted out, or would
>they be liable to be booked for driving an untaxed vehicle? While it's
>on the road, is it subject to being seized and impounded? Although the
>deceased is unlikely to be done for committing the offence of having an
>untaxed vehicle on the road, who is (say) liable for the charges
>incurred if it's seized - and if they are not paid, will the vehicle be
>confiscated and disposed of?
Almost all that can be resolved by understanding when title of the car
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>>> on the roads.
>>
>>Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>>
>>Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>>is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>>DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>>
>What happens if a vehicle is parked on a public road when its keeper
>dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
>place, and get it SORNed until the will has been sorted out, or would
>they be liable to be booked for driving an untaxed vehicle? While it's
>on the road, is it subject to being seized and impounded? Although the
>deceased is unlikely to be done for committing the offence of having an
>untaxed vehicle on the road, who is (say) liable for the charges
>incurred if it's seized - and if they are not paid, will the vehicle be
>confiscated and disposed of?
has passed to the executors. And no, I don't have an instant answer for
that.
--
Roland Perry
Mr Pounder Esquire
Aug 20, 2019, 4:20:59 PM8/20/19
to
car. My head was all over the place and dealing with the bureaucrats did not
help.
I filled in the form for change of ownership of the car and sent it away,
okay, I did not read it very well. I had a lot on my mind. Weeks later by
looking on the Internet I discovered that I had been driving with no road
tax, the DVLA had canceled it. I wonder just how many other people have made
the same mistake.
Tim Jackson
Aug 20, 2019, 4:40:33 PM8/20/19
to
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:27:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
I assume this just SORNs the vehicle, rather than telling DVLA who the
new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
their vehicle tax?
new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
their vehicle tax?
Fredxx
Aug 20, 2019, 6:55:02 PM8/20/19
to
On 20/08/2019 18:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjgre4$11ve$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:09:25 on Tue, 20 Aug
> 2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>> use on the roads.
>
> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is taxed.
> And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
> requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
> the granularity).
What happens if the 'Keeper' is a legal entity such as a partnership?
> In message <qjgre4$11ve$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:09:25 on Tue, 20 Aug
> 2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>> use on the roads.
>
> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is taxed.
> And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
> requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
> the granularity).
Martin Brown
Aug 21, 2019, 3:47:15 AM8/21/19
to
On 20/08/2019 17:50, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
>
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
> Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
Thanks. I only lost a good friend but I am trying to help his widow.
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
>
>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>
>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>> on the roads.
>
> Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
This seems like an unnecessary additional stress on the newly bereaved
to find that they cannot legally use their own car any more.
It isn't one I have come across before. My mum couldn't drive.
> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
> transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
> is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
> DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
They inflict similar cannot transfer to a new name restrictions on
Premium Bonds too. That is a lot of paperwork for a handful of them.
Most people have £10 or £20 worth languishing in a drawer somewhere.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
Aug 21, 2019, 3:52:01 AM8/21/19
to
On 20/08/2019 20:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <MPG.37c630283...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim
> Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
>>
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>>> on the roads.
>>
>> Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>>
>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>> transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>> is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>> DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>>
> What happens if a vehicle is parked on a public road when its keeper
> dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
I'm not sure. Possibly when the death occurs or more probably when the
> In message <MPG.37c630283...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim
> Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:09:25 +0100, Martin Brown wrote...
>>
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for use
>>> on the roads.
>>
>> Condolences if you've just lost someone close.
>>
>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>> transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>> is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>> DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>>
> What happens if a vehicle is parked on a public road when its keeper
> dies? When does it become 'untaxed'? Can someone drive it to a private
Death certificate is issued and "Tell us once" notify DVLC. Perhaps
someone who knows how to could look up the primary legislation.
Either way it makes life very difficult for the surviving spouse to get
to appointments with solicitors etc. There are no buses round here.
Incidentally she is also being given the run around by utility companies
who won't talk to her because her husband's names is on everything.
Traditional elderly couple problem. At least she has a passport and a
drivers license (not a photoID one though an old tatty paper one).
> place, and get it SORNed until the will has been sorted out, or would
> they be liable to be booked for driving an untaxed vehicle? While it's
> on the road, is it subject to being seized and impounded? Although the
> deceased is unlikely to be done for committing the offence of having an
> untaxed vehicle on the road, who is (say) liable for the charges
> incurred if it's seized - and if they are not paid, will the vehicle be
> confiscated and disposed of?
It isn't a problem in this case as the vehicles are on private land.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Robin
Aug 21, 2019, 4:07:05 AM8/21/19
to
On 20/08/2019 21:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:27:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
>>
>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>> transfer to someone else.
>>
>> If you use the tell-us-once service, it notifies DVLA, but there's
>> several days delay.
>
> I assume this just SORNs the vehicle, rather than telling DVLA who the
> new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
> their vehicle tax?
>
No SORN. It just leaves the vehicle untaxed. But DVLA aren't stupid and
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:27:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
>>
>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>> transfer to someone else.
>>
>> If you use the tell-us-once service, it notifies DVLA, but there's
>> several days delay.
>
> I assume this just SORNs the vehicle, rather than telling DVLA who the
> new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
> their vehicle tax?
>
don't start fining and clamping cars straight-away in such circs. They
are also geared up to dealing with personal representatives who find
themselves with a car that's not been taxed for a while and need to
regularise things.
It might be argued that it should all be put on a proper, statutory
footing with grace periods etc. But it would be bloody complex to cater
for all the possibilities without leaving big holes for the unprincipled
to exploit.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Brian Reay
Aug 21, 2019, 4:08:23 AM8/21/19
to
majority of vehicle transfers are normal sales and not within the same
family. The new system ( which I’m not particularly fond of) presumably is
thought to be more efficient, difficult to evade etc by the DVLA. The,
admittedly tiresome, process the bereaved face is no different to if a
parent sells a car to a child etc.
As for being prosecuted etc.
In real terms, the DVLA won’t know about the death until someone informs
them. Unless the ‘tax’ expires in the intervening time, why would there be
a problem?
You can do the transfer, including the new tax, on line in minutes. We
transferred a car in the family and it took under 5 minutes.
I appreciate not only the natural stresses surrounding death and the
administration that follows- been there- but the DVLA and ‘car tax’ are
almost certainly not going to be a problem.
As for your advice: utility bills were easy to transfer when I had to
arrange it for my relative. Joint bank accounts are even better- the
survivor maintains access to the total account. At least one credit card in
each name is also a good idea- also useful if one is lost.
If you aren’t aware : PEPs and ISAs can be transferred to the spouse
without ‘using’ their ISA allowance. No need to cash them in.
TMS320
Aug 21, 2019, 4:08:35 AM8/21/19
to
On 21/08/2019 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:
> Thanks. I only lost a good friend but I am trying to help his widow.
> This seems like an unnecessary additional stress on the newly bereaved
> to find that they cannot legally use their own car any more.
Insurance needs changing too. Including house policies.
> Thanks. I only lost a good friend but I am trying to help his widow.
> This seems like an unnecessary additional stress on the newly bereaved
> to find that they cannot legally use their own car any more.
Car tax is a trivial irritant compared to everything else that needs to
be done.
>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>> transfer to someone else. E.g. if you sell the car (or give it away) it
>> is no longer possible to transfer the tax with the car and just tell
>> DVLA. The new owner has to tax it themselves.
>
> It looks exactly like a government scam to me.
wading through treacle. A lot of a leeches are encountered on the way.
> They inflict similar cannot transfer to a new name restrictions on
> Premium Bonds too. That is a lot of paperwork for a handful of them.
> Most people have £10 or £20 worth languishing in a drawer somewhere.
joint bank account gets frozen and the survivor has no access to cash.
Allan
Aug 21, 2019, 5:04:35 AM8/21/19
to
On 21/08/2019 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>
> They inflict similar cannot transfer to a new name restrictions on
> Premium Bonds too. That is a lot of paperwork for a handful of them.
> Most people have £10 or £20 worth languishing in a drawer somewhere.
>
Premium bonds are easy: thy can be left in the prize draw for 6 months
> Premium Bonds too. That is a lot of paperwork for a handful of them.
> Most people have £10 or £20 worth languishing in a drawer somewhere.
>
if you wish and any prizes are paid out. Then they have to be cashed out.
NS&I Savings certificates can be inherited.
NS&I Death claims dept are pretty good, once you get through to someone
sensible although they insist a lot has to be done in writing which can
be tedious.
Andy Burns
Aug 21, 2019, 5:07:17 AM8/21/19
to
Allan wrote:
> Premium bonds are easy: thy can be left in the prize draw for 6 months
> if you wish and any prizes are paid out. Then they have to be cashed out.
Yes, they paid out a previous prize, and let me cash out the bond itself
> Premium bonds are easy: thy can be left in the prize draw for 6 months
> if you wish and any prizes are paid out. Then they have to be cashed out.
without the certificate on the basis that I'd destroy it if it was ever
found.
Nick Leverton
Aug 21, 2019, 6:56:48 AM8/21/19
to
In article <84c37591-1219-40c4...@googlegroups.com>,
Despite which, the government still managed to introduce a significant
annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new system ...
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new system ...
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Roland Perry
Aug 21, 2019, 7:38:42 AM8/21/19
to
In message <qjhcqi$5g4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:06:09 on Tue, 20 Aug
2019, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:
That's exactly the kind of reason the change of scheme reportedly
produced less revenue rather than the expected more.
A non-trivial number of people ended up driving cars with unknowingly
expired tax (and being paperless didn't help), on the basis that they
thought it had transferred with the car, and they'd eventually get a
reminder for an annual renewal.
A failure of TPTB to understand how difficult it is to break a
well-understood generations-old business model and expect the public to
magically get on board with the new one.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:
produced less revenue rather than the expected more.
A non-trivial number of people ended up driving cars with unknowingly
expired tax (and being paperless didn't help), on the basis that they
thought it had transferred with the car, and they'd eventually get a
reminder for an annual renewal.
A failure of TPTB to understand how difficult it is to break a
well-understood generations-old business model and expect the public to
magically get on board with the new one.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 21, 2019, 7:48:50 AM8/21/19
to
In message <qjhtnj$9t3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:54:44 on Tue, 20 Aug
2019, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and
>>>not simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>>>use on the roads.
>> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is
>>taxed. And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within
>>a family requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth
>>because of the granularity).
>
>What happens if the 'Keeper' is a legal entity such as a partnership?
I've never understood on what basis a 'legal entity' can be a keeper,
but I have seen it from time to time.
Not sure what your question is, though. Are you looking at the situation
when such a partnership is dissolved? Who actually *owns* the car you
have in mind, it could be a finance company.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and
>>>not simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
>>>
>>> It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
>>>use on the roads.
>> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is
>>taxed. And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within
>>a family requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth
>>because of the granularity).
>
>What happens if the 'Keeper' is a legal entity such as a partnership?
but I have seen it from time to time.
Not sure what your question is, though. Are you looking at the situation
when such a partnership is dissolved? Who actually *owns* the car you
have in mind, it could be a finance company.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Brown
Aug 21, 2019, 8:32:01 AM8/21/19
to
On 20/08/2019 22:22, Robin wrote:
> On 20/08/2019 21:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:27:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
>>>
>>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>>> transfer to someone else.
>>>
>>> If you use the tell-us-once service, it notifies DVLA, but there's
>>> several days delay.
>>
>> I assume this just SORNs the vehicle, rather than telling DVLA who the
>> new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
>> their vehicle tax?
>>
>
> No SORN. It just leaves the vehicle untaxed. But DVLA aren't stupid and
You could have fooled me. They are one of the worst government
> On 20/08/2019 21:39, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:27:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
>>>
>>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Presumably on death the vehicle tax works the same way as any other
>>>> transfer to someone else.
>>>
>>> If you use the tell-us-once service, it notifies DVLA, but there's
>>> several days delay.
>>
>> I assume this just SORNs the vehicle, rather than telling DVLA who the
>> new registered keeper is going to be and offering a facility to pay
>> their vehicle tax?
>>
>
> No SORN. It just leaves the vehicle untaxed. But DVLA aren't stupid and
departments to deal with in terms of losing stuff. Only HMRC are slower.
> don't start fining and clamping cars straight-away in such circs. They
> are also geared up to dealing with personal representatives who find
> themselves with a car that's not been taxed for a while and need to
> regularise things.
run its course and sort out the change of name on renewal. This is the
sort of gratuitous red tape that the likes of Boris blame on Brussels!
But like most UK red tape it is home grown by jobsworths making work.
> It might be argued that it should all be put on a proper, statutory
> footing with grace periods etc. But it would be bloody complex to cater
> for all the possibilities without leaving big holes for the unprincipled
> to exploit.
deceased person to continue to be valid until renewal. I doubt if anyone
newly bereaved has been prosecuted for this offence or ever would be.
A friend who once forgot to renew his car tax in the old days of paper
stickers was let off with a caution because his wife had just left him.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
tim...
Aug 21, 2019, 9:40:12 AM8/21/19
to
"Nick Leverton" <ni...@leverton.org> wrote in message
news:gs4mb2...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <84c37591-1219-40c4...@googlegroups.com>,
> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 14:09:39 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>>The government get to keep the surplus, and all those surpluses add up.
>
> Despite which, the government still managed to introduce a significant
> annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new system
> ...
ITYF that was the result of moving from paper disks to no paper disks
> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 14:09:39 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>
>>The government get to keep the surplus, and all those surpluses add up.
>
> Despite which, the government still managed to introduce a significant
> annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new system
> ...
Apparently, people with no physical reminder of when to renew, forget to
renew, resulting in an overall reduction in revenue. Quite why that doesn't
resolve itself by backdating the payment when they do renew, I have no idea.
tim
Brian Reay
Aug 21, 2019, 2:06:03 PM8/21/19
to
The old disc wasn't really much of a reminder, it was hardly in a place
most people would notice everyday.
The new system may well make some people think the chances of being
caught are reduced if you drive or park and 'untaxed' vehicle on the
road as it isn't immediately obvious, was it was in the past.
You can set up so the renewal is automatically paid, the system checks
the car is insured and (if required) MOT'd. You still get a reminder,
plus a notification the payment will be taken etc. It works very smoothly.
Mr Pounder Esquire
Aug 21, 2019, 2:46:23 PM8/21/19
to
canceled when I applied to the DVLA for a change of keeper/owner.
The tax was paid by direct debit.
It does not work very smoothly.
Martin Brown
Aug 21, 2019, 4:20:11 PM8/21/19
to
On 21/08/2019 19:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
You are supposed to read the small print at the site I originally
referenced. I found it so hard to believe that I asked this question.
> It does not work very smoothly.
It only works smoothly provided that the registered keeper does not die.
It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
> Brian Reay wrote:
>> You can set up so the renewal is automatically paid, the system checks
>> the car is insured and (if required) MOT'd. You still get a reminder,
>> plus a notification the payment will be taken etc. It works very
>> smoothly.
>
> Odd that I got no notification that the tax on my late wife's car had been
> canceled when I applied to the DVLA for a change of keeper/owner.
> The tax was paid by direct debit.
You don't.
>> You can set up so the renewal is automatically paid, the system checks
>> the car is insured and (if required) MOT'd. You still get a reminder,
>> plus a notification the payment will be taken etc. It works very
>> smoothly.
>
> Odd that I got no notification that the tax on my late wife's car had been
> canceled when I applied to the DVLA for a change of keeper/owner.
> The tax was paid by direct debit.
You are supposed to read the small print at the site I originally
referenced. I found it so hard to believe that I asked this question.
> It does not work very smoothly.
It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
tim...
Aug 22, 2019, 4:37:58 AM8/22/19
to
"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:qjjrd5$1k03$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 21/08/2019 14:37, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Nick Leverton" <ni...@leverton.org> wrote in message
>> news:gs4mb2...@mid.individual.net...
>>> In article <84c37591-1219-40c4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 14:09:39 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>>
>>>> The government get to keep the surplus, and all those surpluses add up.
>>>
>>> Despite which, the government still managed to introduce a significant
>>> annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new
>>> system ...
>>
>> ITYF that was the result of moving from paper disks to no paper disks
>>
>> Apparently, people with no physical reminder of when to renew, forget to
>> renew, resulting in an overall reduction in revenue. Quite why that
>> doesn't resolve itself by backdating the payment when they do renew, I
>> have no idea.
>
> You do a reminder to renew, around a month before the old 'tax' expires.
That's the theory
>>
>>
>> "Nick Leverton" <ni...@leverton.org> wrote in message
>> news:gs4mb2...@mid.individual.net...
>>> In article <84c37591-1219-40c4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 14:09:39 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
>>>>> simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
>>>>
>>>> The government get to keep the surplus, and all those surpluses add up.
>>>
>>> Despite which, the government still managed to introduce a significant
>>> annual loss in moving from the old transferrable system to the new
>>> system ...
>>
>> ITYF that was the result of moving from paper disks to no paper disks
>>
>> Apparently, people with no physical reminder of when to renew, forget to
>> renew, resulting in an overall reduction in revenue. Quite why that
>> doesn't resolve itself by backdating the payment when they do renew, I
>> have no idea.
>
> You do a reminder to renew, around a month before the old 'tax' expires.
didn't come for my car last month
tim
tim...
Aug 22, 2019, 5:57:14 AM8/22/19
to
"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjk770$190h$5...@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
> out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
If the number of times you read about some **** up by Company XYZ (across
> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
> out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
all market sectors), about the appalling way that they have handled
someone's account on bereavement, I think it's safe to assume that it's not
a conspiracy but just something that the people who design automated systems
simply don't think about.
Though quite why that it is like that is strange. It's not like there
aren't enough cock ups for them to have learnt from
tim
Michael Chare
Aug 22, 2019, 6:48:46 AM8/22/19
to
On 20/08/2019 18:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have
>> one car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank
>> accounts).
>
> A very sensible conclusion.
I can understand the point about cars, but what about utility bills
>> one car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank
>> accounts).
>
> A very sensible conclusion.
which are direct debited to a joint bank account. The supply contract
could be with the deceased. Do suppliers still honour the original
contract?
--
Michael Chare
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 7:17:27 AM8/22/19
to
On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
> out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
The present system of charging people only when they change car is much
> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to catch
> out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from them.
fairer than spreading the cost onto everybody's annual premium.
I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
days on a changeover. But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR
is not going to flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
Brian Reay
Aug 22, 2019, 7:17:42 AM8/22/19
to
companies/institutions couldn't have been more helpful. Some had their
rules which they expected you to follow but none were 'difficult'. I was
able to do everything in about 2 days, or at least set things in motion
for them to be processed.
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 7:17:49 AM8/22/19
to
In message <qjlru1$9nc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:48:32 on Thu, 22 Aug
2019, Michael Chare <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> remarked:
>>> Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have
>>>one car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank
>>>accounts).
>
>> A very sensible conclusion.
>
>I can understand the point about cars, but what about utility bills
>which are direct debited to a joint bank account. The supply contract
>could be with the deceased. Do suppliers still honour the original
>contract?
Gas, water and electric I don't think they can cut off easily as a
result of the ensuing muddle. But phones and Internet (and social media
etc) are not regulated in the same way.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Michael Chare <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> remarked:
>>> Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have
>>>one car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank
>>>accounts).
>
>> A very sensible conclusion.
>
>I can understand the point about cars, but what about utility bills
>which are direct debited to a joint bank account. The supply contract
>could be with the deceased. Do suppliers still honour the original
>contract?
result of the ensuing muddle. But phones and Internet (and social media
etc) are not regulated in the same way.
--
Roland Perry
Brian Reay
Aug 22, 2019, 7:18:03 AM8/22/19
to
that was required, followed by a letter (this was before Emails etc).
In each case, the next 'bill' etc was correctly addressed.
Martin Brown
Aug 22, 2019, 7:52:02 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 11:48, Michael Chare wrote:
the bank account was in the sole name of the deceased then DDs will fail
when the bank is notified and utility company will send a warning email
to an account you may not know the password for (as happened to me).
Great thing about paperless billing that you don't know about.
Eventually they hand it to debt collectors who were exceptionally
reasonable and understanding about it once they were informed about the
full facts. They asked when I expected to get probate and only checked
when that date passed. They seemed well aware that HMRC drag their feet.
The ones I dealt with as executor were surprisingly helpful and were
prepared to wait for probate before being paid (which thanks to the
tardiness of HMRC took ages). The water company even sent me a cheque
immediately payable to the estate as a rebate since the house was empty.
My neighbour is having difficulties since they were all in her husbands
name as was their bank account and so she is now struggling with list A
list B proof of ID. The utilities won't talk to her by phone either
because she is not the named account holder. It is somewhat Kafkaesque.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 8:23:09 AM8/22/19
to
In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost onto
>everybody's annual premium.
insurance?
>I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>days on a changeover.
Do you mean double-paid days?
>But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to flag
>up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
cameras for.
--
Roland Perry
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>them.
>
>The present system of charging people
tax?
>
>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>them.
>
>The present system of charging people
>only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost onto
>everybody's annual premium.
>I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>days on a changeover.
>But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to flag
>up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
cameras for.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Brown
Aug 22, 2019, 8:23:41 AM8/22/19
to
suffered a tremendous loss. She is quite literally terrified by this.
There is a fixed ANPR system on the road under 2 miles away.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Robin
Aug 22, 2019, 8:24:09 AM8/22/19
to
On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
money from them".
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 8:45:34 AM8/22/19
to
In message <qjlvki$qe4$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:51:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>My neighbour is having difficulties since they were all in her husbands
>name as was their bank account and so she is now struggling with list A
>list B proof of ID. The utilities won't talk to her by phone either
>because she is not the named account holder. It is somewhat Kafkaesque.
As are such conversations when both partners are alive and some
jobsworth won't talk to the other partner.
That's not the fault of the person at the call centre, because they are
just following a script, but there's not yet an equivalent of powers of
attorney where married couples are by default accepted as speaking for
one another. In the sense that back in the day either could sign cheques
on a joint account.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>My neighbour is having difficulties since they were all in her husbands
>name as was their bank account and so she is now struggling with list A
>list B proof of ID. The utilities won't talk to her by phone either
>because she is not the named account holder. It is somewhat Kafkaesque.
jobsworth won't talk to the other partner.
That's not the fault of the person at the call centre, because they are
just following a script, but there's not yet an equivalent of powers of
attorney where married couples are by default accepted as speaking for
one another. In the sense that back in the day either could sign cheques
on a joint account.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 9:10:52 AM8/22/19
to
In message <qjlkic$4hj$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:29 on Thu, 22 Aug
2019, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
that people have had to deal with several of the centralised
bureaucracies at all, let alone many at once.
When they find it's difficult, they assume it's because someone is out
to get them (or out to get them in the novel circumstances they find
themselves in).
But those centralised bureaucracies are almost always been for ever
fundamentally difficult to deal with, it's just that most people haven't
encountered it yet.
>Though quite why that it is like that is strange. It's not like there
>aren't enough cock ups for them to have learnt from
Most people devising systems in such situations aren't trained as
engineers, whose professional calling is to look out for such lessons to
be learned more than a few feet from their own doorsteps.
--
Roland Perry
2019, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>them.
>
>If the number of times you read about some **** up by Company XYZ
>(across all market sectors), about the appalling way that they have
>handled someone's account on bereavement, I think it's safe to assume
>that it's not a conspiracy but just something that the people who
>design automated systems simply don't think about.
The problem with bereavement is that's is quite likely the only time
>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>them.
>
>If the number of times you read about some **** up by Company XYZ
>(across all market sectors), about the appalling way that they have
>handled someone's account on bereavement, I think it's safe to assume
>that it's not a conspiracy but just something that the people who
>design automated systems simply don't think about.
that people have had to deal with several of the centralised
bureaucracies at all, let alone many at once.
When they find it's difficult, they assume it's because someone is out
to get them (or out to get them in the novel circumstances they find
themselves in).
But those centralised bureaucracies are almost always been for ever
fundamentally difficult to deal with, it's just that most people haven't
encountered it yet.
>Though quite why that it is like that is strange. It's not like there
>aren't enough cock ups for them to have learnt from
engineers, whose professional calling is to look out for such lessons to
be learned more than a few feet from their own doorsteps.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Brown
Aug 22, 2019, 10:11:24 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 13:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjlvki$qe4$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:51:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> My neighbour is having difficulties since they were all in her
>> husbands name as was their bank account and so she is now struggling
>> with list A list B proof of ID. The utilities won't talk to her by
>> phone either because she is not the named account holder. It is
>> somewhat Kafkaesque.
>
> As are such conversations when both partners are alive and some
> jobsworth won't talk to the other partner.
My point though is that this is a particular problem at the moment with
> In message <qjlvki$qe4$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 12:51:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> My neighbour is having difficulties since they were all in her
>> husbands name as was their bank account and so she is now struggling
>> with list A list B proof of ID. The utilities won't talk to her by
>> phone either because she is not the named account holder. It is
>> somewhat Kafkaesque.
>
> As are such conversations when both partners are alive and some
> jobsworth won't talk to the other partner.
the older generation where with a fairly high probability everything is
in the husband's name (and men typically have lower life expectancy).
My generation tend to each have individual and/or joint bank accounts
and joint ownership of their property.
> That's not the fault of the person at the call centre, because they are
> just following a script, but there's not yet an equivalent of powers of
> attorney where married couples are by default accepted as speaking for
> one another. In the sense that back in the day either could sign cheques
> on a joint account.
Even more so for someone who newly widowed is emotionally distressed and
not used to dealing with such things - as the life insurance pressure
salesman script used to say "you can't answer for her, you are dead".
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 10:59:15 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>> from them.
>>
>> The present system of charging people
>
> tax?
>
>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost onto
>> everybody's annual premium.
>
> insurance?
The discussion is about vehicle tax.
> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>> from them.
>>
>> The present system of charging people
>
> tax?
>
>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost onto
>> everybody's annual premium.
>
> insurance?
>> I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>> days on a changeover.
>
> Do you mean double-paid days?
>
>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to flag
>> up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
> cameras for.
telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 10:59:32 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 12:50, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 22/08/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>> them.
>>
>> The present system of charging people only when they change car is
>> much fairer than spreading the cost onto everybody's annual premium.
>>
>> I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>> days on a changeover. But if the spouse goes out without retaxing,
>> ANPR is not going to flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> We are talking here about a very law abiding elderly lady who has just
> suffered a tremendous loss. She is quite literally terrified by this.
Of course.
> On 22/08/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money from
>>> them.
>>
>> The present system of charging people only when they change car is
>> much fairer than spreading the cost onto everybody's annual premium.
>>
>> I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>> days on a changeover. But if the spouse goes out without retaxing,
>> ANPR is not going to flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> We are talking here about a very law abiding elderly lady who has just
> suffered a tremendous loss. She is quite literally terrified by this.
> There is a fixed ANPR system on the road under 2 miles away.
Mr Pounder Esquire
Aug 22, 2019, 10:59:47 AM8/22/19
to
understand the law.
newshound
Aug 22, 2019, 11:00:10 AM8/22/19
to
On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
they have some time. The revenue gain is trivial. The "tell us once"
system could just set a flag without cancelling the tax. The police have
far better things to be doing than pulling over the newly bereaved via
ANPR and giving them extra stress. Even if they don't issue a ticket
they have to explain the problem.
Martin Brown
Aug 22, 2019, 11:13:53 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 14:18, TMS320 wrote:
> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
What makes you think that? DVLC will be automatically notified of the
>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
death just like other government departments are - pensions, HMRC etc.
>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>> cameras for.
>
> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
> telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
Cancellation of the road tax and refund processing is automatic.
A cascade of government departments shower you in random mostly relevant
paperwork within a fortnight of registering the death. Snag is some of
it cannot be filled in until you have all the tax certificates.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Robin
Aug 22, 2019, 11:58:44 AM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 16:04, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 22/08/2019 14:18, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> What makes you think that? DVLC will be automatically notified of the
> death just like other government departments are - pensions, HMRC etc.
>
>>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>> cameras for.
>>
>> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
>> telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
What's you evidence for that please? I ask as it (a) would be a big
> On 22/08/2019 14:18, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> What makes you think that? DVLC will be automatically notified of the
> death just like other government departments are - pensions, HMRC etc.
>
>>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>> cameras for.
>>
>> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
>> telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
change and (b) contradicts what is still said about the scheme online
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 11:59:01 AM8/22/19
to
In message <qjm4nq$4pt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:18:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
insurance.
>>> I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>>>days on a changeover.
>> Do you mean double-paid days?
>>
>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>cameras for.
>
>To look for vehicles with no record of taxation.
Or perhaps 'current tax'.
>Is the system telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
Wasn't that something "tell us once" might have done?
--
Roland Perry
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>from them.
>>>
>>> The present system of charging people
>> tax?
>>
>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>> insurance?
>
>The discussion is about vehicle tax.
Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related to
>On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>from them.
>>>
>>> The present system of charging people
>> tax?
>>
>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>> insurance?
>
>The discussion is about vehicle tax.
insurance.
>>> I suppose there could be a case to reimburse the bereaved for unused
>>>days on a changeover.
>> Do you mean double-paid days?
>>
>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>cameras for.
>
>To look for vehicles with no record of taxation.
>Is the system telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 12:10:00 PM8/22/19
to
In message <fee723b8-5eee-90a6...@outlook.com>, at
16:46:46 on Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
16:46:46 on Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:
>>> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
>>>telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
>> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
>
>What's you evidence for that please? I ask as it (a) would be a big
>change and (b) contradicts what is still said about the scheme online
It may not be automatic, but I expect most registrars recommend it.
>>>telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
>> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
>
>What's you evidence for that please? I ask as it (a) would be a big
>change and (b) contradicts what is still said about the scheme online
--
Roland Perry
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 1:21:39 PM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 16:04, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 22/08/2019 14:18, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> What makes you think that? DVLC will be automatically notified of the
> death just like other government departments are - pensions, HMRC etc.
>
>>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>> cameras for.
>>
>> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
>> telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
> Cancellation of the road tax and refund processing is automatic.
"Tell us once" doesn't happen until a representive goes to an office to
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> But if the spouse goes out without retaxing, ANPR is not going to
>>>> flag up an untaxed vehicle. Don't be so paranoid.
>
> What makes you think that? DVLC will be automatically notified of the
> death just like other government departments are - pensions, HMRC etc.
>
>>> No ANPR enforcement of vehicle tax... really? What are those green
>>> cameras for.
>>
>> To look for vehicles with no record of taxation. Is the system
>> telepathic enough to know the instant a keeper changes?
>
> "Tell us once" is automatic when you obtain the death certificate.
> Cancellation of the road tax and refund processing is automatic.
register the death.
In my experience the person at the desk is not a stereotype bureacratic
droid and the information given is pretty clear.
Whereas the deceased's car insurance ceases immediately and any named
drivers are uninsured. I take it your friend had presence of mind to
deal with that?
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 1:22:34 PM8/22/19
to
prejudice is showing.
TMS320
Aug 22, 2019, 1:22:49 PM8/22/19
to
On 22/08/2019 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjm4nq$4pt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:18:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>> from them.
>>>>
>>>> The present system of charging people
>>> tax?
>>>
>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>> onto everybody's annual premium.
>>> insurance?
>>
>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>
> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related to
> insurance.
If you insist. Don't spread the cost everybody's annual ...tax...
> In message <qjm4nq$4pt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:18:47 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 22/08/2019 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <qjlrs9$9e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:47:37 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 21/08/2019 20:48, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>> catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>> from them.
>>>>
>>>> The present system of charging people
>>> tax?
>>>
>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>> onto everybody's annual premium.
>>> insurance?
>>
>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>
> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related to
> insurance.
Martin Brown
Aug 22, 2019, 1:23:15 PM8/22/19
to
you are responsible for notifying a long list of government departments.
Registrars strongly *recommend* using it - with the explanation that it
saves writing to each government department individually. That is fine
for most of them but in the case of DVLC has unwanted side effects. It
saves about half a dozen letters if there are benefits and pensions.
Most people registering a death will opt to use "Tell us once" service -
I know that I did and without very much thought about it.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roland Perry
Aug 22, 2019, 3:14:03 PM8/22/19
to
In message <qjmhdj$k5k$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:55:15 on Thu, 22 Aug
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>>>from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The present system of charging people
>>>> tax?
>>>>
>>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>>>> insurance?
>>>
>>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related
>>to insurance.
>
>If you insist. Don't spread the cost everybody's annual ...tax...
VED is not a zero sum game. They collect what they can, the uncollected
isn't imposed upon the remainder.
--
Roland Perry
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats to
>>>>>>catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract money
>>>>>>from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The present system of charging people
>>>> tax?
>>>>
>>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>>>> insurance?
>>>
>>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related
>>to insurance.
>
>If you insist. Don't spread the cost everybody's annual ...tax...
isn't imposed upon the remainder.
--
Roland Perry
Mr Pounder Esquire
Aug 22, 2019, 3:14:44 PM8/22/19
to
within the law. When a driver makes a mistake, the driver will most likely
will pay the penalty for that mistake. I could have paid for my mistake of
driving an untaxed car. When a cyclist makes a mistake ............?
Alasdair X
Aug 22, 2019, 4:03:10 PM8/22/19
to
On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 18:06:20 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjgre4$11ve$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:09:25 on Tue, 20 Aug
> >simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
> >
> >https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
> >
> >It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
> >use on the roads.
>
> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is taxed.
> And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
> requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
> the granularity).
>
> >Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
> >
> >It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
> >inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
> >There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
> >
> >In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
> >fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
> >newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
> >
> >It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if
> >you had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it
> >seems completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of
> >a months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
>
> Talk to your MP about that, assuming they aren't 110% preoccupied with
> Brexit.
> Roland Perry
Somebody should set up a petition with Change.org or 38 Degrees to have a change of the law to make life easier for bereaved families because of the criminal risks in using a deceased person's car, parking it on the road etc.
> In message <qjgre4$11ve$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:09:25 on Tue, 20 Aug
> 2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
> >Why is vehicle tax always cancelled on the death of the person and not
> >simply transferable to a spouse or other close family member?
> >
> >https://www.gov.uk/tell-dvla-about-bereavement/keeping-the-vehicle
> >
> >It is after all the *vehicle* and its registration that is taxed for
> >use on the roads.
>
> I'm afraid you are plain wrong there. It's the *keeper* who is taxed.
> And the FAQs specifically mention transfers of keepers within a family
> requiring re-taxing (and potentially losing a month's worth because of
> the granularity).
>
> >Other people can be named drivers on its insurance.
> >
> >It seems to be yet another thing gratuitously designed to seriously
> >inconvenience and distress rural newly bereaved law abiding widows.
> >There isn't anything you can do round here without using a car.
> >
> >In practice how likely is it that tell us once will propagate to DVLA
> >fast enough for it to be a problem. And how good a defence is being a
> >newly bereaved shell shocked widow if the worst were to happen?
> >
> >It is obvious to me that you will need insurance in your own name if
> >you had been previously a named driver on a spouse's policy but it
> >seems completely unreasonable that you have to forfeit some fraction of
> >a months road tax and then go through all the hassle of re-applying.
>
> Talk to your MP about that, assuming they aren't 110% preoccupied with
> Brexit.
>
> >Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
> >car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
>
> A very sensible conclusion.
> --
> >Conclusion is that in a multi car household each spouse should have one
> >car taxed in their own name (likewise utility bills and bank accounts).
>
> A very sensible conclusion.
> Roland Perry
Somebody should set up a petition with Change.org or 38 Degrees to have a change of the law to make life easier for bereaved families because of the criminal risks in using a deceased person's car, parking it on the road etc.
TMS320
Aug 23, 2019, 1:12:43 AM8/23/19
to
break. Pointless argument.
TMS320
Aug 23, 2019, 1:13:14 AM8/23/19
to
tax into a pot.
In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will put
more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5 years. If
they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*) they would
have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect the same amount.
The frequent changer would benefit at the expense of the infrequent changer.
(*) roughly £140/24 (half a month) or £6. I don't know how many cars
change hands every year but it is clearly not insignificant.
Roland Perry
Aug 23, 2019, 4:12:17 AM8/23/19
to
In message <qjn67v$e52$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:50:38 on Thu, 22 Aug
"target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make ends meet.
The actual headline rates are set by environmental considerations (with
Zero being the trendy option), and in any event the inevitable flushing
out of the system of old gas-guzzlers to be replaced by newer more
efficient cars is eroding the VED revenue stream far faster than any
increases introduced in "Green Budgets" in the basic rates.
[People buying fewer cars in a recession also affects the income stream
of VAT as well as VED. And the newer more fuel efficient (and electric)
cars reduces the fuel duty and VAT income as well.]
In fact the tax on fuel swamps VED, to such an extent that the freezing
of the former is costing the same £5bn a year as is collected by the
latter.
At that level, the dual-taxation of secondhand cars for a month is
fiscally a drop in the ocean[2], and merely appears vindictive to the
motorist. They'd do almost as well increasing the policing of
unregistered cars, which have more than doubled in the few years since
this scheme was introduced (also around the 2% mark).
>The frequent changer would benefit at the expense of the infrequent
>changer.
The status quo was that VED transferred with the vehicle. Now that it
doesn't, unless the vehicle is SORNed[1]] or scrapped, or sold to a moor
dealer, every change of owner results in a whole month of double
taxation. To give people a proportionate refund, and allow new taxation
to start part-way through a month, would simply return to that, from a
fiscal point of view.
>(*) roughly £140/24 (half a month) or £6. I don't know how many cars
>change hands every year but it is clearly not insignificant.
The RAF foundation says 7,945,040 used cars changed hands in 2018 (from
a total installed base of 40m), and that the average car has 4 owners in
its lifetime. They quote an average lifetime of 14yrs (slightly longer
for petrol than diesel).
[1] In theory it's possible to SORN a vehicle at the end of a month,
then un-SORN it with new owner a day later. But that's a lot of
work, and the timetable doesn't suit every transfer. Especially in
the case of bereavement.
[2] Average VED of perhaps £20/month times 8million is 2%
--
Roland Perry
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 22/08/2019 18:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjmhdj$k5k$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:55:15 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats
>>>>>>>>to catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract
>>>>>>>>money from them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The present system of charging people
>>>>>> tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>>>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>>>>>> insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>>>> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related
>>>>to insurance.
>>>
>>> If you insist. Don't spread the cost everybody's annual ...tax...
>
>> VED is not a zero sum game. They collect what they can, the
>>uncollected isn't imposed upon the remainder.
>
>I don't think you get it. The government puts money collected through
>tax into a pot.
>
>In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will put
>more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5 years.
>If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*) they would
>have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect the same amount.
That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't have a
>On 22/08/2019 18:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <qjmhdj$k5k$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:55:15 on Thu, 22 Aug
>>2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>> It is a deliberate malevolent trap set by clueless bureaucrats
>>>>>>>>to catch out the entirely innocent newly bereaved and extract
>>>>>>>>money from them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The present system of charging people
>>>>>> tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only when they change car is much fairer than spreading the cost
>>>>>>>onto everybody's annual premium.
>>>>>> insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion is about vehicle tax.
>>>> Why them mention 'premium', which is usually an expression related
>>>>to insurance.
>>>
>>> If you insist. Don't spread the cost everybody's annual ...tax...
>
>> VED is not a zero sum game. They collect what they can, the
>>uncollected isn't imposed upon the remainder.
>
>I don't think you get it. The government puts money collected through
>tax into a pot.
>
>In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will put
>more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5 years.
>If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*) they would
>have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect the same amount.
"target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make ends meet.
The actual headline rates are set by environmental considerations (with
Zero being the trendy option), and in any event the inevitable flushing
out of the system of old gas-guzzlers to be replaced by newer more
efficient cars is eroding the VED revenue stream far faster than any
increases introduced in "Green Budgets" in the basic rates.
[People buying fewer cars in a recession also affects the income stream
of VAT as well as VED. And the newer more fuel efficient (and electric)
cars reduces the fuel duty and VAT income as well.]
In fact the tax on fuel swamps VED, to such an extent that the freezing
of the former is costing the same £5bn a year as is collected by the
latter.
At that level, the dual-taxation of secondhand cars for a month is
fiscally a drop in the ocean[2], and merely appears vindictive to the
motorist. They'd do almost as well increasing the policing of
unregistered cars, which have more than doubled in the few years since
this scheme was introduced (also around the 2% mark).
>The frequent changer would benefit at the expense of the infrequent
>changer.
doesn't, unless the vehicle is SORNed[1]] or scrapped, or sold to a moor
dealer, every change of owner results in a whole month of double
taxation. To give people a proportionate refund, and allow new taxation
to start part-way through a month, would simply return to that, from a
fiscal point of view.
>(*) roughly £140/24 (half a month) or £6. I don't know how many cars
>change hands every year but it is clearly not insignificant.
a total installed base of 40m), and that the average car has 4 owners in
its lifetime. They quote an average lifetime of 14yrs (slightly longer
for petrol than diesel).
[1] In theory it's possible to SORN a vehicle at the end of a month,
then un-SORN it with new owner a day later. But that's a lot of
work, and the timetable doesn't suit every transfer. Especially in
the case of bereavement.
[2] Average VED of perhaps £20/month times 8million is 2%
--
Roland Perry
TMS320
Aug 23, 2019, 4:42:13 AM8/23/19
to
On 23/08/2019 09:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjn67v$e52$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:50:38 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
> In message <qjn67v$e52$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:50:38 on Thu, 22 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will
>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>> the same amount.
>
> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't have
> a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make ends
> meet.
Of course there is a target. The art of taxation consists in so plucking
>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>> the same amount.
>
> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't have
> a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make ends
> meet.
the goose as to get the most feathers with the least possible amount of
hissing.
Roland Perry
Aug 23, 2019, 4:58:59 AM8/23/19
to
In message <qjo8sl$4sd$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:56 on Fri, 23 Aug
made up of thousands[1] of individual contributions, just like VED is
made from scores of different contributions. They don't micromange at
the level you are suggesting ""ooops, not enough people buying
duty-heavy Range Rovers, we'd better up the tax rate for Ford Mondeos"
[ect ect].
[1] Thinking of which, what's Boris's ambitions for scrapping VAT, once
mentioned as an EU-bogie that we need to take back control of? Three
rates, to be replaced by dozens of different purchase tax rates, no
doubt.
--
Roland Perry
2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will
>>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>>> the same amount.
>
>> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't
>>have a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make
>>ends meet.
>
>Of course there is a target. The art of taxation consists in so
>plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least possible
>amount of hissing.
There's a target for the 800BN (or whatever) total taxation, but that's
>>> In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will
>>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>>> the same amount.
>
>> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't
>>have a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make
>>ends meet.
>
>Of course there is a target. The art of taxation consists in so
>plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least possible
>amount of hissing.
made up of thousands[1] of individual contributions, just like VED is
made from scores of different contributions. They don't micromange at
the level you are suggesting ""ooops, not enough people buying
duty-heavy Range Rovers, we'd better up the tax rate for Ford Mondeos"
[ect ect].
[1] Thinking of which, what's Boris's ambitions for scrapping VAT, once
mentioned as an EU-bogie that we need to take back control of? Three
rates, to be replaced by dozens of different purchase tax rates, no
doubt.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Aug 23, 2019, 8:27:05 AM8/23/19
to
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:58:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Vat is bad enough now that's even before they introduced reverse
taxation on a whole heap of small business in the construction
industry due to land in just over a month , re branding and
installing multiple banding is going to make accounting for it a
nightmare
wrote:
taxation on a whole heap of small business in the construction
industry due to land in just over a month , re branding and
installing multiple banding is going to make accounting for it a
nightmare
TMS320
Aug 23, 2019, 12:30:51 PM8/23/19
to
On 23/08/2019 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qjo8sl$4sd$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:56 on Fri, 23 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will
>>>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>>>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>>>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>>>> the same amount.
>>
>>> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't
>>> have a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make
>>> ends meet.
>>
>> Of course there is a target. The art of taxation consists in so
>> plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least possible
>> amount of hissing.
>
> There's a target for the 800BN (or whatever) total taxation, but that's
> made up of thousands[1] of individual contributions, just like VED is
> made from scores of different contributions. They don't micromange at
> the level you are suggesting ""ooops, not enough people buying
> duty-heavy Range Rovers, we'd better up the tax rate for Ford Mondeos"
> [ect ect].
It could be argued that in the grand scheme of things there is no point
> In message <qjo8sl$4sd$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:56 on Fri, 23 Aug
> 2019, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> In the present scheme, if someone changes car every year they will
>>>> put more into the pot than another person that changes car every 5
>>>> years. If they refunded the days every time a car changes hands (*)
>>>> they would have to collect it back by raising the rates to collect
>>>> the same amount.
>>
>>> That proposition is precisely what I was challenging. They don't
>>> have a "target pot" and then tinker with the rates of VED to make
>>> ends meet.
>>
>> Of course there is a target. The art of taxation consists in so
>> plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least possible
>> amount of hissing.
>
> There's a target for the 800BN (or whatever) total taxation, but that's
> made up of thousands[1] of individual contributions, just like VED is
> made from scores of different contributions. They don't micromange at
> the level you are suggesting ""ooops, not enough people buying
> duty-heavy Range Rovers, we'd better up the tax rate for Ford Mondeos"
> [ect ect].
having VED. But while we have VED, the lost days are a non-trivial
fraction of it.
Roland Perry
Aug 23, 2019, 1:06:09 PM8/23/19
to
In message <qjp4bc$vig$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:35 on Fri, 23 Aug
Non-trivial from whose point of view? The government is getting an extra
perhaps 2% of one of the smaller motoring tax components, and a very
large number of members of the public are being rubbed up the wrong way
by what comes over as a vindictive double-taxation scam.
--
Roland Perry
perhaps 2% of one of the smaller motoring tax components, and a very
large number of members of the public are being rubbed up the wrong way
by what comes over as a vindictive double-taxation scam.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages