Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Bill 2013

listermint

I know this thread has been raised before but seen as it has been raised in classic section and the bill is due before the Oireactas soon then i thought it deserved a place in the Main Motors Forum as it impacts everyone who has a keen interest in cars and the ordinary motorist also.


If you have indeed have some strong feelings on the bill its now time to contact your local TD and lobby because thats what they are their for either way the people should speak on this item.


http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/3713/b3713d.pdf




Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Bill 2013

15th May 2013
Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Bill 2013: Financial Resolution
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution:
- to close an evasion loophole whereby vehicles are declared off the road retrospectively, which is unverifiable, by providing for a system whereby vehicles must be declared off the road in advance for motor tax purposes,

- for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to be made a licensing authority and to provide that he or she continues to pay receipts from motor tax to the Local Government Fund,

- for the calculation of arrears of vehicle excise duty at 1/10th of the annual rate of duty per month of arrears, at the rate of duty applicable at the time of the making of an application for a vehicle licence, and

- for the charging, through secondary legislation, of an administration fee for the making of a declaration of non-use of a vehicle.
Question put and agreed to.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

I wonder if you pay for off the road tax as such will they produce a tax disc for the car to have ?


would bring out all the chancers if thats the case or gardai only checking the big dates and moving on !

ba_barabus

I've no issue with it other than it needs to be free.

It's a farce if its not

Anan1

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I wonder if you pay for off the road tax as such will they produce a tax disc for the car to have ?

For what, for the owner to admire?

listermint

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've no issue with it other than it needs to be free.

It's a farce if its not

Agreed, and it needs to be easy online and efficient.


But we are being fed the opposite. Therein lies the problem

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

But we are being fed the opposite. Therein lies the problem

Where? All i'm seeing is this:

- for the charging, through secondary legislation, of an administration fee for the making of a declaration of non-use of a vehicle.
Question put and agreed to.


which, could in fairness be anything. I wouldn't object, for example, to a once-off charge of a tenner - would you?

Cheensbo

Why should one be charged for the NON use of a vehicle?

Bad enough paying for the use of it,

That's complete and utter bolox imo. :mad:

Dartz

What I'm waiting for are the hundred's of people with cars and motorcycles parked up in sheds around the country for decades getting demands for very big bills shortly after this comes in to force.

R.O.R

Anan1 wrote: »

Where? All i'm seeing is this:

- for the charging, through secondary legislation, of an administration fee for the making of a declaration of non-use of a vehicle.
Question put and agreed to.


which, could in fairness be anything. I wouldn't object, for example, to a once-off charge of a tenner - would you?

Yes, I would.

How do you know how long the vehicle is going to be off the road. What happens if the car goes on and off the road a few times a year (can happen for classics / fun cars), but mainly, what happens for big fleets of cars where there are mulitples off the road at any one time? Declare them all, pay a charge, re-tax when they go on the road, re-declare when they come back off the road and pay again?


In the UK, you have the option of taxing your car, or declaring it off the road. No charge for declaring it off the road, and if you do neither option then you get fined for not having tax. Closes the loophole, will generate more tax income and doesn't penalise those not trying to get one over on the system. Don't see why they can't mirror this system here.

listermint

On a serious note though.


If you feel this bill is too open to ministers interpretation then spend 10 minutes of your time today and write to all your local TDs and finally Phil Hogan to seek clarification on it. or removal of the parts that appear to be dubious in nature.

Anan1

R.O.R wrote: »

Yes, I would.

How do you know how long the vehicle is going to be off the road. What happens if the car goes on and off the road a few times a year (can happen for classics / fun cars), but mainly, what happens for big fleets of cars where there are mulitples off the road at any one time? Declare them all, pay a charge, re-tax when they go on the road, re-declare when they come back off the road and pay again?

A classic is only €52 a year to tax anyway, and anything else has to be taxed for a minimum of three months, so it's not like cars are going to be going on and off every sunny weekend.

R.O.R wrote: »

In the UK, you have the option of taxing your car, or declaring it off the road. No charge for declaring it off the road, and if you do neither option then you get fined for not having tax. Closes the loophole, will generate more tax income and doesn't penalise those not trying to get one over on the system. Don't see why they can't mirror this system here.

Is there any difference apart from the admin fee? If not, doesn't it all come down to the fee?

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

A classic is only €52 a year to tax anyway, and anything else has to be taxed for a minimum of three months, so it's not like cars are going to be going on and off every sunny weekend.


Is there any difference apart from the admin fee? If not, doesn't it all come down to the fee?

Yes, how easy will it be to make a declaration ?


The UK model seems 'fair' and this is what we are all looking for. I think you'll agree fairness is all we can hope for on this.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

Yes, how easy will it be to make a declaration ?


The UK model seems 'fair' and this is what we are all looking for. I think you'll agree fairness is all we can hope for on this.

Like you, I want a fair system where it's easy to make a declaration and tax dodgers get caught. The only point on which we disagree is that I don't have a problem in principle with a nominal charge for declaring a car off the road.

ba_barabus

Would I be correct in saying that a charge of €25 was mentioned in a previous thread about this?

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

Like you, I want a fair system where it's easy to make a declaration and tax dodgers get caught. The only point on which we disagree is that I don't have a problem in principle with a nominal charge for declaring a car off the road.

Its also unclear if you have to pay a minimum tax on the car once its off the road for instance.


So for me i completely disagree on both points. The cost savings in terms of redirection of staff and ditching antiquated paper trail systems would make major savings there is no call for a nominal fee. And the UK doesnt need one so why do we ?

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

Its also unclear if you have to pay a minimum tax on the car once its off the road for instance.

That's (bad) news to me - any chance of a link?

listermint wrote: »

So for me i completely disagree on both points. The cost savings in terms of redirection of staff and ditching antiquated paper trail systems would make major savings there is no call for a nominal fee. And the UK doesnt need one so why do we ?

There still is a cost to the state - not charging at all just means that the cost will be shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

Cheensbo

Anan1 wrote: »

There still is a cost to the state - not charging at all just means that the cost will be shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

surely the cost to the state will be offset by the increased compliance that's expected to be achieved by the closing of this wonderful loophole.

Macy0161

I suspect the fee is partly to make it less attractive to people to chance it.

When I lived in the UK, the SORN was very strict - if declared off the road, it had to be clearly off the road. Parked up on a driveway in a driveable state wasn't enough.

listermint

Macy0161 wrote: »

I suspect the fee is partly to make it less attractive to people to chance it.

When I lived in the UK, the SORN was very strict - if declared off the road, it had to be clearly off the road. Parked up on a driveway in a driveable state wasn't enough.

I suspect the fee is designed as another stealthy charge.

The less attractive part would be being strictly enforced i.e. vehicle on a tow truck. Surely that is less attractive...

Anan1

Cheensbo wrote: »

surely the cost to the state will be offset by the increased compliance that's expected to be achieved by the closing of this wonderful loophole.

That's still shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

That's still shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

Or being paid for by the new fines and or sale / destruction of the vehicles caught outside of SORN, which will obviously vastly increase.

So there is no case for a charge. It needs to be a simple system.

It will obviously more than pay for itself so as i stated already its a new stealth tax that is unwarranted.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

Or being paid for by the new fines and or sale / destruction of the vehicles caught outside of SORN, which will obviously vastly increase.

So there is no case for a charge. It needs to be a simple system.

It will obviously more than pay for itself so as i stated already its a new stealth tax that is unwarranted.

You could pay for it out of money saved by catching bank robbers and it'd still be shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

Cheensbo

Anan1 wrote: »

You could pay for it out of money saved by catching bank robbers and it'd still be shared by everyone, rather than being paid by the car owner.

But why should someone pay - lets call a spade a spade - a tax for not using a car??

This is being brought in to stop people avoiding paying tax when their car is being used, how do they implement it? - by taxing the period of no tax.

I'm sure the enforcement system will be magically fixed once this comes in too, "here ya go lads, pay a tenner to continue doing what you've been doing all along" - nah, I'll take my chances thanks.

roonealdo

I presume if your car was off the road before the bill was passed you can still claim non use?

listermint

roonealdo wrote: »

I presume if your car was off the road before the bill was passed you can still claim non use?

No, it would have to be then declared off the road.

aman23

tax the fuel, doesn't matter then where the car is or what it's doing.

listermint

aman23 wrote: »

tax the fuel, doesn't matter then where the car is or what it's doing.

As much as we'd all like that to happen we have to start with smaller battles. and this is one thats right on our doorstep.

listermint

Anyway, ive written to all my local reps and Howlin too.

So if anyone actually cares to spend a minute or so on this just to add your voice to something at all this year please take a small amount of you time to air your thoughts either way.

heres mine

Minister X,


Having voted for you in the last general election, I am writing to you directly concerning the Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Bill 2013 (“the Bill”). As you are aware, this bill seeks to address the declarations of vehicles that are not in use on the roads to eradicate the problem of owners who continue to utilise their vehicles when they are untaxed.

I commend the merits of such a bill as it will address the non-payment of motor tax by some drivers who seek to evade. However, on review of the information provided, the Bill is unclear on a number of issues. For example, it not clear if there is a charge for declaration of non-use. Additionally, when a vehicle is not used and is most certainly 'off the road', it is unclear if a tax charged against it.

These items need to be clearly addressed, as this will have major implications to both average motorists that retain a vehicle for emergencies or the holiday periods, but utilise public transport for the remainder of the year, and motor enthusiasts who own numerous vehicles but store them for long periods at a time. The Bill would have a significant financial impact on both.

The Bill certainly has merits. However, it appears that certain policy decisions regarding the Bill have been made with the clear motivation to introduce another stealth tax 'charge' on the already extremely hard pressed motorist. It is frankly disappointing that the ministers involved have done nothing to research our closest neighbours motor tax system. In the UK, there has been a similar system in place for a number of years. There is no charge for off the road declarations (and the system being completely automated).

“Jobs, Reform, Fairness”. For me, these are the principles on which I voted for you and I’m at pains to see exactly where and how the people of Ireland have been represented fairly in this Bill.

This Bill needs further examination with extensive consultation with the interested parties. It should not be put forward for a vote until this consultation process has taken place and the public representatives can make a fully informed decision based on the research and facts obtained.


Yours Sincerely

listermint

So i got a response on this from Minister O Dowd

I refer to your email in relation to the non-use of motor vehicles act 2013.

The primary purpose of the act is to close the loophole in the current system whereby owners declare a vehicle off the road retrospectively which is unverifiable, and to replace it with a system of declarations of non-use.

In relation to the issue of charges raised in the correspondence, i wish to advise that, while the act makes provision for the charging of an administration fee through secondary legislation, it makes no provision for the charging of a premium over and above reasonable cost of administration and cannot, therefore, be used as a tax-raising measure. As indicated during the debates as the was act progressing through the Houses, there are not plans, at present, to prescribe a fee. In the event that a fee is prescribed, there are a number of exemptions, one of which is for Vehicles that have an annual road tax of €119 or less. this category includes vintage vehicles.

A declaration of non-use of a vehicle can be made at any time in the month before motor tax or an existing declaration of non-use is due to expire, while the purchasers of new and second hand vehicles will have ten days from the date of registration or change of ownership to make a declaration. If it is required to be in use, a vehicle can be returned to the road at any time prior to the expiry of the declaration by taxing the vehicle concerned from the then-current month, The declaration of non-use will then be deemed to be expired at the end of the previous month

In relation to the question of an online application, it is intended that declarations of non use can be made online from the end of the three month transition period that is provided for in the act, which is intended to allow motorists some time to put their affairs in order. Accordingly, it is anticipated that online applications will be facilitated from the start of October this year.

I trust this clarifies the matters raised in correspondence


Yours Sincerely

Fergus O Dowd

Minster of state

So while he has responded, it poses more questions i feel. How long is the facility to declare off the road ? 3 months ?

When one has a vehicle (or lets say a collection) do they have to keep on declaring off the road every 3 months? is there a charge each time they do this ? ( because lets face it despite his 'there are no plans' speel you can put large money on the fact that there can and will be a charge)

The charge part actually is one item that i wanted removed from the bill because despite the dancing around the matter in the letter, it is a revenue raising and not a cost covering exercise. The existing (after the fact) off the road declaration is covered by the existing money pool of motor tax collection. So despite this new system enforcing more motorists to insure that are infact paying road tax (with the introduction of SORN)thus reaping more taxes. The charges are additional to this new net of taxes and hence are a revenue raising exercise regardless of which way its painted.


Also it appears the exemptions only include the lobby group of vintage car collectors which in this country means you have to be in the golden 30 year before any collectors vehicle is considered classic.

In the classic car section there was a poster in there who said he had contact and was in discussions with the individuals involved in the bill and this insured that that these guys were covered and it appears he came through. But what about the rest of us motorists ? hit again in the pocket by new charges, easy targets.

What about anyone that has a faint interest in older vehicles ? This looks like it will drive all older vehicles completely off the road into scrapyards thus never making the golden vintage status.

As an avid motorist, i felt that we should be following the UK Model. Im all for SORN as i pay more motor tax than most and it gives my a pain in the eye when someone cant fork out even 300-500 euro on motor tax and drives around happy as larry. But this was an opportunity to make a bloated motor tax office division more efficient streamlined and just like the UK no additional cost to the ever screwed driver.


Thoughts ?

R.O.R

As it seems to be fairly simple to put a vehicle back on the road from a SORN, declare any vehicle off the road for 12 months (if that's the Max allowed), then just stick it back on the road as needs be.

That would mean just paying the admin fee once a year, which would hopefully be the same (if it comes in) regardless of how long you are declaring it off the road.

Not the best news, but could have been worse.

listermint

R.O.R wrote: »

As it seems to be fairly simple to put a vehicle back on the road from a SORN, declare any vehicle off the road for 12 months (if that's the Max allowed), then just stick it back on the road as needs be.

That would mean just paying the admin fee once a year, which would hopefully be the same (if it comes in) regardless of how long you are declaring it off the road.

Not the best news, but could have been worse.

Which is the cause for concern. Largest traffic'd motor forum in the country and the response is could have been worse.

Why should we accept a fee ? The bump in reclaimed taxes should very much more than cover it and the deletion of unrequired position in the motor tax office should reduce costs.

acceptance is not the key.

and before some says we have bigger fish to fry. The fact is the bigger fish arent been cooked and neither are the small ones. We cook no fish here despite being surrounded by water.


(great line i must use that elsewhere)