Another S.O.R.N question.

PLUG71

Sorry if this has already been discussed!

If a person was to declare their car off road and get caught would they still be insured and also what would happen for using the car when they have declared its not being used?

Lots of people seem to be doing this!

Atlantic Dawn

Yes they would be insured, however they will be driving around with a car that could be seized at any stage. It's only a matter of time before we follow the UK and have ANPR cameras on bridges and on roads around towns and cities to check for tax.

bladespin

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before we follow the UK and have ANPR cameras on bridges and on roads around towns and cities to check for tax.

I'd doubt it (Gatso etc), though would be concerned about the GoSafe vans.

Atlantic Dawn

bladespin wrote: »

I'd doubt it (Gatso etc), though would be concerned about the GoSafe vans.

It's fairly cheap to implement, about 100 cameras would cover the main roads of the country and would remove the non payers for the rest of us to drive on them.

00833827

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's fairly cheap to implement, about 100 cameras would cover the main roads of the country and would remove the non payers for the rest of us to drive on them.

i was thinking about this today - there just aren't the cars on the road to implement something like this - lash them up along the m50 for sure but for some of the recently built motorways in rural areas? they are practically deserted.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's fairly cheap to implement, about 100 cameras would cover the main roads of the country and would remove the non payers for the rest of us to drive on them.

My cars are always taxed and I am for any method that ensures that everyone else must also pay their due.

00833827

PLUG71 wrote: »

Lots of people seem to be doing this!

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion?

PLUG71

00833827 wrote: »

Can I ask how you came to this conclusion?

I live in a rural area and lots of people I have this discussion with cant afford lower tax banded cars and are willing to take the chance!

rocky

Are you saying not a lot has changed with the new system?? :eek:

00833827

I suppose you weight up the value of the car vs. the price of the tax vs. the penalty for driving a car which is supposed to be off the road - you could easily see how people would take the chance if they operated in a rural area driving a car not worth too much.

PLUG71

rocky wrote: »

Are you saying not a lot has changed with the new system?? :eek:

I'm saying that the cost of motor tax is causing people that want to keep their cars legal huge problems.

Cant speak as a whole for Mayo, just the people I have spoken too.

PLUG71

00833827 wrote: »

I suppose you weight up the value of the car vs. the price of the tax vs. the penalty for driving a car which is supposed to be off the road - you could easily see how people would take the chance if they operated in a rural area driving a car not worth too much.

Absolutely!
Lots off cars on UK plates for years and years also.

00833827

PLUG71 wrote: »

Cant speak as a whole for Mayo, just the people I have spoken too.

would be funny if this mayo man didnt tax his car:

biko

Tax evasion is rampant out in the sticks.
"Can't afford" = "prefer to spend money on something else."

Cleveland Hot Pocket

biko wrote: »

Tax evasion is rampant out in the sticks.
"Can't afford" = "prefer to spend money on something else."

The vast majority of people outside the pale can get away with anything (except no insurance of course)

I've seen cars 3-4 years out of NCT

djimi

00833827 wrote: »

i was thinking about this today - there just aren't the cars on the road to implement something like this - lash them up along the m50 for sure but for some of the recently built motorways in rural areas? they are practically deserted.

Be that as it may, if they were to implement such a system on a nationwide basis then it would pay for itself in no time, even if it meant that the majority of the money coming in was from a small number of roads.

corktina

keep on publicising the loophole everyone, the more doing it the sooner it will get plugged

Dermo123

corktina wrote: »

keep on publicising the loophole everyone, the more doing it the sooner it will get plugged

Is driving without tax availing of a loophole?
I know the loophole you are refering to but declaring a car off road and then driving it anyway is not something that can be plugged unless it is enforced.

Marcusm

PLUG71 wrote: »

Sorry if this has already been discussed!

If a person was to declare their car off road and get caught would they still be insured and also what would happen for using the car when they have declared its not being used?

Lots of people seem to be doing this!

One of the main differences is that the penalty is up to 6 months in jail. Let's see them apply that a few times and see what the compliance rate moves to. Note - I'm not taking about a penalty for no tax but a penalty for the false declaration which is much higher.

00833827

djimi wrote: »

Be that as it may, if they were to implement such a system on a
nationwide basis then it would pay for itself in no time, even if it meant that the
majority of the money coming in was from a small number of roads.

So if you want to implement a UK style ANPR network, lets compare us to the UK, I think we have in the region of 2.5 million cars on the road while they have something approaching 40 million, 16 times what we have - but they only have a road network of about 4 times ours (398,350km vs. 95,752km)
so thats a big difference in the amount of cars per km - so thats a lot less cars being caught without tax to pay for the systems' implementation over here (these things tend to be more expensive to implement in Ireland than in UK or anywhere else for some reason)

Then you have to try and figure out the extent of the evasion as to how much you are likely to recover in fines - according to here:
(http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/motor-tax-exemption-deadline-today-1.1544342)
they reckon evasion is in the order of 55million a year, and going by Septembers figures the motor tax take for the year should be in the order of 984 million so whats that, 5.5%? so would it be fair to say that the evasion rate was 1 car in 20?

I don't see the authorities doing anything more than adding a few more ANPR's to Garda cars, i think even expanding the function of the GO-SLOW vans to report on un-taxed cars would probably be difficult for them to implement as we are often told their function is not revenue gathering but safety - so this could be opposed on a technicality.

An ANPR network would probably just raise the amount of cloning we have here - if folks are prepared to try X to avoid a tax, then when they cant do X they will try Y.

corktina

Dermo123 wrote: »

Is driving without tax availing of a loophole?
I know the loophole you are refering to but declaring a car off road and then driving it anyway is not something that can be plugged unless it is enforced.

the loophole is transferring the ownership fraudulently to evade owing tax.

PLUG71

corktina wrote: »

the loophole is transferring the ownership fraudulently to evade owing tax.

Where was this loophole mentioned on this thread?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

PLUG71 wrote: »

Where was this loophole mentioned on this thread?

Don't think it was... but it is now

galwaytt

00833827 wrote: »

would be funny if this mayo man didnt tax his car:

don't laugh: we had a Minister for Transport for years who didn't even have a driving licence..........

galwaytt

corktina wrote: »

the loophole is transferring the ownership fraudulently to evade owing tax.

You can't transfer 'fraudulently'.

You can transfer. And someone can transfer to you again, if they wish. Two separate transfers of ownership. There is no legal 'minimum' period of ownership.

You are not required to give a reason for the transfer. 90,170 people in Sept 2013 did so. Who knows how many did why ?

I transferred my BMW a few years ago, because I was giving it to a friend to go on holidays to France, and he was afraid to travel without a log book in his name. So I transferred it to him, and when he came back, he transferred it back.

Remember the name on the log book is not necessariy the legal owner.

Atlantic Dawn

00833827 wrote: »

Then you have to try and figure out the extent of the evasion as to how much you are likely to recover in fines - according to here:
(http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/motor-tax-exemption-deadline-today-1.1544342)
they reckon evasion is in the order of 55million a year, and going by Septembers figures the motor tax take for the year should be in the order of 984 million so whats that, 5.5%? so would it be fair to say that the evasion rate was 1 car in 20?

I don't see the authorities doing anything more than adding a few more ANPR's to Garda cars, i think even expanding the function of the GO-SLOW vans to report on un-taxed cars would probably be difficult for them to implement as we are often told their function is not revenue gathering but safety - so this could be opposed on a technicality.

An ANPR network would probably just raise the amount of cloning we have here - if folks are prepared to try X to avoid a tax, then when they cant do X they will try Y.

They have a team of TV licence inspectors going door to door trying to recoup the €44 million that's lost by the 275,000 people who have no tv licence and regularly throw people in jail for the €160 it costs per year for the TV licence yet the lowest rate possible on a pre 2008 car is €199 per annum for a car less than 1 litre.

I think when we are talking €55 million being evaded by non taxed cars the government should take a more serious approach and invest in fixed ANPR cameras on the major roads so that anyone driving around with no tax is caught or atleast has such trouble avoiding the cameras that they burn up the cost savings taking alternative routes on every journey they make.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/tv-licence-fee-evasion-level-16-says-rabbitte-1.1406948

corktina

galwaytt wrote: »

You can't transfer 'fraudulently'.

You can transfer. And somen can transfer to you, if you wish. Two separate transfers of ownership. There is no legal 'minimum' period of ownership.

You are not required to give a reason for the transfer. 90,170 people in Sept 2013 did so. Who knows how many did why ?

I transferred my BMW a few years ago, because I was giving it to a friend to go on holidays to France, and he was afraid to travel without a log book in his name. So I transferred it to him, and when he came back, he transferred it back.

Remember the name on the log book is not necessariy the legal owner.

I disagree. If you transfer the documentation to another whilst still actually being the owner of the vehicle solely for the purpose of evading the accrued Motor Tax, then imo this is fraud.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corktina wrote: »

I disagree. If you transfer the documentation to another whilst still actually being the owner of the vehicle solely for the purpose of evading the accrued Motor Tax, then imo this is fraud.

There was a thread on that recently afair.

It comes down to evasion vs avoidance.

PLUG71

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

There was a thread on that recently afair.

It comes down to evasion vs avoidance.

Vs necessity in some cases

Atlantic Dawn

With the current system they now have in place there exists a facility to chase the evader for not declaring the car off the road pre sale to the new owner. Even if a married couple decided to change the ownership every month there should still have been a declaration of off the road for that month pre sale unless they planned on changing the ownership daily on the car.

galwaytt

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

With the current system they now have in place there exists a facility to chase the evader for not declaring the car off the road pre sale to the new owner. Even if a married couple decided to change the ownership every month there should still have been a declaration of off the road for that month pre sale unless they planned on changing the ownership daily on the car.

Sorry, but I've read the Act, and I didn't see that - link please.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

keep on publicising the loophole everyone, the more doing it the sooner it will get plugged

corktina wrote: »

the loophole is transferring the ownership fraudulently to evade owing tax.

Hahahah.
Brilliant.
First you complain that people keep publicising the loophole.
And then it's actually yourself who first mentioned about the loophole in this thread.
I love it.

corktina wrote: »

I disagree. If you transfer the documentation to another whilst still actually being the owner of the vehicle

Once you transfer ownership, you are not the owner anymore.

solely for the purpose of evading the accrued Motor Tax, then imo this is fraud.

There is no accrued motortax. There is no law in this country forcing anyone to tax the car. It's not illegal to have car not taxed, if you don't use it.
And even if you don't tax the car, and don't declare it off the road, there is no tax arrears due, up to the moment you decide to tax the car again in the future. (I highlighted you for a reason).

CiniO

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

With the current system they now have in place there exists a facility to chase the evader for not declaring the car off the road pre sale to the new owner.

That's not true.
Nothing like that was introduced with the new system, neither existed beforehand.

CiniO

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Yes they would be insured, however they will be driving around with a car that could be seized at any stage.

In relation to seizing untaxed vehicles, they can only seize it once tax is expired by more than 2 months.
I don't think that fact if it was declared off the road or not change anything.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry, but I've read the Act, and I didn't see that - link please.

He won't be able to link as it does not exist

Cleveland Hot Pocket

CiniO wrote: »

In relation to seizing untaxed vehicles, they can only seize it once tax is expired by more than 2 months.
I don't think that fact if it was declared off the road or not change anything.

But they could be prosecuted for making a false declaration.

Atlantic Dawn

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry, but I've read the Act, and I didn't see that - link please.

That's the meaning I get from the explanation of it in the link below, it doesn't mention anything about the car being needed to be in a public place or an exemption if say it was in the process of being sold off for parts so my assumption is if tax is out it must be declared off the road regardless.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

From 1 October 2013 you are required to declare in advance that your vehicle will be off the road and not in use for a period of between 3 and 12 months using Declaration of Non-Use of a Motor Vehicle Form RF150 (pdf), which you submit to your motor tax office. The declaration of non-use must be made in the same month that your current motor tax disc expires. If arrears in motor tax are due these must be paid in full and you must also pay a minimum of 3 months motor tax, before a declaration of non-use can be made.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Arrears only become due when you tax the car, so, the interpretation you mentioned above is not accurate.
Thankfully!

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

But they could be prosecuted for making a false declaration.

Of course.

CiniO

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

That's the meaning I get from the explanation of it in the link below, it doesn't mention anything about the car being needed to be in a public place or an exemption if say it was in the process of being sold off for parts so my assumption is if tax is out it must be declared off the road regardless.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

From 1 October 2013 you are required to declare in advance that your vehicle will be off the road and not in use for a period of between 3 and 12 months using Declaration of Non-Use of a Motor Vehicle Form RF150 (pdf), which you submit to your motor tax office. The declaration of non-use must be made in the same month that your current motor tax disc expires. If arrears in motor tax are due these must be paid in full and you must also pay a minimum of 3 months motor tax, before a declaration of non-use can be made.

While indeed looks like trusted source, but it's not correct.
Only mistake however is that submitting a declaration is not "required" but just allowed to be made.
There is no law forcing anyone to make a declaration if they are planning to lay the car off.
The can do it, if they want to avoid a need of paying arrears on occasion of next taxing the vehicle, but there is nothing forcing anyone to submit this declaration.

(2) A declaration (‘non-use declaration’) may be made by the registered owner of a vehicle, and furnished to a licensing authority, that the vehicle will not be used in a public place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0016/print.html#sec7

Atlantic Dawn

CiniO wrote: »

While indeed looks like trusted source, but it's not correct.
Only mistake however is that submitting a declaration is not "required" but just allowed to be made.
There is no law forcing anyone to make a declaration if they are planning to lay the car off.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0016/print.html#sec7

Well that's typical of this country the website which informs the public of rules and regulations is actually not following the Statutebook. Looks like this whole SORN thing is one big mess if those informing the public can't even get it right.

CiniO

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Well that's typical of this country the website which informs the public of rules and regulations is actually not following the Statutebook. Looks like this whole SORN thing is one big mess if those informing the public can't even get it right.

There's lots of examples like that...
Bit offtopic but here's an example:
From good while ago, buses and trucks were prohibited to use most right lane of motorways, which effectively prohibited them from overtaking on 2lane motorways.
Since 2009 however speed limit for buses on motorways was changed from 80km/h to 100km/h, which effectively wiped out the prohibition of usage of most right lane of motorway for buses.
So since 2009 buses are legally allowed to overtake on 2 lane motorways.

But RSA keeps claiming they are not.
Their book "Rules of the road claims that".
Their Motorway driving booklet which was issued in 2012, also claims that buses can not overtake on motorways.

Do not use the outside lane if you are driving:
• a goods vehicle with a design gross weight of more than 3,500 kilogrammes
such as a lorry or heavy goods vehicle (HGV);
• a passenger vehicle with seating for more than eight passengers;
such as a bus; or
• a vehicle towing a trailer, horsebox or caravan.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

don't laugh: we had a Minister for Transport for years who didn't even have a driving licence..........

I dont see how thats a big issue. Should the minister regilarly use all modes of transport to be deemed ok? What if he couldnt rideva bike?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

But the RSA and the ROTR are not legal documents

The only thing that is enforceable is the RTA (or any other SI)

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

While indeed looks like trusted source, but it's not correct.
Only mistake however is that submitting a declaration is not "required" but just allowed to be made.
There is no law forcing anyone to make a declaration if they are planning to lay the car off.
The can do it, if they want to avoid a need of paying arrears on occasion of next taxing the vehicle, but there is nothing forcing anyone to submit this declaration.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0016/print.html#sec7

I think you've missed a bit....


(2) A person referred to in subsection (3) has a duty in relation to a vehicle concerned, during the transition period to do one and only one of the following:

(a) make an application for a licence;

(b) make a non-use declaration.

This related to vehicles, inter alia, for which a license was then required such as untaxed cars in use.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

There's lots of examples like that...
Bit offtopic but here's an example:
From good while ago, buses and trucks were prohibited to use most right lane of motorways, which effectively prohibited them from overtaking on 2lane motorways.
Since 2009 however speed limit for buses on motorways was changed from 80km/h to 100km/h, which effectively wiped out the prohibition of usage of most right lane of motorway for buses.
So since 2009 buses are legally allowed to overtake on 2 lane motorways.

But RSA keeps claiming they are not.
Their book "Rules of the road claims that".
Their Motorway driving booklet which was issued in 2012, also claims that buses can not overtake on motorways.

It's all true that you can't be fined for not following ROTR or equivalent guidance; however, in the event if an accident, a driver's failure to adhere to this guidance might be adduced as evidence of negligence, culpability or in appropriate driving. This is on a statutory basis in the UK but I'd be surprised if a DJ or CCJ didn't take account of it here.

mloc123

biko wrote: »

Tax evasion is rampant out in the sticks.
"Can't afford" = "prefer to spend money on something else."

Overheard a woman in the takeaway at the weekend complaining she could not afford to turn the heating on... As she was dropping 50e on an Indian takeaway.

corktina

CiniO wrote: »

Hahahah.
Brilliant.
First you complain that people keep publicising the loophole.
And then it's actually yourself who first mentioned about the loophole in this thread.
I love it.



Once you transfer ownership, you are not the owner anymore.

There is no accrued motortax. There is no law in this country forcing anyone to tax the car. It's not illegal to have car not taxed, if you don't use it.
And even if you don't tax the car, and don't declare it off the road, there is no tax arrears due, up to the moment you decide to tax the car again in the future. (I highlighted you for a reason).

by definition arrears must be due .I believe a Judge would not agree with you.

PLUG71

Thanks for all the replies so far:)

CiniO

Marcusm wrote: »

It's all true that you can't be fined for not following ROTR or equivalent guidance; however, in the event if an accident, a driver's failure to adhere to this guidance might be adduced as evidence of negligence, culpability or in appropriate driving. This is on a statutory basis in the UK but I'd be surprised if a DJ or CCJ didn't take account of it here.

So you are generally saying, that even tough there is no law prohibiting buses to overtake on 2 lane motorways, a driver doing so might be fined for that, just because it says so in some book?
What if this driver never read that book?

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

by definition arrears must be due .I believe a Judge would not agree with you.

Wikipedia:

Arrears (also sometimes known as an arrearage) is a legal term for the part of a debt that is overdue after missing one or more required payments.

Can you show me the law which says that motortax is required?
AFAIK it's only required on vehicles being used in public place.