Continous Insurance

Dear Department for Transport,

can I ask the SoS to explain what measures have been taken to ensure fairness of treatment risk management in relation to premium costs to drivers for cars declared off road in light of new continous insurance requirement legislation.

What checks and balances are being implemented to ensure that risk management and premium costs are equitable with the car being off the road.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Turner

Dear Department for Transport,

Thank you for the standard paragraph response to my enquiry.

I am seeking an assurance that the Department and SoS has carried out their Duty of Care in respect of public administration as outlined in OGEC (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) guidance in risk managemnt to the public/consumer.

With the introduction of a requirement to have all motor vehicles insured even if declared off road to DoT a significant change in policy was declared.

The impacts of this policy should have been assessed and recorded on a Risk management and Issues log by the Project Manager or Team Leader assigned authority in considering this legislative change.

This is a requirement underscored by PRINCE 2 methodology which all Government Departments work to.

In relation to this policy change I am seeking sight of that assessment to establish whether or not the policy was correctly assessed for impact to the British Public.

the current application of this policy by motor insurers is that they are happy to have the requirement but only insure on the basis of 3rd party as a minimum requirement, this risk assessment on their part being to cover road use and damage to others.

The basis of their thinking, I have been informed, is that they have no way to establish whether or not the vehicle in question is actually being used or not and therefore they insure to cover that risk of it being used.

This should have been included in the risk and/or issue log for this policy. With this inclusion there will be a comment from the delegated officer in charge (a direct representative of the SoS in this case) as to their assessment of this impact, the level of impact and what mitigation has been considered or secondary legislation may be required.

The current application of the legislation by insurers is that they assume I am/will be committing an offence in using a car declared off road by loading my premium to that level of risk.

I am thereffore being classed as a criminal on public access records (under DPA legilsation this is shared information therefore public).

As they offer no potential of cover to meet legislation in that cars are off road and not being used and yet Government has forced this change through acting as representatives of the general public (myself) I am demanding access to how this was seen, viewed and considered as part of the Policy drafting process.

As this legislation in the current form places all burden on public while only generating income without risk to private companies (Insurers) on a profitable basis, I would like to be sure that the SoS was aware of the potentials of this and the serious negative impact it generates to family budgets in an already economically challanged period.

In short, am I being asked to pay more, for less, to the profit of shareholders and equity companies by Government decree in knowledge of the potential situation or was the legilsation so poorly considered and drafted that no recourse or consideration to its application was given.

A delaration from SoS that the application of the legislation by Insurance companies was forseen and is allowed would tell me that this situation was forseen as revenue generation for Insurers. The public will then be assured that SoS was acting in the interests of commercial enterprise in favour of individual interest.

Should SoS declare in this response that they were unaware of the potential and occurance of the present insurance demands it may be that secondary legislation to curtail profiteering is now in sight or that representations to the Motor Industry Insurance Board will be made on citizens behalf.

I trust this is clear enough?

Yours faithfully,

Mark Turner

Dear Geoff Finch,

Thank you for the reply and impact assessment document.

I note that the regulation is to reduce on road use by uninsured drivers. I note also that the principles of SORN appear to remain intact.

My issue remains though. I was notified by my insurer that to met regulation I needed to insure my car which i stated would be off the road. I was still quoted for 3rd party insurance rate. No acknowledgement of SORN was offered, I was simply told I must insure.

I have now scrapped my car rather than pay for it to sit on the driveway as the insurance companies insisted a payemnt under 3rd party terms with 1 year a mile travel was essentail.

If this is not the case I again ask, what are the terms of this regulation, what messages are passed on, was I incorrectly informed, what measures are in place to rectify?

Yours sincerely,

Mark Turner