Last summer I bought my son a scooter for his 21st birthday. He'd just passed his CBT, needed something to ride to work and back on, and absolutely loved being mobile. It pretty much changed his life, in fact.
Fast forward to December, and the bike was stolen by some local scrotes. They seemingly rode it for a day or so and then proceeded to smash it up before dumping it. When it was found (dumped locally), most of the panels/fairings were destroyed and the ignition barrel had been torn out. All in all, it was in a sorry state, and given that it was only worth about £650 - and his insurance excess was £850 - I suggested to Sam that he see what he could get for it as a non-runner. Well, he then really surprised me by refusing to give up on it; he sourced some panels and a new ignition barrel, and with his mate's help slowly rebuilt it piece by piece. It's now a week or two from being a runner again... just needs to be popped into an auto-electrician and then needs it's first MOT (which hopefully will be a formality).
Anyway, yesterday he received a letter from the DVLA, stating that the Motor Insurance Database showed the bike was uninsured on 13th March (a pretty random date!), and that he was being fined £100. The only way in which he could dispute the fine was by having proof of insurance on that date; a valid SORN from prior to the date; evidence that he hadn't been the keeper; or evidence that it had been stolen. Well, of course it had been stolen, but given that the police have a record of its recovery that one's a non-starter.
I feel a bit guilty, as when I advised Sam that he may as well terminate his insurance (we knew it wouldn't be on the road for months) it didn't occur to me that - even though the bike has been garaged since and has been a non-runner anyway - he still needed at least third party cover to avoid falling foul of section 144 of the Road Traffic Act (which requires all vehicles to be insured unless the DVLA have been formally advised that they're off the road). Had I realised that I'd have told him to SORN it straight away, and there's no way he'd have understood about that himself having never owned a vehicle before. In any event, I'll be paying his fine and making sure that he now does the necessary.
I'm obviously a bit miffed about it, but thought that it was a lesson that might benefit others who weren't aware of this requirement (remember, the bike has been in a garage, and unrideable, since its recovery). In fact, I think it's the consequence of a fairly recent amendment to the RTA.
Reply With Quote