Add Your Idea

Remove unfairness of multiple vehicle tax disc costs

4 Comments 2nd July 2010

At present, every domestic/personal vehicle (car, van and motorcycle, certainly) must have a VED (tax disc) legally to be used upon the Public Highway.  BUT, one person can only use or drive one vehicle at once.

Make the VED driver-specific, as the insurance is – or merge it into the insurance.

Why does this matter?

Many people own more than one vehicle, whether a summer plaything, through necessity (eg they live in an area with no public transport or need emergency 24/7 mobility and must have a spare vehicle if one breaks down) or because they have a hobby where they collect or like to do mechanical or modification work ("enthusiasts") – and other reasons.

If one needs or wishes to use more than one of one's vehicles (of the same or differing types) at once, or even just might do, then one has to pay for multiple VEDs, even though only one is being used at a time, only one is causing road damage, carbon emmissions or whatever other purpose you see the VED existing for.

This imposes additional and unfair costs on enthusiasts, those with unreliable vehicles, those with (say) a hobby of motorcycling but a need to use a car to travel to work or carry the family around (or vice versa, perhaps): and similarly those who have vans or larger cars (SUVs, people carriers etc) for commerical or practical purposes but have a smaller can or motorbike for personal or city use.

You cannot even test a vehicle which has been off the road for a while, undergoing repair or storage, without paying the VED for a minimum of 6 months. You cannot take a vehicle out even for one day a year without having to pay the VED for at least 6 months, whether or not you want to use it again. This is unfair, and only leads to VED "evasion" and ill-will against the authorities who levy this duty and enforce it..

If you want to encourage people to use the right vehicle for the right time and place, to protect the environment for instance, then don't discourage them from using whichever vehicle might be best, just because it would have to be paid for and "taxed" to be used.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


4 Responses to Remove unfairness of multiple vehicle tax disc costs

  1. Nick Hinde says:

    What a sensible idea. It passes every test of reasonableness and fairness. (Which is possibly why our government will reject it out of hand), I have 2 motorcycles and a small car for which I pay 3 lots of V.E.D I very occasionally need to tow a boat and want a cheap old banger that will tow. I doubt if I will do over 300 miles per year in that but it will have to be reasonably powerful and old (cheap to buy) and will inevitably and rightly attract a high V.E.D. – I am happy to pay the most expensive V.E.D. for my heaviest vehicle but as I only have the one set of arms and legs I am going to struggle to drive them all at once. Of course it would be important to detect abuse (ie if someone else was driving one of my other vehicles) But we have already paid for the creation of dvla and police car technology infrastructure. A few tweaks would make detection possible and prohibitive penalties could and should also be introduced for such abuse.
    Unfortunately we won’t succeed with this as the revenue would be reduced. Somebody has to pay to shore up all those failing final salary pensions. – Oh wait it’s vehicle tax isn’t it – ignore me I’m just an old cynic.

  2. Simon Smith says:

    I totally agree, people with more than one vehicle should only have to pay one amount of VED. As stated, I can only drive one at a time so why do I have to pay multiple amounts.
    I am an enthusiast and love cars, which I have 3 old ones. Due to not being able to pay 3 lots of VED , one or sometimes 2 of my cars fall into disrepair while not being occassionally used.
    I only cover 2000 miles or less a year regardless of how many cars/vehicles I am using, but are paying 3 times the amount of a person who might only have one car and doing 20,000 miles a year. HOW is that right?
    Not got a problem obviously with tax or ins as they need to be vehicle specific, but ved just kicks the enthusiast where it hurts in a big way.

    regards
    very disgruntled enthusiast

  3. Simon Smith says:

    Last sentence should obviously be m.o.tm not tax, writng it got me tax-ed on the brain .

  4. Jon says:

    I have 8 motorcycles and even though I can only use one at a time I am expected to tax them all. The only time I get to ride them is when I am getting them legally without taxing them is when I take them for a yearly M.O.T.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea