One rego - 2 or more bikes, is there a good case?

[Ruralman]

* Edit post
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

One rego - 2 or more bikes, is there a good case?

Postby Ruralman » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:39 pm
Just thinking about the bloody ACC thing and the expense of having 2 bikes to rego and only being able to ride one at a time - maybe there is a good case (and I wish I'd included this in my submission) in being able to move a regn plate from one bike to your other bike so you only have one registration.

You'd have to be able to move the same plate rather than argue for a discount for regn the 2nd bike - otherwise they would expect half the bikes to get discounts as all of a sudden people own 2 who don't really own them but share the reduced cost with their mate....

It would move the regn to the owner rather than the machine - the computer system would need changed so it could cope with that regn number having multiple bikes against it (and their chassis nos. etc)

Does this make any sense? - unfortunately too late to put it in a submission now:angry::Oops:

[breakaway]

It would move the regn to the owner rather than the machine

What if your mrs or your mate wants to borrow your bike?

[Ruralman]

What if your mrs or your mate wants to borrow your bike?

They can only ride the one the plate is on

[breakaway]

They can only ride the one the plate is on

So you have to go around changing plates? Or pay for a mechanism that allows you to swap plates over real quick?

Sounds like way too much hassle, especially for those motorcyclists who are the "strictly hop on and ride" type.

[Mystic13]

Although if the fee hike goes through it could be worth the hassle to plate swap under the current system. Bike parked in town won't get ticketed for rego and warrant.

My plan is to do what I can to actively reduce my fee. just because ACC want to charge more doesn't mean I have to pay more.

[zahria]

Although if the fee hike goes through it could be worth the hassle to plate swap under the current system. Bike parked in town won't get ticketed for rego and warrant.

My plan is to do what I can to actively reduce my fee. just because ACC want to charge more doesn't mean I have to pay more.

I'm thinking that unless your 2nd bike is the same as your first, it would be a recipe for being stopped by any sharp eyed police patrol, or council parking warden.

I like the idea though, perhaps this goes back to registering the rider as opposed to the bike?
If your mate wanted to borrow your bike, he'd have his own rego?
Just thinking out loud...

[Reckless]

I reckon there must be something somewhere in NZ law that says you cannot be charged for the same thing/service twice IE ACC levy?? Consumer rights??

Even with tax you only cop it once, same with rates, water charges, regional council levies. What gives the Acc the right???

Has charging someone more than once for the same risk/service/product in this manner ever been challenged in NZ law. I wonder??

[Conquiztador]

I reckon there must be something somewhere in NZ law that says you cannot be charged for the same thing/service twice IE ACC levy?? Consumer rights??

Even with tax you only cop it once, same with rates, water charges, regional council levies. What gives the Acc the right???

Has charging someone more than once for the same risk/service/product in this manner ever been challenged in NZ law. I wonder??

I like your thinkin! This warrants an investigation!

EDIT:

Look what I found on ACT's web page:

"Government Finally Delivers on ACC Double Charging
A published by at 8:00pm on 20 Mar 2001 in the following categories: Economy.



ACT Deputy Leader Hon Ken Shirley welcomed today’s announcement that the Government would act on ACC double charging.

“The change comes far too late, but I am glad that it has finally been made.

“Tens of millions of dollars may have been collected by ACC from employers or self-employed people in business from late 1979 who changed their ‘legal personality’ or business structure prior to June 30 1999. These businesses should have received a premium refund or credit as a result of this change.

“The ACC monopoly has effectively demanded a double payment for the same service. ACC has been arrogant in refusing to reimburse businesses up to now.

“The Government should have forced ACC to acknowledge the arrogance of its own monopoly and act sooner. Instead, it has taken months of lobbying from opposition members to embarrass the Government into an about-face.

“No private sector company would have dared to charge a client twice for the same service, and only a statutory monopoly would arrogantly refuse to address the injustice.

“The Government took too long to fix this injustice and overrule ACC. Today’s move is welcomed, but coming so late, it will be of little comfort to all of the small business owners who lost out,” concluded Ken Shirley."

[Reckless]

ok so there is precedent!
Why should I then be charged ACC levy on a road bike and my classic bike!
I can only ride one and I'm sure as hell not letting anyone else ride them.

Shit this is big what about all those people with two cars???
IF we won ACC could owe the NZ public a shit load of money!!

OK then, So they pass the levy, one person refuses to pay for his second bike, they take him to court, we all put in money or start a national collection and defend it under consumer rights!! Ixion would be the man for this!

Just an Idea will it work??

OK lawyers or legal knowledge here front up whats the go on this idea???

[dangerous]

One rego - 2 or more bikes, is there a good case? yeah it makes sence, but has a few holes in it... of course ther is already a plate like that but it to comes with conditions.

Now rather than a regestered plate how about a regestered rider... after all its not the bike that gets a acc pay out is it? so an indorsment on ya licence showing that you are regestered to ride on the road and have paid your acc levie, after all ya can only ride one bike at a time.

[Yow Ling]

I think some of you guys missed the point, its about collecting more money , not less

[Ruralman]

yeah it makes sence, but has a few holes in it... of course ther is already a plate like that but it to comes with conditions.

Now rather than a regestered plate how about a regestered rider... after all its not the bike that gets a acc pay out is it? so an indorsment on ya licence showing that you are regestered to ride on the road and have paid your acc levie, after all ya can only ride one bike at a time.

I like this idea D , would be simpler (?) and save plate swapping. When you get pulled over they always do a license check anyway.

Fark - I wonder if theres any way to make a late submission ??

[Swoop]

Perhaps something like the personalised plate system, where that is registered to the individual owner, whatever vehicle it is mounted on.
The VIN # of each bike gets "tagged" onto the plate or something?

[mashman]

I can't see it working to be honest. That sort of proposal would open up all sortes of loopholes... i.e. a person has 5 bikes, 3 cars and a partridge in a pear tree... Ther person registers every vehicle under their name and add their wife/son/dog etc... as a named driver. Under the system you're suggesting, i'd be charged the ACC levy and the rest of the family wouldn't have to pay a penny... In fact i'd start up a company that buys your car from you, then I lease it back to you for the price of the registration minus the ACC levy... they won't let that happen!

[Ruralman]

I can't see it working to be honest. That sort of proposal would open up all sortes of loopholes... i.e. a person has 5 bikes, 3 cars and a partridge in a pear tree... Ther person registers every vehicle under their name and add their wife/son/dog etc... as a named driver. Under the system you're suggesting, i'd be charged the ACC levy and the rest of the family wouldn't have to pay a penny... In fact i'd start up a company that buys your car from you, then I lease it back to you for the price of the registration minus the ACC levy... they won't let that happen!

Maybe you're right - but Dangerous's idea of the rider paying an annual ACC fee with that recorded against his license? - I suppose that would lead to lots taking the chance of not being pulled in for a license check although you would have to have your fees up to date to be able to register your bike....

There's no easy ways around this but there is still the principal that we should only have to pay once for the service - it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to pay twice (or more) for ACC coverage and fundamentally that requires the cover to be targeted at the person rather than the vehicle

[ukusa]

I think some of you guys missed the point, its about collecting more money , not less

I think you're right. There is no way they will even bother to look at changing what they've got when they're onto a winner. All the excuses under the sun will come out from the bureaucrats as why it can't be changed.
I totally agree we're being ripped by double dipping, but given the state of the ACC & their mis-management, anything that will reduce the intake of money in the coffers will just be ignored.

[mashman]

Maybe you're right - but Dangerous's idea of the rider paying an annual ACC fee with that recorded against his license? - I suppose that would lead to lots taking the chance of not being pulled in for a license check although you would have to have your fees up to date to be able to register your bike....

There's no easy ways around this but there is still the principal that we should only have to pay once for the service - it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to pay twice (or more) for ACC coverage and fundamentally that requires the cover to be targeted at the person rather than the vehicle

Well that's the thing isn't it, MAYBE i'm right, could be quite the opposite... In my eyes it's unfair to lump the ACC levy onto vehicles period, primarily as i can stand up from the couch and injure myself... so pushing the ACC levy on to people seems like the only way to make it a fair system, as it was intended to be...

Whichever way it's done, someone will feel that they have been singled out etc... just take a look at how insurance companies and the health service calculate BMI...

Another problem with personal ACC is what happens when you wish to opt out of paying an ACC levy... why? well you might have private insurance that covers anything that happens to you, so why should i pay an extra X amount of dollars to ride my bike when i'm fully covered?

The whole system needs to be looked at... I'd be interested to hear thoughts on the following:

How many people are in the country? 4 million? why are we over complicating things? If the total bill for ACC is 400 million (per year for future and/or past claims), sounds like we all need to pay 100 bucks a year... kinda like a health insurance premium if ya like, a 1 off fee to cover you for the year... that way we all pay the same amount and noone is marginalised, link it to tax brackets if ya like to compensate for those that are unable to afford the fee etc... I know the figures above could be miles out, but you get the idea... you can opt in or opt out should you wish to do so... What's the problem with this system? You could also add a fee for sporting events. You wanna play sport, then $1 per day covers a person...

there are plenty of solutions that would be a "more fair" way of collecting ACC levies, it only takes the ACC to sit down and stop looking at people with dollar sign eyes...

sorry for the rant... as you were

[crazyhorse]

Only other way to go is private insurance -and I firmly believe it will come to that crunch one day - and probably sooner than later - we follow America's way, and one day it will be here...................:whocares:

[sidecar bob]

ACC should be an annual fee paid on your drivers licence, no plate swapping etc, just a holder bolted to the number plate that the licence is put into when riding. At $1000 per year on my licence i would still save better than $4000 over registering all my vehicles individually.

[yachtie10]

Only other way to go is private insurance -and I firmly believe it will come to that crunch one day - and probably sooner than later - we follow America's way, and one day it will be here...................:whocares:

fuck I hope not
way worse than what we have

[mashman]

ACC should be an annual fee paid on your drivers licence, no plate swapping etc, just a holder bolted to the number plate that the licence is put into when riding. At $1000 per year on my licence i would still save better than $4000 over registering all my vehicles individually.

Why put the levy on vehicles at all, it applies to everyone.... I have myself, my wife and my 3 daughters. If the ACC require 400 million to function, that's me forking out 1000 bucks a year... Same 1000 as you, but the levy is on me and the family. You already have WOF and rego you're vehicles so that they're allowed on the road... why should you pay yet another ACC levy on the vehicle, or the owner for that matter... EVERYONE has the potential to use ACC... why not chare the cost amongst everyone?

[Insanity_rules]

Instead of two bikes one rego we get something more akin to two girls one cup. Go ACC.

[yachtie10]

ACC should be an annual fee paid on your drivers licence, no plate swapping etc, just a holder bolted to the number plate that the licence is put into when riding. At $1000 per year on my licence i would still save better than $4000 over registering all my vehicles individually.

so many holes in this i dont know where to start

basically the current system of collection is flawed
I think they should increase the other levies (Fuel etc) and keep the vehicle levy under $200 (or lower) so people will pay it and are not so harshly dealt with if they have multiple vehicles

[Moki]

Paying an annual fee for vehicle types sanctioned on your driver's license whould be the fairest approach. How much is paid for this fee can be determined by previous driving offences and ACC claim history.....starting to sound like insurance, doesn't it? BUT think about it, there are those who abuse the system and refuse to take responsibility for their own -and others - safety on the roads, so why should that sort of person NOT be liable to pay more?