Will hoey

[Clur]

I drive a little (and I mean little!) 659cc car and have just had notice from the DVLA for the renewal of road tax - it's £120 a year. I thought cars 1.0cc or smaller were £35 per year, have I got that wrong?

 

I've checked out the DVLA website and it looks like it's judged on emissions (and I don't know how to find out the CO2 emissions for my car), or am I just stuffed as the car was registered in 1999

 

I feel pig-sick at the moment.

[Blackrocksrock]

It does go on emissions and the dvla site will tell you which ones are the low ones - mine is a toyota yaris 1400cc diesel and its low on emissions so is £35 so the dvla only asked me for that amount to be paid so if yours is more then they have chosen the correct one - sorry!

[Leicester_H]

or am I just stuffed as the car was registered in 1999

Yes - I think you are.

As I read it the lower rates only apply to "Cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 (based on fuel type and CO2 emissions)"

 

I think the whole car tax system is stupid anyway. Owning any car is not good or bad. Burning fuel is what pollutes. So I think they should simply tax fuel - people who drive a lot would pay more than those who limit their use. Also, harder to avoid paying. Could replace the tax disc with an insurance disc (so obvious to police).

 

This is a hobby horse of mine (in case you didn't guess!)

 

H

[Paola]

Would an MOT test centre be able to tell you your emissions Clur? I pay £400 a year for my monster

 

Good idea Hazel

[Clur]

Is your car a newer model?

 

I have no idea about my emissions, nor how to find out about them, but the way is waaay less than a 1litre engine and it's unleaded. I would have thought it's minimal

[Leicester_H]

Would an MOT test centre be able to tell you your emissions Clur?

Yes - I get a print out of emissions BUT I don't think the ywould change rates on an individual basis - they go on type etc.

 

Have a look at http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ved/

for CO2 and tax rate

 

H

[Redwing]

My car is 2 litre and only costs £35 a year to tax so i am amazed at your £120 for such a tiddy engine

 

I got the emissions for my car (119g/km) from the Parkers guide website

[Clur]

or am I just stuffed as the car was registered in 1999

Yes - I think you are.

As I read it the lower rates only apply to "Cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 (based on fuel type and CO2 emissions)"

 

I think the whole car tax system is stupid anyway. Owning any car is not good or bad. Burning fuel is what pollutes. So I think they should simply tax fuel - people who drive a lot would pay more than those who limit their use. Also, harder to avoid paying. Could replace the tax disc with an insurance disc (so obvious to police).

 

This is a hobby horse of mine (in case you didn't guess!)

 

H

 

 

I ditched my 2.2l car to be more green and efficient (as I didn't really need a big motor) and I am being penalised to the tune of 85 quid a year because the car was made in 1999. That money may seem piddly to some, but when you're struggling, it's a pretty big kick in the seat of the pants. I am so cross I am beyond words (polite ones anyway)

[Leicester_H]

Hi

 

Sorry - wasn't getting at you for trying to do the right thing.

A smaller car should use less fuel - so taxing fuel would help you - and the environment.

 

The system doesn't achive its stated aims (improving the enviroment)

H

[Clur]

Hi

 

Sorry - wasn't getting at you for trying to do the right thing.

A smaller car should use less fuel - so taxing fuel would help you - and the environment.

 

The system doesn't achive its stated aims (improving the enviroment)

H

 

I didn't take it as that, don't worry Just fed up with the cost of everything at the moment and it always seems like the motorist gets hit. To go up by that percentage in a year is just a money-making exercise pure and simple - it doesn't hit the aims the government claim, it's not being more green, it's just hitting those that have no real alternative for transport. If I was to choose public transport to get to work it would take me an hour longer and cost me about £50 more per week -- plus then I couldn't get YD to school.

 

I am just being a mizog, this was news I really didn't need today!!!

[The Dogmother]

You should get a carbon emissions printout with your MOT certificate - I do anyway.

[Nuggywoo]

To find out your car emissions go to DVLA Vehicle Enquiry (google it - you get there quicker), go to Vehicle Enquiry, fill in the car reg and manufacturer and you'll get the emissions for your car.

[Nuggywoo]

Have a look at http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ved/

for CO2 and tax rate

I've just had a look at that website and according to that I should only pay £35 a year for my tax yet on the dvla website it's £120!

 

The emissions are different too - dvla = 161 and the vca website says 119??

[cordelia]

there seems to be no rhyme or reason....

 

our 1.9TDI saloon car is £120 for 12 months tax...a much bigger engine...but I guess again its based on emissions...its a 2003 model

 

Im clobbered for my defender which is about £123 for 6 months road tax ...and Im dreading it going higher...

 

I also love the idea that you should s"Ooops, word censored!" your old car and buy a more efficient model, when to manufacture a new model....much more carbon is created LOL

 

its totally mad...

[Leicester_H]

Have a look at http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ved/

for CO2 and tax rate

I've just had a look at that website and according to that I should only pay £35 a year for my tax yet on the dvla website it's £120!

 

The emissions are different too - dvla = 161 and the vca website says 119??

 

Its not a pre 2001 car is it ? Those rates aren't based on emissions (I don't think)

Otherwise, send an enquiring email.

 

H

[Nuggywoo]

Its not a pre 2001 car is it ? H

No, Sep 01.

Just had my renewal come through and it's £145! It's only a 0.8 engine!!

[PapaJuliet]

Its not a pre 2001 car is it ? H

No, Sep 01.

Just had my renewal come through and it's £145! It's only a 0.8 engine!!

 

According to the dvla website,cars registered before March 2001 are done on engine size, after it's done on emissions.

 

So, clur's car is done on engine size (<1.549 l) so she doesn't benefit from having such a small engine (apart from fuel consumption).

 

You are charged on emissions (151-165g/km). But what car do you drive? It's seems a very high band for such a small engine!!! However, it was probably designed almost 10 years ago so it may not be as efficient as a modern 0.8l engine.

 

 

The thing that gets me it the back-dating of the tax bands to cars designed and built before it was decided that they were going to tax on emissions.

 

My car is an 05 and is (ahem) not very fuel efficient (I decided to have a mid-life crisis and bought myself a beautiful sports car ). It is currently band F (if it were 06 or later it would be band G). I knew when I bought it I would pay higher road tax (I think it was in force then) and also, the biggy, that I WOULD PAY HIGHER FUEL TAX. This is the fact that all these so-called green activists seem to forget!!! I pay much more in the extra fuel tax than I do by being a band F rather than a band A.

 

But then our friend Gordon decides they are "probably" going to increase the number of bands, increase massively the cost of the higher bands and back-date it to all cars built after 2001. This can only be a means of raising revenue because it doesn't stop me buying the car (I didn't have a crystal ball 3 years ago). It doesn't stop me driving the car (it is a tax on ownership not on use). It is also not going to force me to buy a new, more efficient car because when I bought it the plan was to keep it until it died (100k miles or more) and second hand prices have dropped because of these plans so I can't really afford to swap it for a different car. So they plan can't be to force me to be "greener" but to force me to pay extra.

 

(Also, as somebody earlier pointed out, it would "cost" a lot more carbon to s"Ooops, word censored!" it and buy a Prius)

 

Besides which... why should I? It was the first car I bought that I thought (and still think) is a beautiful looking car, it is comfortable, I like the way it drives and it has the acceleration when I need it (though I am not a "boy racer" LOL)

 

 

Sorry to rant but this is my one big bug-bear.

 

It woul be much greener to tax fuel rather than road tax. Are you greener running a 20mpg car for 5k miles a year? Or a 60mpg car for 30k miles a year? But the government gets scared by that because of protests from car drivers.

 

PJ

[Mrs Webmuppet]

It's one of my bug bears too. It costs me £120 a year for my little Clio. I rarely clock up more than 5000 miles a year ( I avoid leaving the IP postcode- it's too scary out there ) and yet I get taxed the same as someone who does three times that mileage.

 

The only problem with putting the tax on fuel instead is that the market in 'black market ' fuel would rocket ( red diesel and fuel from other EU states). I don't think there's a solution to the problem that would keep everyone happy..........there's always someone who will grumble and dishonest folks will always find a way round it.

[Nuggywoo]

But what car do you drive?

A 2001 Matiz. I was better off with my old diesel Peugeot - damn site cheaper tax wise yet it was a stinky diesel?

 

I totally agree with the VED being put on fuel but the government won't even consider it as they're quite happy raking in the revenue - they could get a lot more from the VED being on fuel as it would do away with the tax dodgers!!

You have to pay for fuel therefore if you drive the car you pay the car tax. If you drive a big car (my dream car is a Lamborghini Countach ) then you can afford to pay more to fill it up. If you do a lot of mileage (I do) then it's all relative!

 

Maybe the government should live in the real world.

[PapaJuliet]

But what car do you drive?

A 2001 Matiz. I was better off with my old diesel Peugeot - damn site cheaper tax wise yet it was a stinky diesel?

 

 

161g/km from an 800cc engine. Wow!

 

PJ

[PapaJuliet]

161g/km from an 800cc engine. Wow!

 

PJ

 

Mine's 1.3l

 

 

 

 

but it's "counted" as 2.7l because it's a rotary engine and for some reason you need to multiply by 2 when calculating equivalent capacity (I once read an article explaining why but I can't remember the arguments)

 

 

10 points to the first person who can identify my car based only on the above information.

 

PJ

[Joojoo]

Mazda RX-7? That's the only one I can think of with a rotary engine

[Clur]

161g/km from an 800cc engine. Wow!

 

PJ

 

Mine's 1.3l

 

 

 

 

but it's "counted" as 2.7l because it's a rotary engine and for some reason you need to multiply by 2 when calculating equivalent capacity (I once read an article explaining why but I can't remember the arguments)

 

 

10 points to the first person who can identify my car based only on the above information.

 

PJ

 

Mazda RX-7...thirsty on oil with a rotary engine?

 

 

My 659cc car is a little Daihatsu Mira Classic

[Joojoo]

Think they are thirsty on everything. My ex has got one and it only does 18 to the gallon

[PapaJuliet]

7 points each to JooJoo and Clur

 

 

It's the RX-7 replacement... the RX-8

 

Yes it needs the oil checking reqularly, but it doesn't drink that much... a colleague with a new Golf reckoned he used more oil that I do.

 

And, yes, very thirsty on petrol... 25 mph (motorways) is good. But I generally only drive to work... if we go anywhere else we usually go in my partner's car.

 

Oh and I moved to within 3 miles of work then work moved to 25 miles away

 

But I love my car and think she is stunningly good looking.

 

PJ