For nearly two years I had tried to get them to understand that they should follow the practises of other state collection agencies and send timely reminders to those who had not responded to the initial demand. They steadfastly refused to countenance such a move. From what you say, they have now adopted this commonsense approach. One has to wonder why it has taken them so long.

The bigger question is why the DVLA is not privatised. They have a staffing level in excess of 7000 (seven thousand people!) and this figure excludes the thousands of man hours that Post Offices contribute to their key clerical functions.

Given that theirs is essentially a record keeping exercise, they should be fully computerised by now, and one would have thought that the head count would have decreased markedly over the years. Instead we have seen the classic beauracratic ballooning of staff levels at yet another state establishment masquerading as a properly run commercial enterprise..

I am baffled as to why the NAO have not pushed for this ’agency’ to be sold off more forcefully in the past. If nothing else ,an open tendering process would soon reveal the potential take to the Exchequer and save the taxpayer the cost of keeping all these people employed. Perhaps it is something an incoming Conservative Government will consider.

Mind you whither Swansea if the populous had to face the harsh realities of finding work in the private sector?

Out of principle I always go to the Post Office.

The reason, if we do not use it, we lose it.

Stupid Tax anyway, much better if all tax was on fuel, then those that use the roads the most pay the most.

Those that use thirsty cars out of choice pay more tax.

Yes I drive a 4×4 as well. !!!!!

Unless you steal fuel, there can be no dodgers, (so tax take goes up) so the complete cost of enforcement , and tax disc renewal can be abolished.

Result Immediate cut in Public expenditure.

Rather ironic:- the new system is wonderfully efficient (I used the internet and agree). But abolishing it would have been more efficient – and rather more cost-effective!

im pretty certain its outsourced to capita like the TV licence is?

not much of the public sector involved

It was ever thus. Throughout history wherever and whenever governments have successfully centralised power they have set about extracting money from citizens by coercion and compulsion and ultimately violence. There is only one way of stopping this – very (and I meand very) small government.

In the case of road tax – rough calculations suggest that I use about 1500 litres of fuel to drive 12000 miles a year. I’ve just renewed road tax at £190. This is the equivalent of £0.125 extra duty on a litre of fuel. Consider that around £0.80 of the current £1.05 per litre cost of fuel goes in tax already, and it doesn’t seem so bad.

I’d far rather have the duty on fuel raised to replace road tax. This means that we don’t need an expensive mechanism to collect road tax, there is no way to use a car and avoid the tax, and we would no longer have to suffer the patronising adverts on TV reminding us to pay.

There used to be an argument to say that the tax disc was proof that you had an MOT and insurance on your car. However, the Police ANPR systems tell them if a car has a current MOT and insurance, so the annual document inspection is irrelevant.

It also means that the more fuel your car burns per mile, the more tax you pay. It’s a completely linear tax as to the amount of pollution you generate, and even takes into account the amount of extra emissions you might generate in a traffic jam.

Perhaps it would also help encourage people not to commute long distances by car. They would either be encouraged to travel by public transport, car share, or work closer to home. Yes, I know that it hasn’t worked so far with the ridiculous “fuel escalators” we have had to suffer in fuel taxation, but that’s always been an insidious creeping up. A straight-forward change in the way the tax worked would concentrate people’s minds wonderfully!

The cost of this tax would then effectively be spread throughout the year, rather than another large financial outgoing once or twice a year.

I’m not suggesting that the tax take from the average driver should increase. In fact, the saving on the inefficiency should mean that the money saved is offset against the increase. Perhaps this would mean only an extra £0.10 or £0.08 per litre – a net saving for most people, without the Government losing any income at all.

As for the transport industry, there is no reason whey they should not be able to contract to buy fuel in bulk at a reduced rate, so they are not unduly penalised by a higher fuel duty. Also, don’t raise the fuel on LPG – something that the transport industry is much more able to take advantage of than the ordinary motorist.