Legal car owner ?
karlak - 27/8/13 at 07:00 AM
Due to circumstances we have purchased a car for Son number 2 early. My wife will be using it for two to three months and then it will become his
when he is 17 early next year, for learning to drive etc.
My question is, can he be the legal owner of the vehicle on the V5 at 16 years old and my wife still insure it for her use in the interim. When he
is 17 he will get his own insurance on the car to help him build no claims and the wifes insurance will be cancelled.
cheers
MakeEverything - 27/8/13 at 07:12 AM
I know of a family that have a disabled daughter of 6 who had a Zafira registered in her name under the motability scheme. I dont see why not, but as
long as its declared to the insurance company.
loggyboy - 27/8/13 at 07:43 AM
V5C declares the registered keeper, not the owner.
A V5C can be in anyones name.
The insurance company will ask if your wife is the registered keeper, you will have to state no, but it should have no loading on the policy.
[Edited on 27-8-13 by loggyboy]
karlak - 27/8/13 at 07:52 AM
Thanks Guys,
It was just yesterday we needed to get insurance to cover the trip home after buying it.
When we tried to put my Son in the details as the Registered owner, it cam back and said he was too young.
mcerd1 - 27/8/13 at 08:01 AM
the legal owner means nothing to most insurance - its the registered keeper (i.e. the name on the V5) that matters
most insurance companies prefer the registered keeper to be the main driver, so if you put the car in your wifes name to start with you'll give
yourself more options for the insurance for her
also you may well find its cheaper to add your son to your wifes insurance for the first couple of years and still let him earn a no claims bonus of
his own at the same time - to do this right you'll need to find insurance that is prepared to accept that he is the main driver of the car and
not your wife (who's name its in)
I started out like this with my car in my dad's name, the NFU gave us insurance with me as the main driver and gave me a no claims bonus of my
own that I could take to other insurance companies (most only give you the no claims if you stay with them)
nick205 - 27/8/13 at 08:12 AM
I guess you're trying to limit the number of registered keepers on the V5C and hence preserve more value in the car?
karlak - 27/8/13 at 08:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
I guess you're trying to limit the number of registered keepers on the V5C and hence preserve more value in the car?
Yep, exactly that.
Wife will only need to drive it till the end of November. He is 17 next March. We had to sell my wifes current car and this seemed the sensible
way of going. She gets to use the car, iron out any issues etc and he gets the car in March.
We will keep it insured up until he is 17 and then sort all that out then. My wifes new car has a years free insurance on it when it arrives anyway
so all seems to work out OK.
off-road-ham - 27/8/13 at 09:16 AM
The law now requires the registered keeper to be insured for the car, otherwise the ANR systems will flag it as uninsured and a fine can be issued to
the person driving.
loggyboy - 27/8/13 at 09:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
The law now requires the registered keeper to be insured for the car, otherwise the ANR systems will flag it as uninsured and a fine can be issued to
the person driving.
Its not quite that, the requirment is that the car must be insured, if its not the penalty is given to the registered keeper, there is no requirement
for the insurance to be for the registered keeper.
off-road-ham - 27/8/13 at 09:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
The law now requires the registered keeper to be insured for the car, otherwise the ANR systems will flag it as uninsured and a fine can be issued to
the person driving.
Its not quite that, the requirment is that the car must be insured, if its not the penalty is given to the registered keeper, there is no requirement
for the insurance to be for the registered keeper.
From www.gov.uk
"4. Uninsured vehicles
Rules in England, Wales and Scotland
The rules for insuring vehicles are called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’. They mean that if you’re the registered keeper of a vehicle it must be
insured or declared as off the road (SORN).
If not, you could:
get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000
"
The keeper has to be insured of the car declared sorn.
But since as the driver you would be "aiding " the commiting of the offence of using an uninsured vehicle on the road you could still be
done.
In the case of the OP who would pay the fine anyway.
Infact the car does not even have to be driven, just be taxed and have no insurance, a simple automated computer check will do that and spit out a
fine in the post
nick205 - 27/8/13 at 09:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by karlak
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
I guess you're trying to limit the number of registered keepers on the V5C and hence preserve more value in the car?
Yep, exactly that.
Wife will only need to drive it till the end of November. He is 17 next March. We had to sell my wifes current car and this seemed the sensible
way of going. She gets to use the car, iron out any issues etc and he gets the car in March.
We will keep it insured up until he is 17 and then sort all that out then. My wifes new car has a years free insurance on it when it arrives anyway
so all seems to work out OK.
In that case I would live with the extra registered keeper on the V5C. I'm guessing it's not a brand new car and not a Porcshe, in which
case the de-valuing effect will be minimal. One shouldn't assume these things, but if you all have the same family surname, it will show up on
the v5C and IMHO would be reasonably explained when you come to sell the car.
Gets round any insurance or other difficulties straight away.
loggyboy - 27/8/13 at 10:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
From www.gov.uk
"4. Uninsured vehicles
Rules in England, Wales and Scotland
The rules for insuring vehicles are called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’. They mean that if you’re the registered keeper of a vehicle it must
be insured or declared as off the road (SORN).
If not, you could:
get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000
"
It doesnt say the keeper has to be insured, it says 'it' has to be insured, ie the vehicle.
[Edited on 27-8-13 by loggyboy]
off-road-ham - 27/8/13 at 11:02 AM
From the CIELeaflet2010
a copy found at http://www.jestons.co.uk/documents/CIELeaflet20101.pdf
"CIE Process
It is an offence to use an uninsured vehicle on the road or public place. In the future under CIE, the registered keepers of vehicles will be
responsible for ensuring the vehicle is insured and will be contacted if it appearsThey have no insurance."
this wording sugests it is the keeper.
In fact what is important if the leagal wording of the law and that interpritation well have to come from a judge.
As far as I am concerned it is not worth risking a court case for the sake of a name on a logbook of a second hand car.
adithorp - 27/8/13 at 11:17 AM
I think I read that the registered keeper has to be old enough to hold a licence now. It was introduced to stop people listing thier kids as keeper to
avoid speeding points/fines. When they got caught speeding they (the child) would fail/refuse to name the driver; In which case the points go to the
keeper, but if the keeper was not old enough to hold a licence (or be prosecuted) they got away with it.
loggyboy - 27/8/13 at 11:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
From the CIELeaflet2010
a copy found at http://www.jestons.co.uk/documents/CIELeaflet20101.pdf
"CIE Process
It is an offence to use an uninsured vehicle on the road or public place. In the future under CIE, the registered keepers of vehicles will be
responsible for ensuring the vehicle is insured and will be contacted if it appearsThey have no insurance."
this wording sugests it is the keeper.
In fact what is important if the leagal wording of the law and that interpritation well have to come from a judge.
As far as I am concerned it is not worth risking a court case for the sake of a name on a logbook of a second hand car.
Notice how it says the keeper will CONTACTED, no more.
A prosectuter will quote the Road traffic Act to the judge - that states:
144AOffence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements
(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name
the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—
(a)it is covered by a such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this
Part of this Act, and
(b)either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle
by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.
(4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—
(a)the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or
security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and
(b)the vehicle is owned by that person.
(5)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in
relation to the use of the vehicle.
Notice how it only state the vehicle must be covered. the only time the registered keep is mentioned is in relation to them being the one guilty if
the vehicle in uninsured.
karlak - 27/8/13 at 11:35 AM
Well, regardless of the law and other rules etc............
The Insurance company have said they wont do it. Not really a biggy, as it will be an old car and two owners in the same family. So all Good
Cheers again guys ..
mcerd1 - 27/8/13 at 12:10 PM
I'm fairly sure loggyboy is right, but as you've already found out the bigger problem is most often the insurance company and their own
requirements....
Dusty - 27/8/13 at 07:38 PM
To add my tuppence worth I often drive Dad around in his own car. It was sorn for a couple of years while he was loosing his sight. He's now
registered partially blind, aged 90 and can't drive. I insured the car for me informing the company I was not the owner and taxed it no problem.
The chances of Dad getting insurance for the car are nil but he doesn't want to sell it. Just ride round in it.
I'm confident I am driving legally. I can't see what offence I could be committing. Seems weird that Dad could be committing an offence
while I am not.
steve m - 27/8/13 at 07:54 PM
Ive just created a spoof request with go compare, and it did not make any difference to who owns the car, family or other
also the quote came back up the same, as if I owned the car or not
and I don't as its my neighbours car, I used !!
steve
karlak - 27/8/13 at 08:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Ive just created a spoof request with go compare, and it did not make any difference to who owns the car, family or other
also the quote came back up the same, as if I owned the car or not
and I don't as its my neighbours car, I used !!
steve
Did you put the owner as 16 though ? This was the sticking point with the insurance we had.
No matter, as it is done now
steve m - 28/8/13 at 07:58 AM
On the go compare site it doesn't ask an age, just if you owned the car or not