You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm buying a car tomorrow 2hrs away, that needs to be driven home and kept on the drive until my lad passes his test.
I'm using my car's 3rd party in other vehicles not belonging to me to drive it home insured.
How do I tax it for that one journey?
Is there a loop hole?
The only way of doing it I can see is to tax it for 6 months when we collect it and then immediately cancel the tax and reclaim 5 months tax.... any other options here?
I think the other car needs to be insured still for you to drive it 3rd party on your insurance.
edit, I think I've explained that very badly so see link
https://www.uswitch.com/car-insurance/driving-other-cars/
day insurance is available though.
Like mmcd says, every policy I've had third party cars had to be covered under their own insurance for that clause to be valid.
The exception to this was a trade policy with trade plates.
That condition was brought in in the '90s to stop boy racers insuring a fiesta and ragging around in a cosworth
You own the car so your 3rd party insurance won't cover you, the car needs to be insured by someone else. You'll need to use a day's insurance firm or call your insurance company and add it for a day.
You could tax it properly as you say, or you could chance it.
As a serial buyer of various nonsense cars in the past I've played fast and loose with tax during the purchase journey but never messed about with insurance.
Or, get it brought to you on a transporter, stick the details on shiply, might cost less than you think.
EDIT - we've all typed the same thing at the same time.
As above check your insurance.
A few options:
1 ask the seller not to process change of ownership until you get home (done online now)
2 drive to a pre booked MOT
3 tax it then SORN it once home, will cost you a month
4 get a trade plater to drive it for you. Go on Shiply.com to find someone
I won't own the new car, it'll be in someone else's name on the V5.
Bow locks - I'll phone around for day insurance....
Or
5 just wing the tax, I doubt it will get picked up, takes them 5 days to process anything so for sure it will still show as taxed for a few days. Don't wing the insurance though
Day insure, loads of websites do it, never paid more than £40. It's zero hassle.
Is it currently taxed? If so, would it be valid to transfer ownership when you get it home (with owner's written authorisation for you to drive it)? If you're buying it, how does it not belong to you unless you're doing that already? If your son is the 'owner' for that purpose, who actually paid for it - I'm not sure how 'belong' is defined, but it may not be the same as Registered Keeper.
Have you checked the wording of your policy, many now say that the car 'not belonging to you' still needs to have an insurance policy in force that covers the car.
As others have said just day insure it..... There's even apps for it.. no idea if the road tax dep will pick it up as insured though when your trying to buy the VED
Shiply for quotes to put it on a trailer or flat bed.
As for asking the owner to not do the paperwork till your home.... I would not be participating in those shenanigans as a seller
This happened in my hometown and I'm sure it's more common than youd think.
Cheers all, i'm glad i asked about the tax!!!! - seems I can get one day cover for £20 from https://www.insuredaily.co.uk so i'll do that.
with tax during the purchase journey but never messed about with insurance.
If it's not taxed, it's not insured.
If it’s not taxed, it’s not insured.
Case law says otherwise.
Equally I have a couple of cars insured while on sorn as they are stil a theft/fire risk even parked up.
I can also drive them to a pre-booked MOT untaxed and un moted - and the insurance I hold is valid.
Equally I have a couple of cars insured while on sorn as they are stil a theft/fire risk even parked up.
I guess the "off road notification" part of that acronym is the give away there.
I doubt you'd be able to claim if you got bumped in the Tesco car park while it was supposed to be sorn
Equally mot is provided for by legislation but try explaining that your preferred mot station was 100 miles away from where you live.
Virtually all insurance companies have a tax exclusion in their t&C's. while some might honour a 3rd party claim if you caused an accident while driving untaxed they wouldnt cover your damage.
Oh you mean claiming for your own stupidity. I'm ok with that never being available.
The third party aspect is the bit I care about. That's the bit where the driver who's not taxed has hit me.
That's the bit that's still going to take place.
Of course in reality what happens there is the insurance are legally obligated to pay the third party and they come after the driver.
But that's all pointless as apparently it's invalid.
Tldr. you can have valid insurance on an untaxed vehicle.
Virtually all insurance companies have a tax exclusion in their t&C’s. while some might honour a 3rd party claim if you caused an accident while driving untaxed they wouldnt cover your damage.
My bad, I'm not sticking my nose in insurance T&Cs today 🙂
I'd be interested to read that because I can think of a few occasions when you can't tax a car that day, but need to drive it. Can you post a link? Thanks
I can think of a few occasions when you can’t tax a car that day,
Which occasions ? With online taxing the only occasion should be driving it too and from the MOT station - and even then driving homes giving the grace you don't have a mobile phone.
Such as buying a used car on Easter Sunday?
Following an MoT/buying at auction, etc and the online system is down
Nearby something catches fire
Have you seen ambulance response times? (and similar emergencies)
I paid extra money to have ‘any other bike’ on my motorcycle insurance a few years ago. My landlord has a few bikes and I thought I was covered to ride them. When the policy turned up it specified that I could ride any other bike other than those registered at the same household.
Don’t know if all 3rd party policies are worded this way, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
If you have fully comp, does you policy allow you to drive another car 3rd party. As for tax, what car. Car we got for daughter/son is £20 a year to tax.
I'd be careful not having tax as insurance companies can be weasels
Just day cover it. It wont be £20 though, probably over £30.
Then ignore the rfl, its unlikely to be a problem. Even if it is flagged to you just pay for the month. My traffic policeman friend used to turn off untaxed notifications on their anpr traffic car, as their time was better spent chasing the un insured and un mot'd drivers, as the points and fines were much higher
Update - I've insured it fully comp with recovery for £20 (it's a 55bhp car) and will take out tax on the day and cancel once home.
Update – I’ve insured it fully comp with recovery for £20 (it’s a 55bhp car) and will take out tax on the day and cancel once home.
👍and that is the correct and only answer.
Virtually all insurance companies have a tax exclusion in their t&C’s.
Not that I know of. Direct line, who are quite a big player, don't. Examples please?
If it’s not taxed, it’s not insured.
Unless things have changed it's the other way around. You need insurance to be able to tax it.
with vehicles that I've been bringing home to then Sorn/rebuild I've day insured and taxed it to then cancel once it's home and in my garage. A months RFL isn't much in the grand scheme of running a car.
You need insurance to be able to tax it.
Correct and also registered keeper doesn’t imply ownership. What you need to do is a days insurance and ask the seller to cancel insurance on collection ** but complete the transfer section on the V5 online after you’ve arrived home.
** Insurance is to protect seller because if you have an accident on the way home they could be pursued for a claim if your insurer tries to recoup cost against the sellers insurer. I’ve seen people let insurance continue on a sold car to avoid the cancellation fee and have a whole world of trouble when the purchaser doesn’t bother to insure as it’s on askmid as being insured so why bother. Guess who is liable for the claim?
I’ve seen people let insurance continue on a sold car to avoid the cancellation fee and have a whole world of trouble when the purchaser doesn’t bother to insure as it’s on askmid as being insured so why bother.
Surely that's still Driving Without Insurance? Both car AND driver have to be insured.
Surely that’s still Driving Without Insurance? Both car AND driver have to be insured.
It is, but it won't get flagged up to the police because the car is still insured. When was the last time you were actually stopped to check you had licence, insurance and tax?
Sure. But that's all well and good until there's an accident, which I believe was Tony's point.
What car. You may find tax is silly cheap anyway.
Sure. But that’s all well and good until there’s an accident, which I believe was Tony’s point.
No, he's alluding to a case a few years ago where someone sold a motorbike but didn't imediately cancel the insurance.
The new owner promptly crashed it into someone.
As the bike was still 'insured' the insurance paid out. But as the previous owner (the policy holder) was not in compliance with the T&C's (letting someone else ride it) he was on the hook for the whole lot. And people are a lot more expensive to crash into than property.
No, he’s alluding to a case a few years ago where someone sold a motorbike but didn’t imediately cancel the insurance.
I would not be participating in those shenanigans as a seller
This happened in my hometown and I’m sure it’s more common than youd think.
You mean that case.
I understand that, and it's unfortunate for the previous owner. But the new driver (rider) should have been prosecuted for driving without insurance, no?
Do you have a link to the case? I don't disbelieve you but there's a whole lot of "unlikely" going on there, I'd like to read the full thing.
It's not about who was prosecuted
It's about who's paying for the damage.
And no I don't have a link but I'm sure Google will have it.
Do you have a link to the case?
I don't think there was a legal case. The purchaser of the bike was killed when he crashed it, as the linked article says.
It’s about who’s paying for the damage.
Your insurer rather than someone else's?
Headline there:
"Scots biker in insurance hell after legal loophole forces him to pay thousands"
Body text:
"A BEWILDERED biker could be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds after a man died on the motorcycle he had sold him days before."
So which is it? Was he actually forced to pay, or was it the insurer chancing their arm?
Our media really needs tighter regulation.
So which is it? Was he actually forced to pay, or was it the insurer chancing their arm?
A few more clicks would suggest that the Record is something of a Poundland Daily Mail. They carry high calibre stories like this one:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/drivers-only-just-discovering-what-29636199
Answer here shirley
You could use that to look up "burden of proof."
Burden of proof.. you seem confused.
So which is it? Was he actually forced to pay,
We'll probably never know.
The seller didn't cancel his insurance policy when he sold the bike, which is most likely a requirement under the policy wording. (It might not be, but it'd be considered a fundamental part of the insurance contract if you sold the very thing you're insuring, so by not telling the insurer you're breaching the contract).
So when the buyer hit the third party Yaris and the stone wall (and died), the only insurer listed as being active on the registration plate would have been MCE. So MCE would have to pay out for the repairs to the Yaris, injuries to the Yaris driver, and the wall - so probably £20k absolute max given there's no mention of injuries. Note that there's no cover for the bike itself or the dead rider at all.
MCE pay out under the Road Traffic Act. But because the seller was in breach of the policy terms, MCE can recover their loss from him under a thing called subrogation.
Basic principle here would be that if the seller had done the right thing and cancelled the policy, MCE wouldn't have had to pay the claim. So they have a right to get their money back from the seller.
Some insurers will recover the money, some won't even though they have a legal right to. Why? It'll depend on the amount, and the seller. Literally are they worth suing or not, what PR implications will there be etc.
or was it the insurer chancing their arm?
So, no. It wasn't. But we will never know if they actually did it or not.
Interestingly, my car policy covers me until midnight of the current day when I change car - I know this because I did it a few months back. So, potentially, there is a chance of there being two policies in force if the new owner bought it, set up their policy and then pranged it. There's nothing wrong with that in law, but it would be interesting if insurer 2 chased insurer 1 for part of the claim, and could/would insurer 1 then pursue me for the amount...
The Record is the Scottish arm of the Mirror (which also gets sold up here).
@Rich_s clearly has knowledge. Are E&W and Scotland similar in legal terms, the way that the MIB works, etc?
In the deceased motorcyclist case the claim would probably have been against the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement
As to the outcome...
My job means I have to have a veneer of knowledge across pretty much the entire insurance industry. There'll be people on here much better acquainted with motor claims than I, but the mood on here recently has been pretty anti-insurers so I wouldn't be surprised if no more detailed information is forthcoming.
Scotland has a different legal system to England, but MIB still applies there.
I don't think MIB would apply in the motorbike case because the rider was traced and the incident was insured.
But that wouldn't make for quite such an interesting headline, would it? 😀