Car tax

[Crickleymal]

I have a scrap XM in the field which I have to sorn every year just to keep it for spares

Can't you just inform DVLA that it is scrapped? I'm sure there's a bit on the V5 for that. Although having just said that, perhaps it does ask you for the name of the scrappy you have sold it to?

 

[RedHerring2]

Although having just said that, perhaps it does ask you for the name of the scrappy you have sold it to?

Hmm, so what if I strip a car for parts and cut up the body for scrap?
A vehicle scrapper wouldn't be interested. It'd have to go to a scrap metal merchant.

Edit: I've just looked it up. Even if you break it down yourself, you still have to take it to an ATF.
What's next? You can't DIY electrics, they'd have you believe you can't DIY gas, you can't DIY car dismantling.

 

[nickso]

Although having just said that, perhaps it does ask you for the name of the scrappy you have sold it to?

Hmm, so what if I strip a car for parts and cut up the body for scrap?
A vehicle scrapper wouldn't be interested. It'd have to go to a scrap metal merchant.

Edit: I've just looked it up. Even if you break it down yourself, you still have to take it to an ATF.
What's next? You can't DIY electrics, they'd have you believe you can't DIY gas, you can't DIY car dismantling.

Pretty sure the new style V5C has no provision for scrapping. Now you have to sell it to the scrapyard as if he is a buyer and he then applies for it to be scrapped under his license.

Trouble I can see is far more of what I suggested another poster do, the cars are sold to non existent persons and put back on the road ringed or worse.

 

[Paul_C]

The car cannot be driven on the road without your own insurance anyway. Even if a someone turns up to test drive it and has their own insurance the car cannot be driven on the road. You must have third party insurance in place.

Not necessarily so. So long as the person driving the car is insured to drive it, then it's legal. For years it was the norm for a policy to cover a person to drive somebody else's vehicle (with the owner's permission, of course), with no further restrictions. I believe there are some policies now which do impose a condition that other insurance relating specifically to the vehicle be in place, but if you have a policy which covers you to drive somebody else's car without such a restriction, then that's all you need. (Every policy I've had has always provided such cover, for example, with no conditions attached regarding any other insurance.)

The new legislation which came into force recently hasn't changed any of the existing requirements, but it has imposed an additional requirement of mandating insurance to be in place for a vehicle which is taxed, even if it's not actually being used and is just parked on private property (chalk up another success to the corrupt insurance industry which managed to get that one pushed through). So, unfortunately, even though somebody else might be insured to drive the car on the road under his own policy, if the car has a current tax disk, then there is supposed to be insurance in force as well which relates (directly or indirectly) to vehicle.

 

[dhutch]

Not necessarily so.

Indeed, what FMS said is correct if there are trying to drive it 3rd party on the back of a fully comp policy. But if they haev insured it, in there name, with you are the owner/registered keeper. then they have have done just that.

Also, however, you do now technically have to insure all cars that are not sorned, regardless of if they are used. Lot of kitcar/classic owners up in arms as they cannot now suspend the insurance for 4months of winter and take it back up, without cashing the texdisk and sorning it.


Daniel

 

[Paul_C]

Indeed, what FMS said is correct if there are trying to drive it 3rd party on the back of a fully comp policy. But if they haev insured it, in there name, with you are the owner/registered keeper. then they have have done just that.

Not sure what you're getting at there about fully comprehensive. That doesn't really come into it.

The point I was making is that I - along with thousands of others - have a policy which explicitly refers to my own car and also allows me to drive anybody else's car. So if you had a car which was sitting on your driveway taxed, but you had no insurance, it would be perfectly legal for me to drive it because the required third-party liability cover would be provided by my policy.

The only thing which has changed with the new legislation is that you (as the registered keeper) would be liable for prosecution for having the car taxed but not having insurance. But I would still not being committing any offense by driving it, since it's taxed and I would be insured under my own policy.

 

[dhutch]

Indeed, what FMS said is correct if there are trying to drive it 3rd party on the back of a fully comp policy. But if they haev insured it, in there name, with you are the owner/registered keeper. then they have have done just that.

Not sure what you're getting at there about fully comprehensive. That doesn't really come into it.

The point I was making is that I - along with thousands of others - have a policy which explicitly refers to my own car and also allows me to drive anybody else's car. So if you had a car which was sitting on your driveway taxed, but you had no insurance, it would be perfectly legal for me to drive it because the required third-party liability cover would be provided by my policy.

The only thing which has changed with the new legislation is that you (as the registered keeper) would be liable for prosecution for having the car taxed but not having insurance. But I would still not being committing any offense by driving it, since it's taxed and I would be insured under my own policy.

The fully comp bit only comes into it because typically being covered to drive other peoples cars comes with fully comp policys. Obviously not always, but normally they are hand in hand.

I also cant speak for your policy but almost all of those types of cover require the owner to have insurance on the car in there name, for yours to be valid, as well as giving you there permission.

Whereas, as i say, there is nothing to stop them taking out a policy, or extending there to include explicit cover on your car in which case you then would be covered, all bit usally, only with there owners permission.


Daniel

 

[Paul_C]

The fully comp bit only comes into it because typically being covered to drive other peoples cars comes with fully comp policys. Obviously not always, but normally they are hand in hand.

Ah, O.K., but don't forget that cover for driving other cars comes with non-comprehensive policies too. Every TPF&T policy I've had for the last 28 years has included it (although I understand it's probably harder to get for younger drivers these days).

I also cant speak for your policy but almost all of those types of cover require the owner to have insurance on the car in there name, for yours to be valid, as well as giving you there permission.

Again, I've heard of that on some policies, and no doubt it will probably become more common with the new legislation in force, but I've never had any such condition on any policy I've had in the last 28 years. They have all covered me to drive anyone else's car regardless of what other insurance is, or is not, in force (with the owner's permission, of course).

 

[nickso]

Again, I've heard of that on some policies, and no doubt it will probably become more common with the new legislation in force, but I've never had any such condition on any policy I've had in the last 28 years. They have all covered me to drive anyone else's car regardless of what other insurance is, or is not, in force (with the owner's permission, of course).

I find that unlikely, please link to your insurers/underwriters website, they often have terms and conditions downloads on them.

Most insurers are now trying to get away from allowing third party vehicle driving on the premise that dodgers are insuring scrap but driving daddies Bentley. God help them if they have a crash though.

My policy allows TP driving but only if the vehicle in question is insured.

 

[RedHerring2]

My understanding is the same as Nickso's.
To drive any car, irrespective of whether it has it's own insurance, you'll need a traders policy. As previously mentioned, there are no vehicle details on that kind of policy.

Incidentally, when I had a traders policy, it allowed me to demonstrate a vehicle to a prospective customer, covering them for a test drive, as long as I accompanied them, and they had a full and proper licence.

It is based on the premise that I can only ever drive one car at any one time. I could add other drivers to the policy, but that was at a cost of about 50% the cost of the policy.
It cost less than double (about 150%) the cost of simply insuring one car. So for anyone with more than one car, it can be cost-effective.

 

[Paul_C]

I find that unlikely, please link to your insurers/underwriters website, they often have terms and conditions downloads on them.

Not through an online broker, but the policy is with Equity RedStar. The "other cars" clause on the policy is the one which always used to be pretty much standard on almost all policies for many years, i.e. the policyholder may also drive a vehicle not belonging to him and not hired to him etc. with the owner's permission. There are no further restrictions about other insurance having to be in place.

The policy is due for renewal next month, and with the new legislation about "continuous insurance" which came into force earlier this year, it may well be that the terms will change and the condition will appear. I have no doubt that the insurance companies will seize upon the new legislation as a convenient excuse as to why they "have to" impose that condition on all new policies, since it will force people into buying extra cover which might not otherwise have been needed.

To drive any car, irrespective of whether it has it's own insurance, you'll need a traders policy.

If they remove the "driving other cars" cover completely then perhaps, but if it's retained with the addition of a clause which requires some other insurance relating specifically to the vehicle to be in place, then you'll still be covered, so long as the car doesn't belong to you. For example, if my renewal next month does impose a new condition that I may drive other cars only so long as another policy relating specifically to the vehicle in question is in force, I would still be covered to drive my neighbor's car, since it does not belong to me and he has his own insurance.

 

[nickso]

Paul_c, apologies you are correct if this is the policy you hold.

http://www.equitygroup.co.uk/equityredstar/uploads/vacancies/PCERS_0811_.pdf

Very unusual to see that nowadays and my own insurers/underwriters have never to my knowledge offered me that clause without the caveat of the TP vehicle being seperately insured.

If you think about it sensibly, the option to drive another car TP with the vehicle insured by the owner should now be easier to enforce with continuous insurance and not harder. We are dealing with insurance companies though so anything can happen.

 

[RedHerring2]

To drive any car, irrespective of whether it has it's own insurance, you'll need a traders policy.

If they remove the "driving other cars" cover completely then perhaps, but if it's retained with the addition of a clause which requires some other insurance relating specifically to the vehicle to be in place, then you'll still be covered, so long as the car doesn't belong to you. For example, if my renewal next month does impose a new condition that I may drive other cars only so long as another policy relating specifically to the vehicle in question is in force, I would still be covered to drive my neighbor's car, since it does not belong to me and he has his own insurance.

Sorry if I didn't word my statement correctly. I meant that my understanding is/was the same as Nickso's. The other car that you intend to drive, either must have a policy in force, by A N Other, or you must have a trader's policy.

But I see that you might still have an older version of a policy that may allow you to drive other cars without its own policy in force. Treasure it, I doubt it'll be availabe for long.

Either way, if the vehicle does not have its own policy in force, then it's not on the MID, and you may be stopped and have difficulty proving that you are insured to drive it.

 

[Paul_C]

Paul_c, apologies you are correct if this is the policy you hold.

http://www.equitygroup.co.uk/equityredstar/uploads/vacancies/PCERS_0811_.pdf

That's the one - As shown in section 1, it still has the long-standing clause about driving any other vehicle so long as it doesn't belong you and is not hired to you. Whether it will remain at renewal remains to be seen.

Either way, if the vehicle does not have its own policy in force, then it's not on the MID, and you may be stopped and have difficulty proving that you are insured to drive it.

That opens up the other whole can of worms about the motor insurance database and roadside checks. There have already been far too many instances of police illegally seizing vehicles simply because the driver can't produce an insurance certificate on the spot and the vehicle doesn't appear on the database (before the new requirement came into force). I keep my insurance certificate in the glove compartment of my own car at all times now, and if driving some other vehicle under the "other cars" clause would probably make sure that I carry at least a photocopy of the certificate with me now.