Selling a car & insurance

[caelite]

Hey folks

Looking for a cheap option here. Ive had to do a little bit of work on my car prior to selling it and thus my insurance has ran out. The car is stored off the road in my parents drive and is not being driven however I would now like to put it up for sale which will likely require it to be test driven.

Does anyone have any idea how I can do this cheaply? My options I can think of are:
-Tell the buyer on viewing that the vehicle is uninsured and have him sign a bit of bumf saying he's legally responsible for test driving
-Get temp insurance. The rates on this even for a weeks cover seem to be extortionate (20+ quid a day)
-Insure it myself for another year (£450 upfront & probably about £100 in fees when I decide to cancel
-Insure it in my dads name (£180 upfront but will most likely cost the same after cancellation)

The first option seems the most attractive but im really not sure of the legality of it or it will put off a potential buyer.

[TooMany2cvs]

caelite said:

-Tell the buyer on viewing that the vehicle is uninsured and have him sign a bit of bumf saying he's legally responsible for test driving

Causing or permitting driving whilst uninsured. IN14. Same range of penalties as IN10 for the driver.

[SydneyBridge]

Just say its not insured and if anyone wants a test drive, they have to provide proof of insurance (that they can drive any car on TP cover etc..).

[funkyrobot]

SydneyBridge said:

Just say its not insured and if anyone wants a test drive, they have to provide proof of insurance (that they can drive any car on TP cover etc..).

Doesn't the vehicle being driven have to be insured anyway?

Insurer specific, but I thought in some cases the vehicle has to have a policy on it anyway for the tp cover to work?

[ging84]

i think you have this back to front
insurance is not an issue, because your insurance would not cover the buyer to test drive it anyway.
The issue is that you can't have it taxed but not insured, and without tax it should not be driven on the road.

You need to check the driver has insurance in place, or run the risk of be prosecuted for causing or permitting the offence of driving without insurance. You could get them to sign something saying they have insurance in place if they are unable to prove it i suppose, but you would probably find most people fairly reluctant to.

You can't really get anyone to sign anything about the tax, as you both know an untaxed vehicle should not be driven on the road. The only way you can legally allow it to be test driven on the road is with trade plates or road tax, there is no way around that.

[Jarcy]

ging84 said:

i think you have this back to front
insurance is not an issue, because your insurance would not cover the buyer to test drive it anyway.
The issue is that you can't have it taxed but not insured, and without tax it should not be driven on the road.

I believe that with the recent change in the road tax system, it is no longer the case that insurance is required first before you can tax a vehicle.
My son taxed his new car on 1st October just gone, but arranged for his insurance to commence from the 3rd October. No requirement to demonstrate that the car was insured when he taxed it, and indeed the database should have shown it as uninsured as at 1st October.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jarcy said:

ging84 said:

i think you have this back to front
insurance is not an issue, because your insurance would not cover the buyer to test drive it anyway.
The issue is that you can't have it taxed but not insured, and without tax it should not be driven on the road.

I believe that with the recent change in the road tax system, it is no longer the case that insurance is required first before you can tax a vehicle.
My son taxed his new car on 1st October just gone, but arranged for his insurance to commence from the 3rd October. No requirement to demonstrate that the car was insured when he taxed it, and indeed the database should have shown it as uninsured as at 1st October.

No, ging84 is right. Your son was breaking the law for 2 days, having taxed his car 1/10 but not insured it until the 3rd. You can have a car insured but not taxed, but you cannot have a vehicle taxed but uninsured.

[ging84]

Jarcy said:

I believe that with the recent change in the road tax system, it is no longer the case that insurance is required first before you can tax a vehicle.
My son taxed his new car on 1st October just gone, but arranged for his insurance to commence from the 3rd October. No requirement to demonstrate that the car was insured when he taxed it, and indeed the database should have shown it as uninsured as at 1st October.

This has nothing to do with it, you are no longer required to prove the vehicle is insured to tax it, but it's a legal requirement to have insurance on any vehicle unless it is declared off the road under continuous insurance enforcement rules.

[caelite]

ging84 said:

Jarcy said:

I believe that with the recent change in the road tax system, it is no longer the case that insurance is required first before you can tax a vehicle.
My son taxed his new car on 1st October just gone, but arranged for his insurance to commence from the 3rd October. No requirement to demonstrate that the car was insured when he taxed it, and indeed the database should have shown it as uninsured as at 1st October.

This has nothing to do with it, you are no longer required to prove the vehicle is insured to tax it, but it's a legal requirement to have insurance on any vehicle unless it is declared off the road under continuous insurance enforcement rules.

Hey, thanks for alerting me to this ging I did not realise it was illegal to merely own a vehicle that is uninsured without being SORNed (Im well aware of how stupid illegal it is to drive a car that is SORNed). However after looking up the FPN for doing so is £100. To be honest Id rather risk the small chance of an FPN than pay £50-100 in insurance brokering/cancelation fees just to insure the car for a couple of weeks.

Im just wanting to make sure im not putting myself at risk of an IN10 or IN14 by allowing somebody else to drive the vehicle when "to my knowledge" they where fully insured for 3rd party damages. i.e is there any way I can deny accountability for an IN14?

[TooMany2cvs]

caelite said:

i.e is there any way I can deny accountability for an IN14?

Yes, you can demonstrate that you exercised reasonable attempts to check they were insured for a car that you knew wasn't otherwise covered at all. It shouldn't be hard, since they're almost certain to have the insurance certificate that they've just shown still on them when you all get stopped.

[caelite]

TooMany2cvs said:

caelite said:

i.e is there any way I can deny accountability for an IN14?

Yes, you can demonstrate that you exercised reasonable attempts to check they were insured for a car that you knew wasn't otherwise covered at all. It shouldn't be hard, since they're almost certain to have the insurance certificate that they've just shown still on them when you all get stopped.

Cool so ask them to bring an insurance certificate that states that they are insured to drive other vehicles 3rd party. Thanks. I was hoping it would be ok to just get a little signature to say that they knew the vehicle wasnt insured and they knew they would be liable for 3rd party damages as I know printing off certificates and stuff can be a pain.

I know its a minimal chance of getting a pull I just really want to make sure I was doing stuff above the board

[dacouch]

caelite said:

Cool so ask them to bring an insurance certificate that states that they are insured to drive other vehicles 3rd party. Thanks. I was hoping it would be ok to just get a little signature to say that they knew the vehicle wasnt insured and they knew they would be liable for 3rd party damages as I know printing off certificates and stuff can be a pain.

I know its a minimal chance of getting a pull I just really want to make sure I was doing stuff above the board

It's also best to make it clear to him that him driving the car is "conditional" on him having insurance and it being current.

Allowing him to use your car conditional on having insurance should protect you from aiding and abetting no insurance.

Conditional is the key word to protecting yourself

[KaraK]

caelite said:

Hey, thanks for alerting me to this ging I did not realise it was illegal to merely own a vehicle that is uninsured without being SORNed (Im well aware of how stupid illegal it is to drive a car that is SORNed). However after looking up the FPN for doing so is £100. To be honest Id rather risk the small chance of an FPN than pay £50-100 in insurance brokering/cancelation fees just to insure the car for a couple of weeks.

Im just wanting to make sure im not putting myself at risk of an IN10 or IN14 by allowing somebody else to drive the vehicle when "to my knowledge" they where fully insured for 3rd party damages. i.e is there any way I can deny accountability for an IN14?

Chances of an FPN might not be as small as you think - the MIB sends automated letters out now for cars that aren't on the MID. They don't go straight to the FPN stage but the only ways to prevent it doing so are a) insure the car (which if you've sold it by then you can't do) b) SORN it (see a) c) prove you sold it before the insurance ran out or d) prove it was insured and that the MID was wrong.

Since your insurance has already run out they could in theory send you the letter at any time - and if you sell the car before it comes in then I'm not sure what happens as you won't then be able to do any of the above.