CCJ relating to an accident in a car long-since sold!

[405dogvan]

A friend recently received a summons to county court (editted from CCJ as it's not a judgement yet) relating to an accident which took place almost 2 years ago in a car they'd formerly owned/sold-on.

It seems they forgot to complete the V5 change-of-owner - so did the new owner (who also neglected to insure the car) - so they appear to be the owner at the time of the accident but I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything???

There's no dispute over who the driver was (not a UK/EU national I should add) but I'm struggling to understand why an insurance company is summonsing the OWNER of a car in relation to an accident anyway (drivers hold responsibility for accidents - not owners?)

Obviously they need to complete the defense form - I'm going to look-it-over tomorrow - any tips or ideas would be apprec (my feeling is "pay a solicitor and get that back from the insurers for wasting your time" but perhaps there's more to this??)

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 2nd March 22:02

[WillG]

There is a difference between being the owner and registered keeper. Your friend sold the car (new owner) but continued to be the registered keeper. Therefore as the registered keeper they are responsible for who's using the car. That's why if you car is snapped by a camera they write to the registered keeper, and if the reg keeper can't identify who's driving the reg keeper gets points. That's why they are pursuing your friend.

Does your friend have any proof of sale, handwritten receipt? A bank statement showing a cash deposit, etc.?

Your friend should also advise their insurers who last insured the car before they sold it, because if the new owner didn't insure the car, they will potentially be liable as the nearest insurer. So potentially your friend could get the ccj paid by them.

[gruffalo]

V5 does not state the owner just the keeper, does you friend have any paperwork relating to the sale?

[TooMany2cvs]

405dogvan said:

but I'm struggling to understand why an insurance company is CCJing the OWNER of a car in relation to an accident anyway

They're not. There's a clue in the name. CCJ - County COURT Judgement.

The insurer took the registered keeper - the person who is legally responsible for the vehicle - to court and, presumably in the absence of a defence, the registered keeper lost. Ownership of the vehicle is separate from keepership - as the front of the V5C says in large letters - and is irrelevant here.

If he genuinely had no way of knowing about the court case, probably because he changed address after selling the car, then he can apply to have the judgement set aside.

[405dogvan]

I think I used the wrong term here - they have a summons and not a judgement at this point - e.g. they need to respond - I've editted the first post for clarity, sorry about that.

They have an invoice for the sale but it was a cash sale so there's no other proof.

They buy-sell-fix cars so the car was only ever covered as part of their Motor Policy which only covered them personally - so that policy has nothing to do with this accident/the insurer won't have anything to do with this case??

Not registering change of ownership was stupid but my belief is that only a driver is responsible for an accident - the RK/owner of a car has no liability (outside of identifying the driver if requested to do so)??

Unless RKs have a liability I didn't know about?

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 2nd March 22:04

[Roo]

Was the car still showing as being insured by your friend at the time of the accident?

[405dogvan]

WillG said:

Your friend should also advise their insurers who last insured the car before they sold it, because if the new owner didn't insure the car, they will potentially be liable as the nearest insurer. So potentially your friend could get the ccj paid by them.

That doesn't make sense - insurers insure certain people to drive certain cars whilst the policy is active, they don't continue liability once those policies end surely?

Also worth noting that the accident is pre-VED changes (2013)

[405dogvan]

Roo said:

Was the car still showing as being insured by your friend at the time of the accident?

I'd guess not - Motor Trader policies don't always require every car to be declared and the MID doesn't always reflect cars covered under umbrella-style policies anyway ( a delivery van I used-to-drive was forever pulled-over by Police because it came-up as uninsured despite being on a fleet policy )

[Roo]

405dogvan said:

I'd guess not - Motor Trader policies don't always require every car to be declared and the MID doesn't always reflect cars covered under umbrella-style policies anyway ( a delivery van I used-to-drive was forever pulled-over by Police because it came-up as uninsured despite being on a fleet policy )

Yes they do if it's being used on the road permanently, and that's why you kept being stopped.

[TooMany2cvs]

405dogvan said:

I think I used the wrong term here - they have a summons and not a judgement at this point - e.g. they need to respond

Ah, yes. Big difference...

405dogvan said:

They have an invoice for the sale but it was a cash sale so there's no other proof.

On the one hand, yes, it's a receipt to show the sale actually happened.
On the other hand, is there anything to say they didn't knock it up ten minutes before the hearing?

405dogvan said:

They buy-sell-fix cars so the car was only ever covered as part of their Motor Policy which only covered them personally - so that policy has nothing to do with this accident/the insurer won't have anything to do with this case??

Depends. If the policy covers anything they're keeper of...

All they can really do is turn up in court, look contrite, apologise profusely for the failure to abide by their legal responsibility to notify the change of keeper, but the vehicle ceased to be in their control on <date>, and they have no way of knowing anything about it after that... etc etc.

[TooMany2cvs]

405dogvan said:

I'd guess not - Motor Trader policies don't always require every car to be declared and the MID doesn't always reflect cars covered under umbrella-style policies anyway ( a delivery van I used-to-drive was forever pulled-over by Police because it came-up as uninsured despite being on a fleet policy )

AIUI, the only real difference is that instead of it being the insurer's responsibility to notify MID of changes in vehicles on-risk, it's the insured's.

Which might also tie in with their failure to notify DVLA...

[405dogvan]

Roo said:

405dogvan said:

I'd guess not - Motor Trader policies don't always require every car to be declared and the MID doesn't always reflect cars covered under umbrella-style policies anyway ( a delivery van I used-to-drive was forever pulled-over by Police because it came-up as uninsured despite being on a fleet policy )

Yes they do if it's being used on the road permanently, and that's why you kept being stopped.

To be clear, the van WAS insured but consistently came-up as uninsured on the Police MID thing - for whatever reason

Motor Trader Policies don't require every car to be declared - they usually specify that cover is limited to cars owned or being worked-on by the business but don't always require every registration to be supplied/updated (because even in a small business that can change daily!)

[405dogvan]

TooMany2cvs said:

On the other hand, is there anything to say they didn't knock it up ten minutes before the hearing?

That applies to every piece of paper ever admitted as evidence ever ;0

p.s. the driver of the car has already admitted to buying it - oddly, they've NOT been summonsed tho, only the RK!!

TooMany2cvs said:

Depends. If the policy covers anything they're keeper of...

Can't speak for this specifically, but my experience is that the policy usually requires a business reason for driving the car - e.g. you're fixing it, delivering it, testing it, demonstrating it...

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 2nd March 22:37

[TooMany2cvs]

405dogvan said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Depends. If the policy covers anything they're keeper of...

Can't speak for this specifically, but my experience is that the policy usually requires a business reason for driving the car - e.g. you're fixing it, delivering it, testing it, demonstrating it...

If it's somebody else's, yep. But trader policies can include own non-business-use vehicles.

[Roo]

405dogvan said:

To be clear, the van WAS insured but consistently came-up as uninsured on the Police MID thing - for whatever reason

Because someone hadn't manually added it to their policy on MID as the insured is meant to do.

405dogvan said:

Motor Trader Policies don't require every car to be declared - they usually specify that cover is limited to cars owned or being worked-on by the business but don't always require every registration to be supplied/updated (because even in a small business that can change daily!)

Vehicles being worked on don't belong to the trader and don't need to be added to their policy but will still be covered by it if necessary.

Used car vehicle stock will also be covered by the traders policy if owned by them whilst for sale and doesn't need to be individually added to MID.

Vehicles used on a permanent basis, such as demo cars that are also for commuting to work and back, need to be added. They also need to be taxed in 99% of cases.

[405dogvan]

To widen this question a bit - because I'm curious now

If I loan my car to someone and they don't insure it - am I/my insurer liable for any accident they have (assuming I maintain my insurance which I legally have to do to keep the car taxed?)

I didn't think an RK was liable for people driving their car (with or without their permission) so long as it was insured for them/someone???

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 2nd March 22:43

[Roo]

405dogvan said:

To widen this question a bit - because I'm curious now

If I loan my car to someone and they don't insure it - am I/my insurer liable for any accident they have (assuming I maintain my insurance which I legally have to do to keep the car taxed?)

I didn't think an RK was liable for people driving their car so long as it was insured for them/someone???

Yes.

[405dogvan]

Roo said:

405dogvan said:

To widen this question a bit - because I'm curious now

If I loan my car to someone and they don't insure it - am I/my insurer liable for any accident they have (assuming I maintain my insurance which I legally have to do to keep the car taxed?)

I didn't think an RK was liable for people driving their car so long as it was insured for them/someone???

Yes.

I assume that's a "Yes I'm liable" - that's interesting, so I have to check someone is insured and check they REMAIN insured if I lend them a car??

That seems silly and brings-up the issue of whether a person 'had permission' or an RK 'knew they were using the car' (not always the case - a friend found-out his wife loaned her car to a friend from time-to-time recently!!)

p.s. yes, I realise the short-of-it is I should insure them myself but I know TONNES of people who lend-out/borrow cars on a regular basis and 99% of them are likely uninsured!!

Edited by 405dogvan on Wednesday 2nd March 22:48

[Sheepshanks]

405dogvan said:

If I loan my car to someone and they don't insure it - am I/my insurer liable for any accident they have (assuming I maintain my insurance which I legally have to do to keep the car taxed?)

Not strictly liable, but the MIB, as insurer of last resort, will lean on them to take care of it.

[TooMany2cvs]

405dogvan said:

If I loan my car to someone and they don't insure it - am I/my insurer liable for any accident they have (assuming I maintain my insurance which I legally have to do to keep the car taxed?)

I didn't think an RK was liable for people driving their car (with or without their permission) so long as it was insured for them/someone???

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sc...

405dogvan said:

p.s. yes, I realise the short-of-it is I should insure them myself but I know TONNES of people who lend-out/borrow cars on a regular basis and 99% of them are likely uninsured!!

You know the penalty range for causing-or-permitting is the same as actually doing, right?

So if you let somebody uninsured drive your car, they get an IN10/fine/points-or-ban, you could get an IN14/fine/points-or-ban, too, if the police think that you knew or should have known...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 2nd March 22:51