Two Insurance Policies on One Car
Discussion
I think discussing the current owners arrangements has confused things.
You sold the car, you notified them. The paperwork was lost but has now reappeared.
As long as the date of keeper transfer was prior to the report of no insurance I can't see how there could be an issue.
I'd suggest going to court if need be. I don't know if you can claim anything for time and expenses resolving this.
You sold the car, you notified them. The paperwork was lost but has now reappeared.
As long as the date of keeper transfer was prior to the report of no insurance I can't see how there could be an issue.
I'd suggest going to court if need be. I don't know if you can claim anything for time and expenses resolving this.
Red Devil said:
It's me again with another (probably silly) question. Putting to one side the particular spot the OP finds himself in, as a point of principle doesn't one have to have an insurable interest in the vehicle? Why would you want to take out a separate policy on a vehicle that you no longer owned/had any title to (rather than being a named driver on the other party's insurance)?
Yes and no. Most mainstream policies will insist you are the owner and RK, although they turn a blind eye to leased, hired, PCP type car loans where ownership remains with the finance co. However, plenty will let you insure cars owned by other people, for example day insurance schemes. 
LoonR1 said:
Ok I'll be very explicit.
The issue here is just that the OP didn't relinquish RK status. How and why are open to conjecture, but he admits to getting the insurance chaser letters and not doing anything then. That would prompt most people to do something, such as check that DVLA had correctly updated their ownership records.
I don't care if I come across as a cynic on threads like this. The OP had many chances to correct this and chose to ignore them.
Not so fast sunshine. You're completely wrong.The issue here is just that the OP didn't relinquish RK status. How and why are open to conjecture, but he admits to getting the insurance chaser letters and not doing anything then. That would prompt most people to do something, such as check that DVLA had correctly updated their ownership records.
I don't care if I come across as a cynic on threads like this. The OP had many chances to correct this and chose to ignore them.
The only correspondence I received regarding no insurance was from the DVLA in July and I DID respond. I've responded to everything sent by the DVLA. I've clearly stated this.
I DID relinquish RK in March when the car was sold. I posted the signed V5 as required - my obligation was fulfilled. The DVLA sat on it for months as in August they finally recognised the change of RK. Again, this has been stated.
The new owner has the paperwork to prove the car is properly covered. I've spoken to him about this matter and I've even checked the database myself and the car is insured.
The one thing I agree with on is this:
If a car is insured, then it's insured. It doesn't matter who owns it, the database checks whether it's insured.
It's a shame the DVLA are having such difficulty grasping the concept.
And I'll say it again. These letters are administered and sent out by the MIB who administer the MID which is where insurance records are held. They send the letters on DVLA headed paper but that's the sum total of the DVLA involvement ie none.
If a car is insured and on MID as insured then no letter will be sent. It doesn't cross reference the RK unless it is showing as uninsured. Therefore your old car must be showing as uninsured. It's that simple. Now you can argue with me til you're blue in the face but I know the process for this.
If a car is insured and on MID as insured then no letter will be sent. It doesn't cross reference the RK unless it is showing as uninsured. Therefore your old car must be showing as uninsured. It's that simple. Now you can argue with me til you're blue in the face but I know the process for this.
I've no idea how the MID / MIB works; all I know is the DVLA are fining me for a car I ceased to own and insure several months prior to their claim.
I can say that when I checked the database, the car showed up as covered.
I took issue with erroneous claims you made that I ignored or failed to act on matters. I have not ignored *anything* and I have reacted and responded to the DVLA at *every* opportunity.
If you want me to post the vehicle reg here for you to investigate further and satisfy any suspicions you have I'd be willing to do so.
I can say that when I checked the database, the car showed up as covered.
I took issue with erroneous claims you made that I ignored or failed to act on matters. I have not ignored *anything* and I have reacted and responded to the DVLA at *every* opportunity.
If you want me to post the vehicle reg here for you to investigate further and satisfy any suspicions you have I'd be willing to do so.
LoonR1 said:
Then prove it. The penalty is for having non insurance. Having insurance is the ultimate defence.
LoonR1 is spot on on this recommendation. If the OP had insurance then this is provable and the charges will fail. If no insurance documents are aviailable there was no insurance on the vehicle. Posting on a forum may bring replies but it is down to the OP to present his case. There are no other avenues.
If the OP is suggesting the car was not his at the time of the report then again it is down to documentation. Up to the OP. I have known the MID data to be slow in updating but the proof of insurance on that car in this case is down to documentation from the OP. Best of luck.
LoonR1 said:
Then prove it. The penalty is for having non insurance. Having insurance is the ultimate defence.
I thought the fine was for being uninsured whilst being the owner of the vehicle.As he had posted back the V5 he was no longer the owner (irrespective of whether DVLA received it).
voyds9 said:
LoonR1 said:
Then prove it. The penalty is for having non insurance. Having insurance is the ultimate defence.
I thought the fine was for being uninsured whilst being the owner of the vehicle.As he had posted back the V5 he was no longer the owner (irrespective of whether DVLA received it).
Phil303 said:
I DID relinquish RK in March when the car was sold. I posted the signed V5 as required - my obligation was fulfilled. The DVLA sat on it for months as in August they finally recognised the change of RK. Again, this has been stated.
What date is on the new V5 for change of keeper?Tried sending the invoice / receipt you gave to your mate when you sold it? Might help prove the V5 was incorrect?
Also forgive me if I am wrong, but you have to put the date the car is sold in the V5 return, and that is the date the V5 uses for registered keeper change and the V5 issue date is not used for insurance / parking / chasing you down purposes?
Also forgive me if I am wrong, but you have to put the date the car is sold in the V5 return, and that is the date the V5 uses for registered keeper change and the V5 issue date is not used for insurance / parking / chasing you down purposes?
Just to clarify few issues raised in these last posts:
I did not have insurance on the car; I no longer owned it at the time the DVLA are claiming it was uninsured. However the new owner DID have it covered long before the same period of time the DVLA are disputing. This can be proved. Documentation can be produced to support this.
I'll ask him what date his V5 shows. The one we signed will was dated in March; it'll be interesting to see what date the DVLA chose to use.
Unfortunately as he is an acquaintance neither of us thought of writing out a receipt at the time of the sale. As he'd serviced the car all the time I'd owned it he knew it was in decent shape so there was nothing signed to confirm the sale, other than the cheque used to pay me.
Car does show up on the motor trade insurance database. In my last letter to the DVLA I advised them to check themselves. Maybe they have and seen they are wrong. Here's hoping.
I'm feeling a lot more confident now; whatever stance the DVLA take there is a firm and positive rebuttal.
I did not have insurance on the car; I no longer owned it at the time the DVLA are claiming it was uninsured. However the new owner DID have it covered long before the same period of time the DVLA are disputing. This can be proved. Documentation can be produced to support this.
I'll ask him what date his V5 shows. The one we signed will was dated in March; it'll be interesting to see what date the DVLA chose to use.
Unfortunately as he is an acquaintance neither of us thought of writing out a receipt at the time of the sale. As he'd serviced the car all the time I'd owned it he knew it was in decent shape so there was nothing signed to confirm the sale, other than the cheque used to pay me.
Car does show up on the motor trade insurance database. In my last letter to the DVLA I advised them to check themselves. Maybe they have and seen they are wrong. Here's hoping.
I'm feeling a lot more confident now; whatever stance the DVLA take there is a firm and positive rebuttal.
Phil303 said:
Just to clarify few issues raised in these last posts:
I did not have insurance on the car; I no longer owned it at the time the DVLA are claiming it was uninsured. However the new owner DID have it covered long before the same period of time the DVLA are disputing. This can be proved. Documentation can be produced to support this.
I'll ask him what date his V5 shows. The one we signed will was dated in March; it'll be interesting to see what date the DVLA chose to use.
Unfortunately as he is an acquaintance neither of us thought of writing out a receipt at the time of the sale. As he'd serviced the car all the time I'd owned it he knew it was in decent shape so there was nothing signed to confirm the sale, other than the cheque used to pay me.
Car does show up on the motor trade insurance database. In my last letter to the DVLA I advised them to check themselves. Maybe they have and seen they are wrong. Here's hoping.
I'm feeling a lot more confident now; whatever stance the DVLA take there is a firm and positive rebuttal.
This does feel a bit Groundhog Day. I did not have insurance on the car; I no longer owned it at the time the DVLA are claiming it was uninsured. However the new owner DID have it covered long before the same period of time the DVLA are disputing. This can be proved. Documentation can be produced to support this.
I'll ask him what date his V5 shows. The one we signed will was dated in March; it'll be interesting to see what date the DVLA chose to use.
Unfortunately as he is an acquaintance neither of us thought of writing out a receipt at the time of the sale. As he'd serviced the car all the time I'd owned it he knew it was in decent shape so there was nothing signed to confirm the sale, other than the cheque used to pay me.
Car does show up on the motor trade insurance database. In my last letter to the DVLA I advised them to check themselves. Maybe they have and seen they are wrong. Here's hoping.
I'm feeling a lot more confident now; whatever stance the DVLA take there is a firm and positive rebuttal.
It doesn't matter who owns the car, or who is the RK. All that matters is that it is insured. You stay it's insured by your mate. That is good enough.
Produce that evidence and you'll be fine.
Being cynical. I don't believe your mate insured it correctly and that's your problem
Change of RK dated 28 February 2014 as recorded on the new V5 issued to him by the DVLA. This date is the day of sale. From that date on I had no interest or responsibility towards the car, so from then on the failure to insure claim is groundless. The DVLA claim I had failed to insure the car on a date in June.
Insurance: New owner is comprehensively covered on every vehicle the company/he owns. Policy is with Aviva.
DVLA responded this morning STILL insistent I am liable.
A very short and concise letter will be heading back to them today.
Insurance: New owner is comprehensively covered on every vehicle the company/he owns. Policy is with Aviva.
DVLA responded this morning STILL insistent I am liable.
A very short and concise letter will be heading back to them today.
Phil303 said:
Change of RK dated 28 February 2014 as recorded on the new V5 issued to him by the DVLA. This date is the day of sale. From that date on I had no interest or responsibility towards the car, so from then on the failure to insure claim is groundless. The DVLA claim I had failed to insure the car on a date in June.
Insurance: New owner is comprehensively covered on every vehicle the company/he owns. Policy is with Aviva.
DVLA responded this morning STILL insistent I am liable.
A very short and concise letter will be heading back to them today.
Good news that there is an end in sight on ths matter. As the car shows as uninsured months after the date of sale the OP would seem to be in the clear. As LoonR1 suggests if that is the case then the problem, if there is one, cannot be the OP's responsibility. The paperwork would appear to have absolved the OP. Insurance: New owner is comprehensively covered on every vehicle the company/he owns. Policy is with Aviva.
DVLA responded this morning STILL insistent I am liable.
A very short and concise letter will be heading back to them today.
Regrettably the DVLA are becoming less than efficient in recording detail changes on ownership etc IME based on my experience in correctly registering four or five kit cars a year as they are finished. For that reason I always send my DVLA paperwork by recorded delivery. Works for me and the £1.50 odd costs per delivery are reasonable given the immediate ability to prove receipts. I do think the days of blythly posting by ordinary,post vehicle ownership changes, are in th past.
Where I'm struggling with this is that the new V5 says transfer of ownership in Feb, no insurance in June.
The process is this:
Registration numbers checked by the MIB against MID -----> uninsured vehicles identified ---> these vehicles checked against RK records ---> letter sent to RK to advise to insure or face penalty ---> 2nd and final warning sent ---> fine issued.
So if the car was insured from Feb and the transfer of ownership was completed in Feb how is this possible? The OP also states that the transfer date is now confirmed as Feb, it that differs for what he said earlier and that it's only just come through.
Unless the MIB are using data that's four months out of date then this can't happen.
The process is this:
Registration numbers checked by the MIB against MID -----> uninsured vehicles identified ---> these vehicles checked against RK records ---> letter sent to RK to advise to insure or face penalty ---> 2nd and final warning sent ---> fine issued.
So if the car was insured from Feb and the transfer of ownership was completed in Feb how is this possible? The OP also states that the transfer date is now confirmed as Feb, it that differs for what he said earlier and that it's only just come through.
Unless the MIB are using data that's four months out of date then this can't happen.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff