Driving but not registered owner or keeper

[roadsmash]

Graveworm said:

roadsmash said:

Graveworm said:

If the OP is not the owner or keeper and insures the car - they could take out insurance for when they are driving it.
If it's parked and gets stolen or damaged the OP's insurance company will have no need to pay out, as the OP hasn't suffered a financial loss his mother has, because she is the one who has the contract with the finance company.

Yep, but in my opinion you’re unnecessarily over complicating things, that isn’t what the OP asked.

Alpha32 said:

Does it not matter who's name it's registered to as long as I have insurance in my name, it's taxed and mot?

In the OP’s case no, because the RK is his parent; which tends to be generally accepted by many insurance companies.

There’s really nothing more to say on the matter.

It may matter depending on what cover the OP thinks they are (over)paying for - the car is not insured when they are not driving it - so if it's stolen or it is involved in a hit and run his liability is nothing, his has no loss so the insurance will pay nothing, but his mother will still owe the finance company and they won't have a car.

Yes but who else would insure it anyway? His mum doesn’t drive.

[roadsmash]

Durzel said:

Guilty as charged

I thought with finance the car always had the finance company as the RK?

Usually the case with leasing, but not necessarily with HP or PCP finance.

[Graveworm]

roadsmash said:

Yes but who else would insure it anyway? His mum doesn’t drive.

This is not my thing but I would be astonished if, it isnt in the finance agreement that, she has to do exactly that, as only she or the finance company can. The son can of course pay for it.
https://www.finder.com/uk/how-financing-a-car-affe...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 24th February 10:13

[Mark V GTD]

roadsmash said:

Usually the case with leasing, but not necessarily with HP or PCP finance.

Correct - seems to be driven by the question of who is responsible for taxing the vehicle (finance company in the case of PCH (Lease) or the customer in the case of most other forms of finance).

[anonymous-user]

Durzel said:

Not sure of your point here OP’s Mum isn’t on the insurance and isn’t the insurance policyholder (one presumes) because she hasn’t got a license. She’s only involved because OP couldn’t get finance in his name..

Edited by Durzel on Monday 24th February 07:35

Correct, I'm reading something that wasn't there. I thought Mum was also fronting the insurance.

[98elise]

Graveworm said:

Durzel said:

Anyone care to share any thoughts why insurance companies ask about who the registered keeper and owner is when taking out a policy?

As above it's a principal that you can't insure something that you don't have an insurable insurance in.

I've insured a car when I wasn't the owner or keeper. The documents came with that noted (Direct Line).

My partner and I swapped cars for a while, and the truth was that I was neither the owner or keeper so that's what I said.

My son has also taken out insurance on my car when he was learning.

[roadsmash]

Graveworm said:

This is not my thing but I would be astonished if, it isnt in the finance agreement that, she has to do exactly that, as only she or the finance company can. The son can of course pay for it.
https://www.finder.com/uk/how-financing-a-car-affe...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 24th February 10:13

Providing the car is insured fully comp the finance company probably won’t care who the policy holder is.

As always the OP should read his finance agreement and speak to an insurer to get the full details, rather than listen to our ramblings on PistonHeads.

[Graveworm]

98elise said:

I've insured a car when I wasn't the owner or keeper. The documents came with that noted (Direct Line).

My partner and I swapped cars for a while, and the truth was that I was neither the owner or keeper so that's what I said.

My son has also taken out insurance on my car when he was learning.

That's not a problem you can be insured to drive any car and can have comprehensive cover whilst driving as you could be liable for third party or fault damage to the vehicle, so that's your insurable interest. In those cases you can also have an insurable interest in the car of someone in your household. You can't insure a car that you or your household don't own or keep for fire theft etc. You would not have suffered a loss and are not liable which is all you can insure against - anything else is betting.

My policy covers me & my wife to drive any car not owned or kept by us etc with comprehensive cover. It also additionally covers my own cars for me or anyone else to drive & fire theft damage etc. However, if I am driving someone else's car and park it up (Part of a journey case law not withstanding) and am not in any way negligent - then, for it to be insured (Which it requires to be on a road) it needs it's own policy of insurance. If that car is stolen or damaged then I am not liable, I am not out of pocket so my insurance owes me nothing.

Here is an example policy wording:
"We will not pay for any loss or damage to any Vehicle or Covered Vehicle, property or
possessions in which You, a Covered Person or a Family Member does not have an insurable
interest at the time of the loss. Meaning they do not suffer any financial or other loss as a result
of the loss or damage to the Vehicle, Covered Vehicle, property or possessions.
If more than one person has an insurable interest in any Vehicle or Covered Vehicle, covered
property or possessions, We will not pay for an amount greater than the insurable interest
attributable to You, a Covered Person or a Family Member, up to the amount of cover that applies.

Family Member means any member of Your household residing with You.

If the OP lives at home then in their case it can be fine - however going way back to the question why do insurers need to know who owns or keeps it, that's a reason.

[IJWS15]

I have a personal lease car so I neither own it nor am I the registered keeper.

I insure it and the insurance company know it is a personal lease, it didn't affect premiums at all. The insurable interest is having to return it in an appropriate condition for its age (BVLA guide) for accident damage, or a settlement to the lease co if it is written off.

If I am a naughty boy I will get the follow up "NIP" when the lease company give the police my name and address together with a bill for their admin charge.

What is complicated about it?

[Mark V GTD]

IJWS15 said:

I have a personal lease car so I neither own it nor am I the registered keeper.

Me also

IJWS15 said:

What is complicated about it?

Nothing - its always seemed very straight forward to me - you just tick the 'private-leased' box on the insurance proposal form/web page when asked about the cars ownership.

[Sheepshanks]

Graveworm said:

If you were not married then she can have an insurance policy, for third party damage and any damage to your car for which she is legally liable. Otherwise than that there would be no fire and theft cover to that car unless you took it out.
https://www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-an...

Hmmm....I think that’s nonsense. The car is insured in its own right.

I also think you’re tying yourself up in knots with you other comments about loaned cars. It’s been held that DOC cover is still valid when someone parks a car during a journey. The point is moot anyway these days as all cars have to have their own cover.

[Graveworm]

Sheepshanks said:

Hmmm....I think that’s nonsense. The car is insured in its own right.

I also think you’re tying yourself up in knots with you other comments about loaned cars. It’s been held that DOC cover is still valid when someone parks a car during a journey. The point is moot anyway these days as all cars have to have their own cover.

Insurance puts the insured back to the financial position they were before the incident. If they don't have an interest in the car to lose they don't get any money. So either that's a loss or liability for loss.

I can't insure your car and then, if it gets stolen, trouser it's value even if you are not insured. You cannot get the money, from that insurance, because you were not insured and I have no liability to you.

I did specifically say above, with DOC "Part of a journey case law notwithstanding" ..

[S11Steve]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

V8RX7 said:

My Insurer specifically asks if I am the Registered keeper

Me too, but since I've never said no I don't know if there are any implications

I'm dealing with three vehicles on my fleet that have been involved in accidents where the insurance is refusing to pay the full settlement - in each instance the hirer has said they are the registered keeper. They have offered a percentage of the value, and it is now up to us to recover the shortfall from the hirer.

We have had to prove our interest to the insurance company in order to receive the part-settlement, otherwise there is a risk that the insurance pays the hirer the settlement.

The last time that happened, the girl who had the vehicle disappeared to Dubai to post Instagram selfies for 3 onths before coming home and declaring herself bankrupt...

[Sheepshanks]

Graveworm said:

I can't insure your car and then, if it gets stolen, trouser it's value even if you are not insured. You cannot get the money, from that insurance, because you were not insured and I have no liability to you.

I still think that's nonsense. Of course you have a liability - if I loan you my car, I want it, or its value.

[Graveworm]

Sheepshanks said:

I still think that's nonsense. Of course you have a liability - if I loan you my car, I want it, or its value.

You may think it's nonsense but it isn't.
You do want the car or it's value, but if I am not negligent and I don't have a contractual or other liability to you (That the insurance company accept liability for) then that's only a moral problem for me. The liable party is someone who caused you the loss.

I lend my car to someone and they park it overnight, it gets stolen I have to claim on my insurance as I have the loss. The person liable is the thief and that's the only person the insurance company can chase, they wouldn't get very far trying to hold my friend liable.

See what happens when cars get stolen from a garage or a tree falls on them. It's either the car owners insurance or possibly a matter between the car owner and someone who hasn't taken enough care of the tree.

[Sheepshanks]

Graveworm said:

You may think it's nonsense but it isn't.
You do want the car or it's value, but if I am not negligent and I don't have a contractual or other liability to you (That the insurance company accept liability for) then that's only a moral problem for me. The liable party is someone who caused you the loss.

I lend my car to someone and they park it overnight, it gets stolen I have to claim on my insurance as I have the loss. The person liable is the thief and that's the only person the insurance company can chase, they wouldn't get very far trying to hold my friend liable.

See what happens when cars get stolen from a garage or a tree falls on them. It's either the car owners insurance or possibly a matter between the car owner and someone who hasn't taken enough care of the tree.

I've no idea where you're getting this stuff from - if the car is fully comp insured and stolen or written off the the insurance will pay out to its owner, doesn't matter who has insured it. In practice when we had a car in the family written off recently, the insurer (quite annoyingly) immediately put a cheque in the post to the policyholder - there was no check / query on ownership, although they did ask (after the event) for the V5C, which of course may not be in the same name as the owner.

Your argument would be just the same if you crashed the car - you're saying it's not up to you to get it fixed.

[Graveworm]

Sheepshanks said:

I've no idea where you're getting this stuff from - if the car is fully comp insured and stolen or written off the the insurance will pay out to its owner, doesn't matter who has insured it. In practice when we had a car in the family written off recently, the insurer (quite annoyingly) immediately put a cheque in the post to the policyholder - there was no check / query on ownership, although they did ask (after the event) for the V5C, which of course may not be in the same name as the owner.

Your argument would be just the same if you crashed the car - you're saying it's not up to you to get it fixed.

If I crashed the car I am liable, if I am insured then the insurance assumes that responsibility. I've posted links from the ABI and common insurance policy wording. Household (Family living with you) is fine. That's not where I am getting it from but it's a good place for you to get it from.
If I am not responsible, my insurance won't pay someone else, who they don't insure, nor will anyone's. They don't insure the car, although they, and many others refer to insuring a vehicle, for convenience. They insure the insured party(ies).
Here is the definition of covered vehicle
Covered Vehicle means:
Any Vehicle described in Your Policy Schedule for which a Certificate of Insurance has been
issued and which bears the registration mark of that Vehicle and which belongs to You or a
Family Member or is under a hire purchase agreement or is leased to You.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 25th February 12:16

[Mark V GTD]

Sheepshanks said:

I've no idea where you're getting this stuff from - if the car is fully comp insured and stolen or written off the the insurance will pay out to its owner, doesn't matter who has insured it. In practice when we had a car in the family written off recently, the insurer (quite annoyingly) immediately put a cheque in the post to the policyholder - there was no check / query on ownership, although they did ask (after the event) for the V5C, which of course may not be in the same name as the owner.

I'm puzzled by this as its seems contradictory. You say 'the insurance will pay out to its owner, doesn't matter who insured it' but then give an example where that did not happen and the insurance paid the policyholder...

How does the insurer know who actually owns the car anyway? - the V5C will only tell them who the Registered Keeper is.

[S11Steve]

Mark V GTD said:

I'm puzzled by this as its seems contradictory. You say 'the insurance will pay out to its owner, doesn't matter who insured it' but then give an example where that did not happen and the insurance paid the policyholder...

How does the insurer know who actually owns the car anyway? - the V5C will only tell them who the Registered Keeper is.

Not quite in the same context, but it's happened a few times with my rental fleet - the insurers have paid out the hirer, not the owner.

It is common practice for the insurer to check if there is finance on the vehicle prior to settlement, but if the vehicle is leased short term, then quite often this will not show on a HPI report.

They will pay out the owner, if they are made aware that it is owned by a third party.

[Who me ?]

Have things changed in the past few years? A few years ago I had insurance on one car, but couldn't afford to tax it or pay for the work needed to pass an MOT. In meantime, daughter had an old car she had no use for and gave it to me. My insurance co would not transfer my cover to the new ( to me) car till I'd transferred RK to my name even though cover was in my name only .