Car tax and car ownership

mikey72

I've never had a problem taxing my wife's car, that I have insurance in my name for, and she's never had a problem taxing my car, that she has insurance in her name for, both online, and at the post office.
If you check on askmid, it doesn't state who has insurance, only that the car has insurance.

mishkanorman

So far thats a 50/50 split on whether he should have been able to tax it or not ! that will learn me for knobbing it up in the first place :rotfl:


I think we will tax it online then send of a change of keeper !

mikey72

mishkanorman wrote: »

So far thats a 50/50 split on whether he should have been able to tax it or not ! that will learn me for knobbing it up in the first place :rotfl:


I think we will tax it online then send of a change of keeper !

No point in a change of keeper, that just adds another number to the v5.

Hammyman

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

Under the new insurance/tax rules, if you are the registered KEEPER of the car (on the V5 logbook) then you have to insure it or complete a SORN declaration.

Wrong. It only has to have a policy in force on it. There is nothing that states what name that policy has to be in.

And the woman at the post office was wrong.

fivetide

mikey72 wrote: »

No point in a change of keeper, that just adds another number to the v5.

Perfect idea. Solves the issue. Means that if he's ever stopped by the police he doesn't have to expalin it is his car but it sort of isn't as it's not registered to him etc.

Any potential buyer in the future will see the previous owner was the OP, lives at the same address and probably has the same surname. Another owner will make no difference at all.

5t.

Rover_Driver

If you are not a named driver on the insurance certificate, that is what may have caused the problem.

mishkanorman

Rover_Driver wrote: »

If you are not a named driver on the insurance certificate, that is what may have caused the problem.

it was, Im just not sure why she felt the need to go one step further and tell him his insurance is then null and void :mad:

Quentin

mishkanorman wrote: »

it was, Im just not sure why she felt the need to go one step further and tell him his insurance is then null and void :mad:

She just a jobsworth trying to appear a know it all!

Her expertise is post office rules etc, not how insurance policies are voided!

mikey72

fivetide wrote: »

Perfect idea. Solves the issue. Means that if he's ever stopped by the police he doesn't have to expalin it is his car but it sort of isn't as it's not registered to him etc.

Any potential buyer in the future will see the previous owner was the OP, lives at the same address and probably has the same surname. Another owner will make no difference at all.

5t.

You do it your way, (I think I understood your post)
My way has worked for about 20 years for us, so we'll stick to that.

vaio

mishkanorman wrote: »

it was, Im just not sure why she felt the need to go one step further and tell him his insurance is then null and void :mad:

She sells stamps for a living and, if our local ones are representative, has been on a special training course to be obstructive and wrong on just about any post office related activity.

When I regularly used to send things to BFPOs I once made the mistake of truthfully answering her question “where is that?” only to be asked for the full normal price for sending a parcel to Germany or wherever. After that I used to tell her is was a military secret.

Ours are also particularly unhappy about issuing the free historic vehicle tax discs, almost as if it was somehow cheating to get a disc without paying.

I wouldn’t take advice about stamps off them, let alone something as important as car insurance.