Registered owner vs. Registered keeper

vikinggreen

We're in the process of buying a small car for our son (17) to drive because our other two larger cars are uninsurable for him.

The car will be significantly newer and more economic than either of the other two, so all 3 of us will be driving it at at times. However for insurance purposes our son will be the Policyholder because he is clearly the reason for buying the car and he will probably be the main driver in terms of frequency of use, if not distance travelled.

My husband will be the registered owner because he stumped up the cash for it, but should he also be the registered keeper or should our son be? We will be paying for everything to do with the car for the foreseeable future.

As far as I can tell it probably makes very little difference as long as the insurance company is happy with the arrangement?

BeenThroughItAll

There's no such thing as a 'registered owner'. There's no central register of ownership.




You should make the insurance proposer the registered keeper - if that's your son, then put him on the V5.

forgotmyname

There is no registered owner. If you have proof you paid for it then your the owner unless you gift it.

The registered keeper can be the owner or someone else, But the online comparison sites may assume your the registered keeper and owner, so they maybe useless if thats the case.

You need to contact the insurance and say its the dads car but the son will be the registered keeper and main driver.

If you both have cars and you buy a new one and dont put him as the main driver they may investigate and that could cause issues.

I remember one where a well paid businessman whose car was a nearly new jag went out and bought a 10 year old fiesta and at the same time added his daughter who just passed her test but the car was in his name with her as a named occasional driver only.

She had an accident and when they investigated they found the car had pink fluffy bits everywhere, They concluded that there was no way she was an occasional drivers and refused the claim.

vikinggreen

Thank you both for the replies. forgotmyname, I hope I made it absolutely clear that the car will be insured in my son's name - we have no intention of "fronting".

The confusion does indeed come from the online price comparison websites which ask for both registered owner and registered keeper. My understanding is that there can be a difference, for example for lease cars, where the leasing company owns the car, but the lessee is the registered keeper?

There is a potential issue that I see, which is that if our son is the registered keeper, the car becomes a negotiable asset in his name. It's theoretical, and he isn't likely to go off and sell it, but it is something that occurred to us with our older son (different car, different kettle of fish.)

BeenThroughItAll

vikinggreen wrote: »

There is a potential issue that I see, which is that if our son is the registered keeper, the car becomes a negotiable asset in his name. It's theoretical, and he isn't likely to go off and sell it, but it is something that occurred to us with our older son (different car, different kettle of fish.)

That is a risk, which one can mitigate only with a legal contract - don't forget in a lease scenario there is a legal document in play. With a Bank of Mum and Dad purchase there may not be.


If you don't trust him not to sell it, then make him save up and buy the damn thing himself if he wants a car. It was good enough for me and many others.

bod1467

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

then make him save up and buy the damn thing himself if he wants a car. It was good enough for me and many others.

Quite so. Kids these days seem to have everything handed to them on a plate. At least much more so than for previous generations.

vikinggreen

I hope I made it clear that it was my other son I perceived that risk to exist with, and he did earn the money to repay us for his car and is now the registered owner and keeper.

I simply wanted to explore the potential issue. I doubt it is necessary in Son 2's case, but thank you for suggesting the contract.

vikinggreen

bod1467 wrote: »

Quite so. Kids these days seem to have everything handed to them on a plate. At least much more so than for previous generations.

Wow, just wow. You know absolutely nothing about me, my son or our circumstances.

If I want criticism of that sort, I'll start another thread entitled "I'm handing everything to my son on a plate, come flame me."

BeenThroughItAll

vikinggreen wrote: »

I hope I made it clear that it was my other son I perceived that risk to exist with, and he did earn the money to repay us for his car and is now the registered owner and keeper.

I simply wanted to explore the potential issue. I doubt it is necessary in Son 2's case, but thank you for suggesting the contract.

Yes you did make that clear, but you did raise the concern, so I simply made a suggestion.

forgotmyname

With mine it was a case of you pay the insurance and i will buy you a cheap runabout.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Don't get too worried about the registered keeper. Insurance companies are well used to this arrangement and are not too worried about the registered keeper.

You are spot on to have him as main driver and the two of you as named drivers - this drops the insurance premium significantly without the risk of being accused of fronting - and of course he builds up a no claims bonus (if he goes against stereotype).

Don't feel you have to get anything too small - car premiums don't necessarily go with the size of car - you might find something like a 1.4 Golf cheaper to insure than a Punto or Fiesta as there are cars that are seen as accident magnets in young hands so get some quotes before getting too hung up on a 1.0 litre bottom end car.