Odd Speeding NIP bereavment situation - any advice?

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

There's not even any "technically" about it.

The car is an asset of the estate. If anybody is using it without the executor's knowledge and permission, then they are taking without the owner's consent.

The executor is liable, in place of the deceased keeper. One of his first duties should have been to deal with the car, transferring keepership to whoever is now responsible for it, if it's not being sent.

DVLA have a "sensitive cases" team who this should be referred to - but the s172 needs replying to, because it's not going away. The executor either needs to name who they believe was driving, or admit that they do not know.

The executor is only liable to respond if he receives a s. 172 notice in his own name. Any notice sent to the deceased should simply be returned with a copy of the death certificate.

If there is to be a delay in settling the estate, there should be no problem in changing the RK to "Executors of XXX"

System

Here's another one to add to the can of worms...

Assuming the driver wasn't a named driver and was driving it on their own policy's "other vehicle" extension most of those require the car to be insured in its own right. Given the policyholder was deceased there was no insurance policy in force so it could be that the driver might be up for driving without insurance as well.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Insurers are relaxed in the circumstances of the death of someone, they don't need to be instantly notified, but I believe the key date is probate, or a few months at most. Happens all the time so unless the OP has been foolish, like driving the car without being a named driver, that aspect should be ok.

What it is not is a loophole. Someone is responsible for all the legal correspondence of the deceased and they should be responding with the appropriate information.

I suspect that attempting to not supply the information could land the executor with a failure to supply charge, though that is a guess.

It doesn't pay to try and be clever on responding to the notices, it usually causes the police admin to stop the polite letters and kicks it over into the "take an interest in this one" pile. The nearer it gets to 6 months, the more likely the police are going to want to charge someone.

Stoke

Can't see this NIP going away. The DVLA and HM Gov have got a christmas party to pay for.

nickcc

Tarambor wrote: »

Here's another one to add to the can of worms...

Assuming the driver wasn't a named driver and was driving it on their own policy's "other vehicle" extension most of those require the car to be insured in its own right. Given the policyholder was deceased there was no insurance policy in force so it could be that the driver might be up for driving without insurance as well.

None of my last three insurers, IAM Surety, Direct line or Admiral require the other vehicle to be insured.

Warwick_Hunt

Stoke wrote: »

Can't see this NIP going away. The DVLA and HM Gov have got a christmas party to pay for.

What do the dvla make from a speeding ticket?

unholyangel

nickcc wrote: »

None of my last three insurers, IAM Surety, Direct line or Admiral require the other vehicle to be insured.

While I can't comment on the other 2, Admiral most certainly do require the other vehicle to be insured.

In order to drive other cars under an admiral policy you need to be 25 or older, the policyholder (it doesnt extend to named drivers), driving within the Uk's territory, the other car cannot be owned, leased or hired by you or your partner, you have the owners permission to drive the car, there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car and that you still have your car.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

unholyangel wrote: »

While I can't comment on the other 2, Admiral most certainly do require the other vehicle to be insured.

In order to drive other cars under an admiral policy you need to be 25 or older, the policyholder (it doesnt extend to named drivers), driving within the Uk's territory, the other car cannot be owned, leased or hired by you or your partner, you have the owners permission to drive the car, there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car and that you still have your car.

...because if they didn't do that, all you would have to do is have a single policy for a beat up old car at minimum cost while apparently legally driving other cars fronted by someone else at no cost to them. By making the other car insured, it helps avoid someone playing silly games with a car they couldn't really afford to insure.

Frozen_up_north

The issue is that in order to drive someone else’s vehicle, either on their insurance or your own, you need their permission. As the owner is deceased, they cannot give permission.

Being recently deceased, it’s unlikely the ownership would have been transferred to the executors... it leaves the vehicle in limbo, whoever drove it would not be driving with the owners permission, so is not likely to have been insured. They could also be guilty of the offence of taking without the owners consent, another offence to add to the insurance and speeding matters.

While it sounds harsh and unreasonable, it happens. We tried three insurance companies (the company the deceased insured the car with, one the executor has insurance with and that of another relative)... they all refused temporary insurance in order to move the car!

Warwick_Hunt

Frozen_up_north wrote: »

The issue is that in order to drive someone else’s vehicle, either on their insurance or your own, you need their permission. As the owner is deceased, they cannot give permission.

Being recently deceased, it’s unlikely the ownership would have been transferred to the executors... it leaves the vehicle in limbo, whoever drove it would not be driving with the owners permission, so is not likely to have been insured. They could also be guilty of the offence of taking without the owners consent, another offence to add to the insurance and speeding matters.

While it sounds harsh and unreasonable, it happens. We tried three insurance companies (the company the deceased insured the car with, one the executor has insurance with and that of another relative)... they all refused temporary insurance in order to move the car!

Wouldn't the death transfer ownership?