Having registered keeper and main driver the "wrong way round"?

Sea_Shell

I've often wondered about the definition of main driver, especially between husband and wife (similar ages etc)?

Is it frequency of use, or mileage, that's top-trumps?

e.g. Wife uses car for 5 x 6 miles during the week, but then husband does the weekend driving, to say visit relatives, at 40 miles every week.

??

Car_54

JamoLew wrote: »

... registered keeper can theoretically be anyone.

Not really. It has to be someone who will be responsible for taxing the car, and for ensuring it’s insured, MOTd, etc. Also to be prepared to identify the driver if necessary, and to ensure any driver is insured ....

Rolandtheroadie

So will you both effectively be the policy holder on the others car? Although they will be the main driver?

We were like that for a while. My wife had accident, I made a claim.
Then I had an accident, and my wife made a claim.

For renewals, we declare both for each of us, so 2 x accidents and 2 x claims for only 2 incidents.

Jumblebumble

Car_54 wrote: »

Not really. It has to be someone who will be responsible for taxing the car, and for ensuring it’s insured, MOTd, etc. Also to be prepared to identify the driver if necessary, and to ensure any driver is insured ....

I am sorry to say you are mistaken in part of this assertion
My car is leased and the leasing company are the registered keeper
They have no idea who drives the car nor do they have any idea who is insured if any of the drivers are using DOC cover.
( they do tax it and presumably check if it is MOTed and insured to someone )
All they can do is tell plod that I am the keeper (but not the registered keeper)

Car_54

Jumblebumble wrote: »

I am sorry to say you are mistaken in part of this assertion
My car is leased and the leasing company are the registered keeper
They have no idea who drives the car nor do they have any idea who is insured.
( they do tax it and check if it is MOTed)
All they can do is tell plod that I am the keeper (but not the registered keeper)

Yes, and it’s pretty common for a leasing company to be the RK. However, they are indeed responsible for keeping the car insured under the continuous insurance regs. Their risk, not yours.

AdrianC

Jumblebumble wrote: »

I am sorry to say you are mistaken in part of this assertion
My car is leased and the leasing company are the registered keeper

Correct.

They have no idea who drives the car nor do they have any idea who is insured.
( they do tax it and check if it is MOTed)

Your lease contract includes a requirement for you to keep it insured at all times - not just for Continuous Insurance/VED purposes, but because you are responsible for their valuable asset.

All they can do is tell plod that I am the keeper (but not the registered keeper)

No, you aren't "the keeper". Not in any sense of the word in any way related to the official record of the RK.

You are their lease customer. Your lease contract includes them passing any s172 requests straight on to you - which fulfills their requirements under the law.. You then need to have a record of who the driver is.

Jumblebumble

AdrianC wrote: »

Correct.


Your lease contract includes a requirement for you to keep it insured at all times - not just for Continuous Insurance/VED purposes, but because you are responsible for their valuable asset.


No, you aren't "the keeper". Not in any sense of the word in any way related to the official record of the RK.

You are their lease customer. Your lease contract includes them passing any s172 requests straight on to you - which fulfils their requirements under the law.. You then need to have a
record of who the driver is.

I indeed have agreed that the car is insured but this does not enable the registered keeper to pass on any useful information about anyone who may be driving or insured as the OP asserted.

We can agree to disagree on the definition of who is keeping the car on a day to day basis although as you say it does not concern the registered keeper

The lease company is clearly covered by covered by this part of 172 in any event
A person shall not be guilty of an offence [under s.172(2)(a)] if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was”

Jumblebumble

Car_54 wrote: »

Yes, and it’s pretty common for a leasing company to be the RK. However, they are indeed responsible for keeping the car insured under the continuous insurance regs. Their risk, not yours.

Doesn,t help them confirm if any particular driver is insured or not though

Car_54

Jumblebumble wrote: »

Doesn,t help them confirm if any particular driver is insured or not though

No, and they could (at least in theory) be convicted of permitting an uninsured driver.

Jumblebumble

Car_54 wrote: »

No, and they could (at least in theory) be convicted of permitting an uninsured driver.

I doubt that this has ever happened in the real world and i suspect the fact that I have agreed not to let anyone who is uninsured drive the car means that if I did so the lease company would not be considered to have permitting it (on the contrary they have expressly prohibited it)
It is a messy business and whilst i understand why the lease company want to do this I am surprised the authorities allow it.
It could lead to huge problems if the car was ever seized under say section 59 as plod would not want to return it without either proof of ownership or a V5 neither of which I have.
Fortunately I am of an age and behaviour model where I do not attract attention from Plod