Question about owner vs registered keeper

AdrianC

Ballistic87 said:

msybe a little off topic, but if anything was to happen (crash,stolen) while he is driving and main driver on insurance, would me as the registered keeper be notified in any way?

Well, you'd like to think he'd tell you... If you don't think he will, WHY ARE YOU LENDING HIM THE FLIPPIN' CAR?

What about his claim?  Wouldn’t he have have to be the registered  keeper  for the insurance to be valid? Ive always found insurance companies ask “when did you purchase the vehicle and is it-in you’re name”

many thanks. 

They ask who the RK is. He Might Not Tell Them The Truth.

Ectophile

AdrianC said:

NBLondon said:

AdrianC said:

Remember, while you are RK, you are legally responsible. The RK does not show the owner - it says in big letters on the top of the V5C that they are different things. There is no official record of ownership.

In other words - speeding tickets and the like come to you first and you have to nominate who was driving.  If you trust your relative to own up etc.  that's your call.  Ditto with agreeing that they will take care of insurance.

And if he doesn't tax it? You get the fine.
If he doesn't insure it? You get the Continuous Insurance fine.

Not only that, but if he doesn't insure it, and gets stopped, the car will be seized. The OP would have to go to the pound, and pay the fee to get the car back before it's crushed. But if the OP doesn't have insurance, then they won't be allowed to drive it away.  It could get very expensive.

Car_54

Ectophile said:

AdrianC said:

NBLondon said:

AdrianC said:

Remember, while you are RK, you are legally responsible. The RK does not show the owner - it says in big letters on the top of the V5C that they are different things. There is no official record of ownership.

In other words - speeding tickets and the like come to you first and you have to nominate who was driving.  If you trust your relative to own up etc.  that's your call.  Ditto with agreeing that they will take care of insurance.

And if he doesn't tax it? You get the fine.
If he doesn't insure it? You get the Continuous Insurance fine.

Not only that, but if he doesn't insure it, and gets stopped, the car will be seized. The OP would have to go to the pound, and pay the fee to get the car back before it's crushed. But if the OP doesn't have insurance, then they won't be allowed to drive it away.  It could get very expensive.

And the OP might face a charge of causing or peremitting.

TooManyPoints

I think all of the comments made here on the various aspects of this (which all seem perfectly valid) demonstrate that this really is not a very good idea! Lending quite a valuable car to anybody should not be undertaken lightly. I'd want to make sure it was comprehensively covered by insurance (the borrower may insure it TP only and if it gets stolen or written off that's that). But when you consider this:

the dispute was over money, I’m a little concerned that his family might whisper in his ear and somehow convince him to take the car. 

It's verging on lunacy.

Jumblebumble

Car_54 said:

Ectophile said:

AdrianC said:

NBLondon said:

AdrianC said:

Remember, while you are RK, you are legally responsible. The RK does not show the owner - it says in big letters on the top of the V5C that they are different things. There is no official record of ownership.

In other words - speeding tickets and the like come to you first and you have to nominate who was driving.  If you trust your relative to own up etc.  that's your call.  Ditto with agreeing that they will take care of insurance.

And if he doesn't tax it? You get the fine.
If he doesn't insure it? You get the Continuous Insurance fine.

Not only that, but if he doesn't insure it, and gets stopped, the car will be seized. The OP would have to go to the pound, and pay the fee to get the car back before it's crushed. But if the OP doesn't have insurance, then they won't be allowed to drive it away.  It could get very expensive.

And the OP might face a charge of causing or peremitting.

I have a lease car and they are the RK
If I choose not to insure it will the lease company be charged with causing or permitting ?
Even if ASKMID says the car is insured hey have no idea of who might drive it or if they are insured

TooManyPoints

If I choose not to insure it will the lease company be charged with causing or permitting ?

No. The "causing or permitting" must be levelled against the person who has control of the vehicle (i.e. "the person keeping the vehicle"). The circumstances you describe illustrates why that should be. If the OP can show he handed over responsibility for the car to his mate that should be sufficient. He will also not fall foul of the "Continuous Insurance" regulations as he there is a specific exception to the RTA S144A if the RK is not the person keeping the vehicle.

Ballistic87

Update: the car has been involved in a serious collision today with a stolen car that was being chased by police. Have seen the car it’s definitely a write off. He was driving it on his own  insurance (i took mines off when I gave him the car), Haven’t spoken to him properly yet as he went straight to hospital. I’m guessing this has added a whole new dimension to the problem?!?!  Have a crime ref number, cctv of the incident and the driver of the stolen car has been apprehended near the scene. 

missile

The !!!!!! has hit the fan as others predicted it might.

Norman_Castle

Ballistic87 said:

 I’m guessing this has added a whole new dimension to the problem?!?! 

If the car was properly insured its solved the problem.

Ballistic87

Norman_Castle said:

Ballistic87 said:

 I’m guessing this has added a whole new dimension to the problem?!?! 

If the car was properly insured its solved the problem.

Hi. He definitely insured it. Do you know who the insurance company will be dealing with? The borrower/insured or the registered keeper? Who is paid out for the car?