Horsebox Sale

JReacher1

Its a bit harsh obviously but it is not your horsebox anymore.  You've sold it so basically it is a problem for the buyer (who admittedly may come after you for damages). 

 Are you 100% sure the buyer doesn't have insurance?  Driving without a MOT is fine if you are off to the garage but would be surprised if the buyer didn't insure the horsebox from the day they bought it.

soolin

JReacher1 said:

Its a bit harsh obviously but it is not your horsebox anymore.  You've sold it so basically it is a problem for the buyer (who admittedly may come after you for damages). 

 Are you 100% sure the buyer doesn't have insurance?  Driving without a MOT is fine if you are off to the garage but would be surprised if the buyer didn't insure the horsebox from the day they bought it.

The insurance fine and points though would land on the OP not the buyer regardless of the loss valuation.

The argument then if it went to court would be who should have insured the horse box against damage , the OP is already on the wire for driving without insurance the only argument would be who takes the loss and therefore who should have insured it. 

lincroft1710

JReacher1 said:

Its a bit harsh obviously but it is not your horsebox anymore.  You've sold it so basically it is a problem for the buyer (who admittedly may come after you for damages). 

 Are you 100% sure the buyer doesn't have insurance?  Driving without a MOT is fine if you are off to the garage but would be surprised if the buyer didn't insure the horsebox from the day they bought it.

Even if the buyer had insurance, it would have to have been "any driver" or the OP being a named driver on the policy for her to avoid the charge of driving whilst uninsured

MarvinDay

soolin said:

The insurance fine and points though would land on the OP not the buyer regardless of the loss valuation.

Under the Road Traffic act 1988, there are two separate offences in play here, both of which carry the same penalty of a minimum of 6 points and a fine.

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

and if the OP is charged with using the vehicle with no insurance, it's quite possible that the buyer could be charged with permitting the use.

Manxman_in_exile

I think I can safely say I don't have much sympathy for either party in this situation.

(Or I might possibly have some sympathy for the buyer as they might reasonably have expected that the OP would have been insured to drive the horsebox to the MOT.  But if I'd been the buyer I'd have reminded the OP of that in writing.  I don't see how the OP could possibly have believed that they didn't need to be insured)

tightauldgit

I think I come down on the side of 'if new owner owns it then it's their financial responsibility' and the new owner really should have done things properly to avoid the problem rather than ask someone else to take it for an MOT. Equally, probably lesson learned for the OP that their answer to the request should have been 'no, im not insured to drive it and if anything happens to it there will be a problem'

Of course the question of driving while uninsured still applies for the OP. That seems pretty clear.

Belenus

Somewhat ironically, a day's insurance for this horsebox would probably only have cost about a pony.

screech_78

So, the OP breaks the law and has the cheek to tell others to shut their mouth. 

I think the buyer is the least of your worries in this case, but I’d be refunding them or paying for the repairs before you end up in serious trouble. 

Alderbank

screech_78 said:

I think the buyer is the least of your worries in this case, but I’d be refunding them or paying for the repairs before you end up in serious trouble. 

Potential criminal issues: neither refunding them nor paying for the repairs will make any difference to the driving without insurance matter (which is quite serious).

Civil claims: no benefit in refunding them or paying for the repairs until liability is established

powerful_Rogue

MarvinDay said:

soolin said:

The insurance fine and points though would land on the OP not the buyer regardless of the loss valuation.

Under the Road Traffic act 1988, there are two separate offences in play here, both of which carry the same penalty of a minimum of 6 points and a fine.

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

and if the OP is charged with using the vehicle with no insurance, it's quite possible that the buyer could be charged with permitting the use.

I hope the OP has an audit trail of the new buyer giving her permission to take it for an MOT, because if the police do start looking at insurance offences and the new owner says 'I didn't say Jess could take it for an MOT', the OP could be looking at TWOC.