Horsebox Sale

born_again

km1500 said:

Why would the new owner win? Following the sale, title of the trailer passed to the purchaser. They (the purchaser) asked the OP to take their property for a MOT. No different to you asking a friend to take your car for MOT - if the friend crashes the car then they are not liable to repay you for repairs.

"They may have assumed that jess (OP) still had some form of valid insurance" - the is no way the OP could have insurance they no longer owner the trailer and thus do not have an insurable interest.

Why do you think that? You can still have insurance on something you do not own.
OP may well have still had insurance.
TBH. While it had no MOT, unless it was SORN, which is something again we do not know? A good guess would be it was insured.

SpudGunPaul

TadleyBaggie said:

pulliptears said:

I have a sneaking suspicion the OP will not like this factual, entirely correct response...

Indeed, there is no circumstance where an uninsured vehicle can be legally driven on a public road. So if no insurance could be taken out, the only sensible way to get it to the MOT test would be to put it on the back of a flat bed/trailer.

Being pedantic, there are. 

tightauldgit

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.

And a further offence of failing to report the accident to the police?

tightauldgit

born_again said:

km1500 said:

Why would the new owner win? Following the sale, title of the trailer passed to the purchaser. They (the purchaser) asked the OP to take their property for a MOT. No different to you asking a friend to take your car for MOT - if the friend crashes the car then they are not liable to repay you for repairs.

"They may have assumed that jess (OP) still had some form of valid insurance" - the is no way the OP could have insurance they no longer owner the trailer and thus do not have an insurable interest.

Why do you think that? You can still have insurance on something you do not own.
OP may well have still had insurance.
TBH. While it had no MOT, unless it was SORN, which is something again we do not know? A good guess would be it was insured.

The OP has said it wasn't insured though - unless they're mistaken about that. 

km1500

born_again said:

km1500 said:

Why would the new owner win? Following the sale, title of the trailer passed to the purchaser. They (the purchaser) asked the OP to take their property for a MOT. No different to you asking a friend to take your car for MOT - if the friend crashes the car then they are not liable to repay you for repairs.

"They may have assumed that jess (OP) still had some form of valid insurance" - the is no way the OP could have insurance they no longer owner the trailer and thus do not have an insurable interest.

Why do you think that? You can still have insurance on something you do not own.
OP may well have still had insurance.
TBH. While it had no MOT, unless it was SORN, which is something again we do not know? A good guess would be it was insured.

you can have insurance on something you don't own but you can't have insurance on something that would not cause you a financial loss.

Since the horse box no longer belonged to the OP there would be no financial loss to them.if it were damaged or destroyed thus they don't have an insurable interest in it.

The OP could (and should) have purchased third party insurance, but could not get cover for loss or damage to.the vehicle as it was not their property

JReacher1

lincroft1710 said:

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

Do we know that it wasn't insured for any driver?  There seems to be lots of accusations here that the OP has committed a crime but we don't have enough information to say that is 100% true.

sheramber

JReacher1 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

Do we know that it wasn't insured for any driver?  There seems to be lots of accusations here that the OP has committed a crime but we don't have enough information to say that is 100% true.

• in Horsebox Sale Comment by jess882023 Today at 12:19PM
• 
  
• The purchaser also knows the wagon didn’t have insurance as she was to insure this when it passed it’s mot. 
  

Jumblebumble

Alderbank said:

TadleyBaggie said:

jess882023 said:

No one said it was “ Smashed up “ 

So what exactly is the damage? 

The new owner has every right to expect the item to be in the condition it was when they agreed to the sale. Due to no fault of them it apparently now isn't. 

That doesn't fit the facts as told to us by the OP.
The horsebox was in the condition agreed when the sale was concluded and title (and risk) passed to the purchaser. Subsequently the new owner requested the former owner to take it for MOT. This wasn't a condition of sale - the sale had already taken place.

Who was the registered owner at the time of the accident? It is not the same as ownership but if the seller had sent off the V5C it would be evidence that change of ownership had taken place.

There are no written T&Cs for the contract of the OP taking a horsebox owned by a third party out on the road for MOT. There is an implied contract term for them to take reasonable care of the horsebox.
I think therefore that the OP's liability depends on the extent to which they were at fault in the RTA. If they were not driving dangerously or carelessly when someone drove into them then they were taking reasonable care.
No liability.

No one was the registered owner at the time of the accident because the concept of a registered owned does not exist. The change of keeper has nothing to do with who owns the horsebox.  Think most  cars on a PCP. The owner is the finance company the  keeper is the person who has taken out the PCP and the DVLA have no idea who owns the car

Jumblebumble

lincroft1710 said:

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

What if the OP had permission to drive horseboxes owned by third parties on their own policy?
There is an amazing amount of inaccurate pontificating on this thread

GingerTim

Jumblebumble said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

What if the OP had permission to drive horseboxes owned by third parties on their own policy?
There is an amazing amount of inaccurate pontificating on this thread

From the horse's mouth (sorry)

jess882023 said:

The purchaser also knows the wagon didn’t have insurance as she was to insure this when it passed it’s mot.