SORN fine after vehicle was given to dealership to sell on consignment

paul_c123

DullGreyGuy said:

paul_c123 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CliveOfIndia said:

Car_54 said:

No complicated mechanics involved really - driving untaxed vehicles is the sole purpose of trade plates.

Thanks for clarifying.  Slightly off-topic, do the trade plates also mean the car is covered by the dealer's "blanket" insurance as well.  Again, I don't know the specifics, but always assumed they have some sort of policy that covers them for any car that's legally part of their stock?

Trade plates are only in relation to road tax.

Motor Trade Insurance covers all vehicles owned by someone in the motor trade as well as vehicles in their care, control and custody from their customers. It doesn't have to be owned by them, part of their stock etc, it can also be a car thats been dropped off for a repair etc

There will be a messy area on if the dealership informed their broker/insurer of the vehicle to have it entered under their policy on the MID. This isnt a requirement for customer vehicles but would have flagged any ANPR cameras as the MID check would have come back with no insurance and the vehicle SORNed. It may or may not have issues with CIE given there was no registered insurance and the vehicle was being used without trade plates despite being SORNed but CIE is a bit of a damp squib still other than for repeat offenders

Actually, traders don't inform their insurance company when they add/remove a vehicle. They have a logon to the MID system so they can do it directly themselves (and there is a requirement to do so within 14 days). For example, midasdirect.com is a portal to MID.

That depends on the on the companies involved, certainly some brokers "offer it as a service", but yes with commercial policies the onus is on the insured for the declarations unlike personal lines. 

If the vehicle isnt the keeper/ owned by the garage, eg its just in for a complex repair or parts are on back order, then they wouldn't be required to register it with the MID under their policy. The OP appears not to have transferred the vehicle to the garage so they would retain the obligations of being the registered keeper.

Agree, the OP should have kept it taxed and insured - after all, he remains the true owner of the car in that time. I think its pretty poor that the dealership didn't properly advise him of this, though.

And by extension, he ought to have also told his insurance company of the change of place vehicle kept too - which would have been an interesting conversation!

Kim_13

paul_c123 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

paul_c123 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CliveOfIndia said:

Car_54 said:

No complicated mechanics involved really - driving untaxed vehicles is the sole purpose of trade plates.

Thanks for clarifying.  Slightly off-topic, do the trade plates also mean the car is covered by the dealer's "blanket" insurance as well.  Again, I don't know the specifics, but always assumed they have some sort of policy that covers them for any car that's legally part of their stock?

Trade plates are only in relation to road tax.

Motor Trade Insurance covers all vehicles owned by someone in the motor trade as well as vehicles in their care, control and custody from their customers. It doesn't have to be owned by them, part of their stock etc, it can also be a car thats been dropped off for a repair etc

There will be a messy area on if the dealership informed their broker/insurer of the vehicle to have it entered under their policy on the MID. This isnt a requirement for customer vehicles but would have flagged any ANPR cameras as the MID check would have come back with no insurance and the vehicle SORNed. It may or may not have issues with CIE given there was no registered insurance and the vehicle was being used without trade plates despite being SORNed but CIE is a bit of a damp squib still other than for repeat offenders

Actually, traders don't inform their insurance company when they add/remove a vehicle. They have a logon to the MID system so they can do it directly themselves (and there is a requirement to do so within 14 days). For example, midasdirect.com is a portal to MID.

That depends on the on the companies involved, certainly some brokers "offer it as a service", but yes with commercial policies the onus is on the insured for the declarations unlike personal lines. 

If the vehicle isnt the keeper/ owned by the garage, eg its just in for a complex repair or parts are on back order, then they wouldn't be required to register it with the MID under their policy. The OP appears not to have transferred the vehicle to the garage so they would retain the obligations of being the registered keeper.

Agree, the OP should have kept it taxed and insured - after all, he remains the true owner of the car in that time. I think its pretty poor that the dealership didn't properly advise him of this, though.

And by extension, he ought to have also told his insurance company of the change of place vehicle kept too - which would have been an interesting conversation!

If OP has some NCB he would have to remove the insurance from the car he left to be sold in order to insure a new car he then purchased, as NCB can only be on one car at once. Also, the risk of his insurer ending up as the RTA insurer if he leaves insured a car that isn’t in his possession.

But having a car uninsured that wasn’t SORNed is an offence, so the car should have been declared SORN.

paul_c123

Kim_13 said:

paul_c123 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

paul_c123 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

CliveOfIndia said:

Car_54 said:

No complicated mechanics involved really - driving untaxed vehicles is the sole purpose of trade plates.

Thanks for clarifying.  Slightly off-topic, do the trade plates also mean the car is covered by the dealer's "blanket" insurance as well.  Again, I don't know the specifics, but always assumed they have some sort of policy that covers them for any car that's legally part of their stock?

Trade plates are only in relation to road tax.

Motor Trade Insurance covers all vehicles owned by someone in the motor trade as well as vehicles in their care, control and custody from their customers. It doesn't have to be owned by them, part of their stock etc, it can also be a car thats been dropped off for a repair etc

There will be a messy area on if the dealership informed their broker/insurer of the vehicle to have it entered under their policy on the MID. This isnt a requirement for customer vehicles but would have flagged any ANPR cameras as the MID check would have come back with no insurance and the vehicle SORNed. It may or may not have issues with CIE given there was no registered insurance and the vehicle was being used without trade plates despite being SORNed but CIE is a bit of a damp squib still other than for repeat offenders

Actually, traders don't inform their insurance company when they add/remove a vehicle. They have a logon to the MID system so they can do it directly themselves (and there is a requirement to do so within 14 days). For example, midasdirect.com is a portal to MID.

That depends on the on the companies involved, certainly some brokers "offer it as a service", but yes with commercial policies the onus is on the insured for the declarations unlike personal lines. 

If the vehicle isnt the keeper/ owned by the garage, eg its just in for a complex repair or parts are on back order, then they wouldn't be required to register it with the MID under their policy. The OP appears not to have transferred the vehicle to the garage so they would retain the obligations of being the registered keeper.

Agree, the OP should have kept it taxed and insured - after all, he remains the true owner of the car in that time. I think its pretty poor that the dealership didn't properly advise him of this, though.

And by extension, he ought to have also told his insurance company of the change of place vehicle kept too - which would have been an interesting conversation!

If OP has some NCB he would have to remove the insurance from the car he left to be sold in order to insure a new car he then purchased, as NCB can only be on one car at once. Also, the risk of his insurer ending up as the RTA insurer if he leaves insured a car that isn’t in his possession.

But having a car uninsured that wasn’t SORNed is an offence, so the car should have been declared SORN.

I think there's a good argument for never selling a car on commission. It just sounds like a halfway-house deal. If you want to sell it, sell it. If the dealer can't afford it, go to a dealer who can do (or has a stocking plan etc).

Presumably with all the capital tied up in the car until it sells anyway, buying another will either require a loan, further capital, or something on finance/lease with a low deposit.