Taxed car using v5c/2 logbook still on previous owners name. Who gets tax refund?

paul_c123

Whether its traceable or not (it is, see below) is nothing to do with whether its taxed or not. 

What do you mean "permissible"? The car IS taxed, it shows on the system as being taxed, the money was received by the relevant authority. 

It is traceable. When a car is transferred into trade, the name and address of the trader is given to DVLA. That they choose to send notifications to the last known registered keeper is a quirk in the law - but the last known only need supply the trader's details on a S172 or whatever. Changes within trade aren't tracked but it is the first trader who must prove the car was sold to another trader, and so on. There is a chain of accountability.

paul_c123

In answer to the OP, because the car has been taxed using the V5C/2 reference, a marker is placed internally on the DVLA record for "taxed for future registered keeper". If there is a change of registered keeper (ie out of trade) that RK will be able to refund any tax for complete months.

Mildly_Miffed

paul_c123 said:

In answer to the OP, because the car has been taxed using the V5C/2 reference, a marker is placed internally on the DVLA record for "taxed for future registered keeper". If there is a change of registered keeper (ie out of trade) that RK will be able to refund any tax for complete months.

Exactly.

It's taxed by/for the next keeper, not the trader who has it in trade.

It's taxed in conjunction with a keeper change.

And, yes, "the new keeper" is the answer to the OP's question. As I said back on the last page, the trader needs to register it in his name.

facade

Mildly_Miffed said:

It is *possible* to do it - because the keeper change may be coming back by post. That doesn't mean it's permissible. There's a rather humongous clue in the V5C/2 being the New Keeper slip and saying "To Be Used By The New Keeper" on the top.

If the original keeper took a few days to send the V5c/3 off to put it in trade, or worse, as LightFlare wrote, was  "very silly" and handed the whole V5c to the trader to fill out (or not bother with....) despite the clear wording on the V5c/3, then it could be taxed at that time because it would NOT be "in trade" yet, and still registered to the original keeper.

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

As soon as it was marked "in trade" then the tax would be refunded to the person who was the keeper at the moment it was taxed.

Mildly_Miffed

facade said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

It is *possible* to do it - because the keeper change may be coming back by post. That doesn't mean it's permissible. There's a rather humongous clue in the V5C/2 being the New Keeper slip and saying "To Be Used By The New Keeper" on the top.

If the original keeper took a few days to send the V5c/3 off to put it in trade, or worse, as LightFlare wrote, was  "very silly" and handed the whole V5c to the trader to fill out (or not bother with....) despite the clear wording on the V5c/3, then it could be taxed at that time because it would NOT be "in trade" yet, and still registered to the original keeper.

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Exactly.

It's taxed on the V5C/2 by the new keeper, and then the keeper change wimbles its way through the post.

The V5C/3 going into trade is a red herring here - that was done a whiles back by the previous keeper when they PX'd it to the previous trader to the OP. Nobody did anything wrong up until the OP taxing it with no intention of transferring it to a new keeper. The car is taxed but in the expectation of a new keeper, and the tax will "belong" to that new keeper, as and when they register it.

Clearly, the only way out of this for the OP is to register it with them as keeper.

paul_c123

facade said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

It is *possible* to do it - because the keeper change may be coming back by post. That doesn't mean it's permissible. There's a rather humongous clue in the V5C/2 being the New Keeper slip and saying "To Be Used By The New Keeper" on the top.

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Please can we stop repeating this falsehood. As evidenced in the Original Post, it IS possible to tax a car that is "in trade". 

Mildly_Miffed

paul_c123 said:

facade said:

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Please can we stop repeating this falsehood. As evidenced in the Original Post, it IS possible to tax a car that is "in trade". 

But only by doing so as a new keeper, not as a trader in temporary possession of the vehicle.

https://insidedvla.blog.gov.uk/2014/09/12/trade-plates-forms-and-taxing/

That taxing as a new keeper is meant to be in parallel to declaring the new keeper, to avoid the new keeper waiting until they get a V5C in their own name.

It is not meant to be done BY the trader for their own use, who should only be using the car under trade plates while in possession of it as "in trade".

paul_c123

Mildly_Miffed said:

paul_c123 said:

facade said:

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Please can we stop repeating this falsehood. As evidenced in the Original Post, it IS possible to tax a car that is "in trade". 

But only by doing so as a new keeper, not as a trader in temporary possession of the vehicle.

It is the car that is taxed though, not the person.

Mildly_Miffed

paul_c123 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

paul_c123 said:

facade said:

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Please can we stop repeating this falsehood. As evidenced in the Original Post, it IS possible to tax a car that is "in trade". 

But only by doing so as a new keeper, not as a trader in temporary possession of the vehicle.

It is the car that is taxed though, not the person.

Not since 2014. It is the car-keeper pairing since then.

That's why the tax is refunded on cessation of keepership, and why you always need to tax a newly-acquired car.

paul_c123

Mildly_Miffed said:

paul_c123 said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

paul_c123 said:

facade said:

The only way to tax a vehicle that is actually "in trade" is to take it out of trade by registering it with a keeper.

Please can we stop repeating this falsehood. As evidenced in the Original Post, it IS possible to tax a car that is "in trade". 

But only by doing so as a new keeper, not as a trader in temporary possession of the vehicle.

It is the car that is taxed though, not the person.

Not since 2014. It is the car-keeper pairing since then.

That's why the tax is refunded on cessation of keepership, and why you always need to tax a newly-acquired car.

Rebates are covered under Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994) 19 (3) (f)

VERA1994 isn't repealed. If there's legislation in 2014 you'll have to say what it is, and how it works alongside VERA1994 so as to not conflict or duplicate it.