[HollowPoint]

Sounds like you're on a losing battle, because the fine is already paid, they'll just use any technicality to refuse to refund it, the last of which will be that by paying it, you've admitted guilt/responsibility. I get why you paid it, to prevent it doubling, but paying anything to anyone who demands it, automatically admits responsibility/liability, that's exactly why they (govt, police, corporations, etc.) offer you the lower amount if you just abide by it and pay it up front, with a threat that it'll grow if you don't and threats of legal action being taken against you, with added court costs, etc. to encourage that 'admission of responsibility' when people don't want to get caught out. Simple fact is, you didn't own the vehicle at the time the offence was committed and therefore the fine wasn't payable by you, if you could provide proof that was the case, the worst they could chase you for, would be the offence of not notifying them of the change of ownership, which in my experience they rarely actually do. Even if they took you to court for the offence of being uninsured, a judge would likely dismiss the claim before it made it to a hearing, because you'd proved that you didn't own the vehicle at the time, DVLA would then have to bring a separate case against you for not declaring the change of ownership.

 

[TheStig]

If the driver of your car had third party cover for any vehicle & was driving with the owner's permission then it was insured.

 

[HollowPoint]

If the driver of your car had third party cover for any vehicle & was driving with the owner's permission then it was insured.

If you're thinking about the 'driving other cars' clause on domestic insurance policies, that doesn't work that way, the vehicle has to actually be insured by the owner, for driving other cars to be valid. It's also only valid while driving for Third Party Only cover, once the driver leaves the vehicle, all cover reverts to the main policy covering the vehicle (which is why they insist it be insured for the driving other cars extension to be valid). The only way it would be covered without having its own policy, would be if the driver was using a 'traders policy' of some kind and would only be insured while the person driving, was actively driving/in charge of the vehicle. If they parked it in the high street to go get a coffee for example, it's covered, if they returned it to where it was currently being kept and walked away, it's no longer covered by their policy, unless where it was being kept, was their business premises (such as a garage, or unit). Of course, if they were themselves the temporary keeper, it's insured everywhere whilever they are the keeper of the vehicle, on their trade policy, in theory at least, however most trade policies state that if you have a vehicle for longer than 30 days and want it covered, you must declare it explicitly on that policy, which most traders never do, unless they plan to use the vehicle themselves long term and not sell it on.

 

[TheStig]

If you're thinking about the 'driving other cars' clause on domestic insurance policies, that doesn't work that way, the vehicle has to actually be insured by the owner, for driving other cars to be valid. It's also only valid while driving for Third Party Only cover, once the driver leaves the vehicle, all cover reverts to the main policy covering the vehicle (which is why they insist it be insured for the driving other cars extension to be valid). The only way it would be covered without having its own policy, would be if the driver was using a 'traders policy' of some kind and would only be insured while the person driving, was actively driving/in charge of the vehicle. If they parked it in the high street to go get a coffee for example, it's covered, if they returned it to where it was currently being kept and walked away, it's no longer covered by their policy, unless where it was being kept, was their business premises (such as a garage, or unit). Of course, if they were themselves the temporary keeper, it's insured everywhere whilever they are the keeper of the vehicle, on their trade policy, in theory at least, however most trade policies state that if you have a vehicle for longer than 30 days and want it covered, you must declare it explicitly on that policy, which most traders never do, unless they plan to use the vehicle themselves long term and not sell it on.

The 'driving other cars' extension doesn't require the vehicle to be insured unless it's stipulated in the policy. As you say, if you park the vehicle on the highway & get out of it, an offence is committed because then there's no insurance.

 

[HollowPoint]

The 'driving other cars' extension doesn't require the vehicle to be insured unless it's stipulated in the policy. As you say, if you park the vehicle on the highway & get out of it, an offence is committed because then there's no insurance.

It only exists with that stipulation on domestic policies. At least, in my experience... I worked in insurance for quite a few years, first doing sales, then customer service/underwriting and later I switched careers but went back to the industry as an IT Manager and then went back again as a Cloud Architect as my career moved on, I've never seen it not stipulated alongside the extension.

 

[MatH]

Just told my brother about it and he says that he always records change of ownership on the DVLA website which is good advice I think....next time!

 

[cutlea01]

It's so easily done, mind you. When I bought the tractor, the farmer just gave me the whole V5, rather than just the new keeper's slip. I said I'd deal with the change of ownership, which I have, online. I doubt he was even aware of his legal responsibility, just it was something that should be done.

 

[HollowPoint]

It's so easily done, mind you. When I bought the tractor, the farmer just gave me the whole V5, rather than just the new keeper's slip. I said I'd deal with the change of ownership, which I have, online. I doubt he was even aware of his legal responsibility, just it was something that should be done.

Same with my current XF, guy just handed me the v5... I did it there and then on the driveway on my phone, as also taxed and insured it on my phone before we left his driveway, but so many don't. Every time I sell a vehicle, they're at my house, so I make them give me the transfer info there and then and I input it into the DVLA website, then hand them the new keepers slip to tax at their leisure, but obviously informing them the existing tax is effectively now null and void. Obviously a bit different in the OP's case, as he traded in against another car at a dealership and they promised to deal with it...

 

[HollowPoint]

Actually, thinking about it... that could be a plan @MatH ? Go to the dealership you sold the car to and demand they give you the £50 for the fine, as not only did they promise to deal with the change of ownership, but they clearly didn't re-register the car in someone elses name if/when they sold it either.

 

[MatH]

Actually, thinking about it... that could be a plan @MatH ? Go to the dealership you sold the car to and demand they give you the £50 for the fine, as not only did they promise to deal with the change of ownership, but they clearly didn't re-register the car in someone elses name if/when they sold it either.

I have written to the dealership, but not had a reply as yet although I didn't demand the £50 back. Have to put it down to experience I think.
I think it's a bit unfair as the fines were only introduced in 2011. Unless the governement actually writes to all V5 holders to explain the updated law, then there may be quite a few people who aren't aware that they could get a fine. Laws are changed or amended quite often I imagine, but a lot of changes go unreported....how are you supposed to keep up to date?

 

[HollowPoint]

I have written to the dealership, but not had a reply as yet although I didn't demand the £50 back. Have to put it down to experience I think.
I think it's a bit unfair as the fines were only introduced in 2011. Unless the governement actually writes to all V5 holders to explain the updated law, then there may be quite a few people who aren't aware that they could get a fine. Laws are changed or amended quite often I imagine, but a lot of changes go unreported....how are you supposed to keep up to date?

Indeed, it was a stupid law to bring out to be honest too and received quite a bit of backlash from driving organisations. Essentially if you tax it, you must insure it, as the act of 'taxing' it implies your intent to use it... what dumb logic... for a start, day insurance exists, temporary additional vehicles on policies exist, where they don't need a separate policy to be insured... it was especially unpopular among the classic car owning fraternity. Many of them will leave the car taxed for the whole year, then add it as a temporary vehicle on their main car policy for a few months in the summer when they want to drive them and leaving them taxed is just a way of avoiding the penalties for taxing on say the 29th of March when there happens to be a nice day, with no salt on the roads, so you ring your insurance company and whack it on the policy as a TAV for a few days/weeks/months and off you go, but of course taxing it on the 29th March means you pay tax for all of March. If you ask me, they'd have been better off just aligning the tax periods with everything else in the world when they got rid of the tax disc, rather than this stupid law that has probably generated thousands in fines from unsuspecting, but otherwise law abiding citizens. The 'paying for the whole month tax' thing only even existed originally, because we had physical tax discs, we haven't had them for almost ten years now, so other than raking in more money and encouraging this type of behavior in the first place, by making it punitive to tax a car at the end of the month, despite the lack of requirement to show a disc, has actually encouraged people to drive without tax and has encouraged classic car owners and the like, to keep the car taxed all year, regardless of insurance status. In your case, you'd have been due a tax refund on the car when it was sold too... so perhaps approach DVLA for that tax refund to offset the fine a little?

 

[cutlea01]

I read a DVLA report, years ago, after the tax disc was scrapped, that to alter their "system" to tax cars daily rather than monthly would be far too expensive, for them to implement. FFS, it's in software! It's simply a hidden motoring tax. Thankfully, classic, or historic cars don't attract a charge to be taxed, but must be insured at all times, unless you declare SORN. I have had issues with SORN where I wanted to retax the car a few days after declaring SORN and the DVLA website said I couldn't, so had to go to a Post Office.

 

[HollowPoint]

I read a DVLA report, years ago, after the tax disc was scrapped, that to alter their "system" to tax cars daily rather than monthly would be far too expensive, for them to implement. FFS, it's in software! It's simply a hidden motoring tax. Thankfully, classic, or historic cars don't attract a charge to be taxed, but must be insured at all times, unless you declare SORN. I have had issues with SORN where I wanted to retax the car a few days after declaring SORN and the DVLA website said I couldn't, so had to go to a Post Office.

Yeah, having done some work there, I can tell you that's nonsense. They have teams of contractors building their web setups, they don't want to do it because they think it nets them extra money by people taxing on the 29th, which it does of course, even with the number of people who will simply 'risk it' and not tax theirs until the 1st of the following month.

 

[cutlea01]

It's the double tax income that really pisses me off. Buy a car, privately, say on the 1st, the seller has paid for that months tax, which they won't get back, you have to also pay for that months tax. It really isn't hard to rewrite the software to tax and refund to the day.

 

[wilf]

The system of fines/penalties/charges in this country for oh so many things is naked and dishonest additional taxation, period.

 

[HollowPoint]

It's the double tax income that really pisses me off. Buy a car, privately, say on the 1st, the seller has paid for that months tax, which they won't get back, you have to also pay for that months tax. It really isn't hard to rewrite the software to tax and refund to the day.

And for that reason alone, it will not change. They rake it in from the honest.

 

[TheStig]

It only exists with that stipulation on domestic policies. At least, in my experience... I worked in insurance for quite a few years, first doing sales, then customer service/underwriting and later I switched careers but went back to the industry as an IT Manager and then went back again as a Cloud Architect as my career moved on, I've never seen it not stipulated alongside the extension.

I've read my LV policy & there's nothing in the "driving other cars" extension requiring the vehicle to be insured under another policy.

Driving other cars - if your certificate of insurance says so, we'll insure the policyholder and/or the NCD holder to drive a
private car or van in the UK, if you don't own it, it isn't registered to you, isn't hired to you under a hire purchase or
rental/leasing agreement as long as:
l the owner has given you permission
l you have the correct licence to drive the car or van
l the car or van is registered and normally kept in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel
Islands
l any van doesn't exceed 3.5 tonnes GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight)
l the car or van hasn't been seized or confiscated by or on behalf of any government or public authority
l you're not covered by any other insurance to drive it; and
l you still have your car and it hasn't been stolen or damaged to an extent it's now a total loss.
Note: the cover is third party only so loss or damage to the car or van you drive isn't covered

 

[HollowPoint]

I've read my LV policy & there's nothing in the "driving other cars" extension requiring the vehicle to be insured under another policy.

Interesting, what does the Certificate say?

 

[HollowPoint]

I've read my LV policy & there's nothing in the "driving other cars" extension requiring the vehicle to be insured under another policy.

Interestingly, the LV website says: "Whether you’re covered or not, by law the owner still needs to make sure they’ve insured the car to avoid any issues with the police. "

Am I covered to drive other cars?

www.lv.com

Now of course, that could be interpreted to mean that if you were to stop driving the car and it was still on the public highway, as we discussed earlier, that would be an offence, but it doesn't specify that. Technically speaking, the assumption should be that if it's on the public highway it's being driven and therefore your TPO 'Driving Other Cars' should mean it's 'insured' for the purposes it's being used, even if it doesn't have another policy on it. My interpretation though, is that if it doesn't have another insurance policy on it, then it's not covered by yours either when you're driving. Or perhaps, it pertains to the law that says it shouldn't be taxed if not insured and therefore unless you're driving it on a trade plate, with trade insurance, it's not 'road legal'?

 

[cutlea01]

This is my understanding too. Plus, as has been covered many times on multiple Police traffic programs on TV recently, when a car is stopped as showing no insurance on MID, and the driver says "I am insured for any car not belonging to me" the Police always say "If the car is insured by the owner." This is confirmed on the Confused website too:

"The other car must have insurance already"

What do I need to do to get DOC on my policy?