Sell a car with no tax or insurance or NCT?

Amy2010

Are we allowed to sell a car with no tax or insurance or NCT (all expired July 2012)?
What is the advantage and disadvantage?

Reason: too expensive to run a car.

It is Volkswagen Golf 1.4 Base. 1390cc. Silver saloon 2006.

Anan1

Yes, but it can't legally be driven on a public road.

Guy:Incognito

You can sell a car with no engine , doors or windows if you want. Its yours.

You wouldnt be selling it with insurance anyway, the policy is yours, its not part of the car.

The onyl insurance issue that can arise is for test drives. It obviously needs to be covered one way or another if its being driven on the road.

Amy2010

Anan1 wrote: »

Yes, but it can't legally be driven on a public road.

And?

Would that mean I'd need to tax, NCT and insure a car just to move it from A to B in order to sell it? Perhaps for one month?

seamus

Advantage:

You don't have to pay for tax & NCT yourself.

Disadvantage:

You will be offered less money because the buyer has to sort these things himself.

Would that mean I'd need to tax, NCT and insure a car just to move it from A to B in order to sell it? Perhaps for one month?

If B is a private place (i.e. someone's house), then a flatbed truck can transport the vehicle and you don't need to tax or insure it. If B is a public place (like outside a house on an estate), then you cannot park it there without tax and insurance.

Guy:Incognito

Amy2010 wrote: »

And?

Would that mean I'd need to tax, NCT and insure a car just to move it from A to B in order to sell it?

To be legal, yes.

Driving a car somewhere to sell it is the same as driving it to the shops.

Please Kill Me

What they said! ^^^^ It doesn't matter what discs you have or don't have in the window. There's no law regarding it.

Having said that, if the car is taxed and/or NCT'd you could ask for a bit more money.

Amy2010

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You wouldnt be selling it with insurance anyway, the policy is yours, its not part of the car.

The onyl insurance issue that can arise is for test drives. It obviously needs to be covered one way or another if its being driven on the road.

What about car tax and NCT? Do you sell it with a car or is it mine?

Fuh Q

The disadvantage of no NCT and no Tax is you will find it hard to sell unless you sell much cheaper than the same car with Tax and NCT.

Guy:Incognito

Amy2010 wrote: »

What about car tax and NCT? Do you sell it with a car or is it mine?

Thats part of the car.

Anan1

Amy2010 wrote: »

And?

Would that mean I'd need to tax, NCT and insure a car just to move it from A to B in order to sell it? Perhaps for one month?

Like I said, tax insurance and a valid NCT are legal requirements to use a car on the road.

Amy2010

Please Kill Me wrote: »

What they said! ^^^^ It doesn't matter what discs you have or don't have in the window. There's no law regarding it.

Having said that, if the car is taxed and/or NCT'd you could ask for a bit more money.

Thank you. I'm clear now. It is clear advantage to sell a car with NCT test on it.

seamus

Amy2010 wrote: »

What about car tax and NCT? Do you sell it with a car or is it mine?

Both are sold with the car because they relate to the car and not to you. You effectively reclaim their cost on the sale price of the vehicle.

Amy2010

seamus wrote: »

Both are sold with the car because they relate to the car and not to you. You effectively reclaim their cost on the sale price of the vehicle.

Thank you Seamus. I understand clearly now.

Matt Simis

Amy2010 wrote: »

What about car tax and NCT? Do you sell it with a car or is it mine?

You are getting a lot of by the book, correct answers. The "real world" answer is people and garages sell cars with no NCT or Tax all the time. In the current climate its very common to sell untaxed cars. The new buyer is not even liable for the missing back tax, they only tax it from the start of their ownership period.

You are over thinking this.

coylemj

Matt Simis wrote: »

You are getting a lot of by the book, correct answers. The "real world" answer is people and garages sell cars with no NCT or Tax all the time. In the current climate its very common to sell untaxed cars. The new buyer is not even liable for the missing back tax, they only tax it from the start of their ownership period.

You are over thinking this.

+1 Every car is sold without insurance because the new owner has to sort out his own insurance and I agree with the above poster, it's not a big deal to be selling a car without car tax because the new owner is not liable for unpaid months and only has to tax it starting in the month in which he buys it.

The NCT is a different matter, what any prospective owner will be saying to himself is 'why didn't the seller submit the car for an NCT before selling it - there must be something wrong with it' so expect to get less for the car with no NCT - that's assuming you can find someone to take the risk of buying it.

If you're not insured to drive the car, maybe you could get a friend who is insured to drive 'other cars' and let him bring the car for an NCT, you'll have to take the risk on the car tax but if I was you and you consider the car in good mechanical order then I'd get an NCT cert before selling the car.

Before anyone jumps in with the old urban myth that the car has to have it's own active policy before other people can drive it under their 'driving other car's clause, that is not true.

msg11

coylemj wrote: »

Before anyone jumps in with the old urban myth that the car has to have it's own active policy before other people can drive it under their 'driving other car's clause, that is not true.

Cool the jets there, it vary's from insurance company to insurance company.

Liberty insurance you can drive with no insurance policy on or attached to the car, once its not in your name and the car is in a roadworthy condition (I take that too mean an NCT).

At the end of the day, it's always better to have an active policy on the car.

You can get a fine under the RTA for failure to display a valid insurance disc, when driving the un insured car.

You will get more for a up to date NCT and depending how long the tax is out, if the tax is 100 for 3 months knock 100 of the price your looking for and say this in the ad. But the NCT is a different ball game, because you never know what could go wrong in an NCT and there is not a set price figure for passing an nct the most it will cost is 50 for a test.

coylemj

msg11 wrote: »

Cool the jets there, it vary's from insurance company to insurance company.

Name an insurance company which imposes that condition or better still, quote me the relevant part of their policy document.

The 'driving other cars' clause is meaningless if there is a requirement that the car being driven has it's own policy.

msg11 wrote: »

At the end of the day, it's always better to have an active policy on the car.

'Better' is a qualitative term, you're either insured or you're not and if your own policy allows you to drive other cars (with the usual disclaimers about hire and ownership), it makes no odds if the other car has it's own policy.

seamus

coylemj wrote: »

Before anyone jumps in with the old urban myth that the car has to have it's own active policy before other people can drive it under their 'driving other car's clause, that is not true.

You're right, it's not true.

But if the car is parked in public, the owner must have a policy on it. The driver's policy isn't good enough. So you can drive it to the test centre, have it tested and drive it back. But you can't stop halfway to go to the cinema or go to beach and leave the car.

Guy:Incognito

coylemj wrote: »

The 'driving other cars' clause is meaningless if there is a requirement that the car being driven has it's own policy.


.

How so? I doubt a large percentage of people bother getting open drive policies on their cars.

msg11

coylemj wrote: »

Name an insurance company which imposes that condition or better still, quote me the relevant part of their policy document.

The 'driving other cars' clause is meaningless if there is a requirement that the car being driven has it's own policy.



'Better' is a qualitative term, you're either insured or you're not and if your own policy allows you to drive other cars (with the usual disclaimers about hire and ownership), it makes no odds if the other car has it's own policy.

I can only speak for my insurer Liberty insurance, the car dose not have to be insured. I'm actually confused by what it is you are asking me?

I'm insured on one car, but I can drive others regardless if there insured or not once they are in a road worthy condition. Some company's don't allow this, the car must be covered by its own policy or another drivers policy. This is what I have been told by people insured with other company's.

What I meant by better is, that if something happen to the uninsured car then it's just that uninsured, park it up in your garden and it gets stolen or is set on fire it's better for it too be covered than not.

I would also regard it as better to drive cars with active policy's on them, so like you said the car is either insured or it's not.

slimjimmc

seamus wrote: »

You're right, it's not true.

But if the car is parked in public, the owner must have a policy on it. The driver's policy isn't good enough. So you can drive it to the test centre, have it tested and drive it back. But you can't stop halfway to go to the cinema or go to beach and leave the car.

That only applies to the NCT certificate. It's not legal to drive a car in a public place for any reason or at any time without insurance (or approved indemnity), same goes for motor tax.

coylemj

msg11 wrote: »

I can only speak for my insurer Liberty insurance, the car dose not have to be insured. I'm actually confused by what it is you are asking me?

You said in your earlier post that 'it varies from one company to another', I say it does not, hence I asked you to name a company which does impose the condition - that you cannot drive a car which has no policy of it's own regardless of whether you have the 'driving other cars' clause or not on your own policy.

msg11 wrote: »

I'm insured on one car, but I can drive others regardless if there insured or not once they are in a road worthy condition.

As far as I'm concerned that is the case with every insurer.

msg11 wrote: »

Some company's don't allow this, the car must be covered by its own policy or another drivers policy. This is what I have been told by people insured with other company's.

That's what I meant by 'urban myth', nobody with first hand knowledge (like reading their policy document) ever makes this claim, its always something they heard down in the pub.

People often call their company and ask, the agents seem to be trained to say that the other car must have it's own policy. However if you examine the policy document of any of the main insurers you will find that that there is no such condition.

slimjimmc

coylemj wrote: »

That's what I meant by 'urban myth', nobody with first hand knowledge (like reading their policy document) ever makes this claim, its always something they heard down in the pub.

Perhaps it stems from a confusion between legally required 3rd party cover and optional Fire & Theft/Comprehensive cover. Most insurers don't provide Comprehensive cover when driving other cars.

msg11

coylemj wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned that is the case with every insurer.

As far as I am aware it's not, some company's this is an extra or worded differently and conditions attached. That's why I am saying it's best to check with your own insurance company before you start driving cars around that are not insured. Because you think your policy says so.

coylemj

msg11 wrote: »

As far as I am aware it's not, some company's this is an extra or worded differently and conditions attached.

If you are 'aware' of it then name such a company. If you are not aware of it but you persist in making the claim then it qualifies as an urban myth.

coylemj

slimjimmc wrote: »

Perhaps it stems from a confusion between legally required 3rd party cover and optional Fire & Theft/Comprehensive cover. Most insurers don't provide Comprehensive cover when driving other cars.

I believe it stems from the clause in most policies which says that if you are driving another car and have an accident and the other car has it's own policy then you must claim from that policy.

A lot of people interpret this to mean that you are only covered if the other car has it's own policy but if you read the wording in your policy you will find that in the absence of such a policy, your own 'driving other cars' clause will cover you.

In response to those who say 'check with your insurance company', the situation is that call agents can say what they like but it is the policy document that rules so nothing that is said over the phone is worth jack sh1t.

mgbgt1978

msg11 wrote: »

Liberty insurance you can drive with no insurance policy on or attached to the car, once its not in your name and the car is in a roadworthy condition (I take that too mean an NCT).

You take that wrong I'm afraid.
Speaking from experience (not some guy down the pub) Liberty, or Quinn Direct for older readers, do not insist that a car must have a current NCT to be roadworthy.
The experience referred to above relates to a very close Family member BTW, not myself .
They also do not ask everyone to see a copy of same when taking out, or renewing, a policy.

slimjimmc

coylemj wrote: »

I believe it stems from the clause in most policies which says that if you are driving another car and have an accident and the other car has it's own policy then you must claim from that policy.
:

Yeah, that's a more likely misunderstanding.