Insurance and selling your car. At what point am I no longer liable?

antiskeptic

My wife doesn't use her Fiesta much and it's more or less sat there this last few years. The insurance, tax and NCT have been allowed lapse and now I want shot of it.

What's the story with insurance and change of ownership? Can someone be insured to drive it (for a test drive) even if it's not insured?

What about taking it away? Does the fact that the change of ownership on the reg document has been filled in and dated (and timed) by the new owner mean the onus is on him to be satisfactorily insured? Or is there some onus on me to ensure he's adequately insured before driving away?

At what point is the change of ownership considered to have taken place? When reg doc filled in and money handed over? Or when the document is received/altered at the registering authority?

Any info would be most helpful...

Thanks..

Bigus

You have no obligation to ensure it is insured when been taken away, however a test drive would be different, a legitimate garage or motor dealer will have insurance cover on all vehicles whether those vehicle s are insured or not.

Liability as regards change of owner will cease on handover,
if any offence occurs before the form is processed it'll be up to a court to decide,but there is nothing to stop new owner disputing time of handover , but the Garda are going to be more inclined to believe the vendor, however for certainty a witness or camera phone might be handy for proof.

Selling to a legit business is always a lot be safer than to unregistered traders of a certain community, to protect the current registered owner.

CiniO

antiskeptic wrote: »

My wife doesn't use her Fiesta much and it's more or less sat there this last few years. The insurance, tax and NCT have been allowed lapse and now I want shot of it.

What's the story with insurance and change of ownership? Can someone be insured to drive it (for a test drive) even if it's not insured?

Yes.
Once someone holds third party extension on his insurance to drive other cars, he is most likely covered to drive the car. However car itself is not covered in case of accident, except of rare case where "driving other cars" extension works as full comprehensive cover.

What about taking it away? Does the fact that the change of ownership on the reg document has been filled in and dated (and timed) by the new owner mean the onus is on him to be satisfactorily insured? Or is there some onus on me to ensure he's adequately insured before driving away?

At what point is the change of ownership considered to have taken place? When reg doc filled in and money handed over? Or when the document is received/altered at the registering authority?

Change of ownership takes place at the moment you fill in the logbook and take money from buyer. After that car is no longer yours, and whether it's insured on not, is not your concern.

corktina

the only time you need insurance is if you are driving it. Ask the potential buyer if they are insured and if they say they are, that should absolve you from any problems. If they say they aren't then no test drive.

Is a test drive likely? sounds like a non-runner to me for spares or repair.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

the only time you need insurance is if you are driving it. Ask the potential buyer if they are insured and if they say they are, that should absolve you from any problems. If they say they aren't then no test drive.

What if they say they are, while in reality they aren't?

coylemj

corktina wrote: »

Ask the potential buyer if they are insured and if they say they are, that should absolve you from any problems. If they say they aren't then no test drive.

You can't simply accept their word on it. At the very least you'd be expected to tell them to bring their cert with them so that you can check that they are insured to drive other cars. As the owner of the car, any third party claim will land on your doorstep if they are not insured. Even if the other guy is a millionaire, the claim will be against you, not him.

CiniO wrote: »

What if they say they are, while in reality they aren't?

Exactly.

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

You can't simply accept their word on it. At the very least you'd be expected to tell them to bring their cert with them so that you can check that they are insured to drive other cars.

That still doesn't give 100% guarantee.
Insurance f.e. could have been cancelled, while he still holds the cert.

As the owner of the car, any third party claim will land on your doorstep if they are not insured. Even if the other guy is a millionaire, the claim will be against you, not him.

That's not true.
As vehicle owner, you are indeed committing offence by allowing someone to drive your car uninsured, but if that person cause an accident, it will be him paying for damage - not you.

corktina

coylemj wrote: »

You can't simply accept their word on it. At the very least you'd be expected to tell them to bring their cert with them so that you can check that they are insured to drive other cars. As the owner of the car, any third party claim will land on your doorstep if they are not insured. Even if the other guy is a millionaire, the claim will be against you, not him.



Exactly.

why on earth not? It's their responsibility and you took reasonable steps by asking.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

why on earth not? It's their responsibility and you took reasonable steps by asking.

AFAIK vehicle registered owner is redponsible to make sure his vehicle is not driven on public roads uninsured.
Taking reasonable steps to make sure might not be enough.
He just must be sure vehicle is not driven.

But I might be wrong about it.

corktina

I might be wrong too but how can you check? Anyone with a PC can photoshop an Insurance Cert or they could pay one instalment and then pay no moreor indeed steal one.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

I might be wrong too but how can you check? Anyone with a PC can photoshop an Insurance Cert or they could pay one instalment and then pay no moreor indeed steal one.

There is no way to be 100% sure.
Just take the risk if you want to sell the car.

When I was selling I allowed to test drive my car without even looking at persons insurance cert.

When I was buying my first car here in Ireland, I had no insurance, but I still had to test drive it.

People just take risks, and in most cases those risks are worth it.

SleeperService

CiniO wrote: »

AFAIK vehicle registered owner is redponsible to make sure his vehicle is not driven on public roads uninsured.
Taking reasonable steps to make sure might not be enough.
He just must be sure vehicle is not driven.

But I might be wrong about it.

You gonnaa ring up the insurer and check if the buyers direct debits are up to date? They'll tell you where to go. If the buyer tells you he has insurance what more can you do apart from exercising good judgement on whether he seems credible...

coylemj

corktina wrote: »

why on earth not? It's their responsibility and you took reasonable steps by asking.

It is not 'their responsibility', it's the responsibility of the owner of the car to see to it that anyone who drives his car is insured.

Asking a complete stranger 'are you insured to drive my car?' and accepting his answer 'yes' would not count as 'reasonable steps' when you could have asked to see an insurance cert.

Sure, he could produce a fake cert. but why would anyone go to such lengths just to do a test drive?

antiskeptic

The issue hinges on whether ownership changes on filling out the reg doc in the name of the new owner and having them sign it/date & time it. If so then it's their car their driving away. If not then my wife car.

In the latter, I'd just have it towed. It's not worth any risk.

Bigus reckons the ownership changes on filling in the reg cert. What do others reckon? Any official support for either position?

Edit: having read the reg cert (doh!)it would seem Bigus is right. Above the place where the new owner fills in name etc., the heading is New Owner Details. The cert is accepting the new ownership to have occurred. The new owner also signs his name in a box marked " New Owner Name/Sig
Clause 3 in the notes says the the change of ownership should be notified asap - the cert needs to be returned in order for the change of ownership to be notified to the Dept Transport.

Scanning drivers docs would add to the weight of the position of the seller. But I'd be happy with the cert as it is now.

Thanks for all the comments..

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

AFAIK vehicle registered owner is redponsible to make sure his vehicle is not driven on public roads uninsured.
Taking reasonable steps to make sure might not be enough.
He just must be sure vehicle is not driven.

But I might be wrong about it.

My understanding is that it is an offense to knowingly allow your car to be driven by an uninsured driver. I dont know to what degree "knowingly" would be the owners problem, ie it might be enough to ask them and have them say yes (of course, they can always turn around and deny this), or it may be required to have them show their insurance cert.

I would have thought that for a test drive scenario, the benefit of the doubt would go to the seller, as in reality it is the responsibility of the buyer to ensure that they are insured to drive the car, and the fact that the buyer is more often than not going to be a complete stranger to the seller, for the most part the seller is going to have to take the buyers word for it when told that they are insured to drive the car. As you say, even if provided with a copy of the insurance cert there is no guarantee that the policy is still active.

coylemj

djimi wrote: »

My understanding is that it is an offense to knowingly allow your car to be driven by an uninsured driver. I dont know to what degree "knowingly" would be the owners problem, ie it might be enough to ask them and have them say yes (of course, they can always turn around and deny this), or it may be required to have them show their insurance cert.

Your understanding of the law is incorrect. The word 'knowingly' is not used in the definition either of the offence of driving without a licence or with no insurance. If it was, that term would place a burden on the cops to prove that the driver was actually aware that his licence was expired or that he had no insurance, a pretty impossible task.

To people claiming that a seller has to simply ask a prospective buyer if he's insured and that it's ok to accept his assurance that he is, try telling that to the Garda who stops you during the test drive and asks to see a certificate of insurance.

If the driver is caught driving uninsured, he and the owner are both guilty of the same offence. Below is the original 1961 offence, the penalties would be much higher these days.

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time

..............

(3) Where a person contravenes subsection (1) of this section, he and, if he is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall each be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

SleeperService

So, effectively unless you have written confirmation from your own insurer that you had added person x to your policy, you should not allow person x to drive your car as you just don't know the actual validity of their insurance.