Insuring a car that I don't own..help please?

BradyH

Hello there,

I need to pick a few larger brains on this one as I cannot for love nor
money, find a suitable answer after hours of searching online.

Ok. So, a parent has come into some money. This parent has decided they would like to buy me a new car,out of the blue.I am so thrilled and full of gratitude for this as with three small kids, my current car, lets say, is old and small.

Now my husband and I, our finances make for grim reading..Caught in the bubble, two bed 'starter' now in arrears with huge negative equity.
We have all agreed that I cannot 'own' this new car on paper..
Thus, posing many questions for me..

The first being..
If this parent purchases and is the registered owner of the vehicle,
do they automatically require insurance on it for themselves? regardless of whether they would ever drive it or not?

Secondly, we are aware that because said parent already owns and is insured as the main driver on their own car, they would lose their ncb on this new vehicle, costing alot of money. So if it is required that they be insured on this new vehicle, even though they wont be driving it, would they have to be insured as main driver? or would named driver do, with me insured as the main driver?

If they do not need to be insured on this new car, can I, take out a policy on this new car, even though I am not the registered owner?

I am aware of needing to have 'insurable interest' in the car, but is there some way around this? As in without needing to transfer ownership to me?

Lastly, and if you are still with me, fair play to you,
Will my insurance company simply transfer my policy on to a brand new car that I don't own...

Im really lost and would really and truly appreciate some clarity on this, it appears to be a minefield and I am confused..:mad:

Brady.

fergus1001

why isn't it just signed over to you again ?

and if going down that road the easiest way is to get them to insure the car and put you as a named driver it will cost more though as your no claim discount does not transfer onto a second vehicle

if your on another policy with open driving i think it is you can drive that car as long as its under 2l engine and your over 25 as long as it has tax and test

BradyH

Thanks for replying,

I dont want it in my name for financial reasons..

I know what your saying but we want to avoid the parent(who buys the car), having to be insured on it at all, as they wont be driving it, I will.

If my current policy, on old car, is open, then would that policy do for new car? as in the only insurance on the car? or would registered owner(parent) need to be insured on new car first?
so confused.

ProudDUB

Who came to the decision that you can't own this new car on paper? Have you gotten proper financial advice from a trained professional telling you that?

Unless you plan on filing for bankruptcy & you will be in a situation where your assets could be seized to pay your debts, I can't see why you couldn't or shouldn't own a car on paper. It's not as if the banks are in cahoots with the motor tax office and know who owns a car and who doesn't.

yoke

There's another potential problem - according to http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html , you need your insurance details for paying motor tax.

Is it actually a requirement that the person who pays the tax on a car is the owner of the car (and hence, must be insured to drive the car in order to tax it)?
Further to that, is it also a requirement that the owner of the car stays insured on the car at all times, even if they are not driving it?
It looks like an example of a half-assed and not-clearly-defined law to me.

I'm quite interested to know how most people who own 2 cars do this sort of thing - weekend cars and daily commute cars - do they just cough up and pay the full insurance (ie. no NCB) on the second car, or do they put the second car in a relative's name, so they can legally drive around in it on their own single insurance policies as long as the car is taxed somehow (most people over 25 have policies which cover them to drive any car not owned by them)?

keithclancy

BradyH wrote: »

Hello there,

I need to pick a few larger brains on this one as I cannot for love nor
money, find a suitable answer after hours of searching online.

Ok. So, a parent has come into some money. This parent has decided they would like to buy me a new car,out of the blue.I am so thrilled and full of gratitude for this as with three small kids, my current car, lets say, is old and small.

Now my husband and I, our finances make for grim reading..Caught in the bubble, two bed 'starter' now in arrears with huge negative equity.
We have all agreed that I cannot 'own' this new car on paper..
Thus, posing many questions for me..

The first being..
If this parent purchases and is the registered owner of the vehicle,
do they automatically require insurance on it for themselves? regardless of whether they would ever drive it or not?

Secondly, we are aware that because said parent already owns and is insured as the main driver on their own car, they would lose their ncb on this new vehicle, costing alot of money. So if it is required that they be insured on this new vehicle, even though they wont be driving it, would they have to be insured as main driver? or would named driver do, with me insured as the main driver?

If they do not need to be insured on this new car, can I, take out a policy on this new car, even though I am not the registered owner?

I am aware of needing to have 'insurable interest' in the car, but is there some way around this? As in without needing to transfer ownership to me?

Lastly, and if you are still with me, fair play to you,
Will my insurance company simply transfer my policy on to a brand new car that I don't own...

Im really lost and would really and truly appreciate some clarity on this, it appears to be a minefield and I am confused..:mad:

Brady.

I can see this all going horribly wrong.

antodeco

yoke wrote: »

There's another potential problem - according to http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html , you need your insurance details for paying motor tax.

Is it actually a requirement that the person who pays the tax on a car is the owner of the car (and hence, must be insured to drive the car in order to tax it)?
Further to that, is it also a requirement that the owner of the car stays insured on the car at all times, even if they are not driving it?
It looks like an example of a half-assed and not-clearly-defined law to me.

I'm quite interested to know how most people who own 2 cars do this sort of thing - weekend cars and daily commute cars - do they just cough up and pay the full insurance (ie. no NCB) on the second car, or do they put the second car in a relative's name, so they can legally drive around in it on their own single insurance policies as long as the car is taxed somehow (most people over 25 have policies which cover them to drive any car not owned by them)?

I've 3 cars and all I did was get the NCB mirrored on a second policy. It just means I dont earn an NCB on it, but I'm not screwed with no NCB on it either!

dar83

I don't see any reason not to have the car in your own name, especially if it was a gift. The only 'financial' reasons anyone would care about would be if you bought the car yourself and had an outlay of additional debt as a result, this may reflect badly on you, but being gifted a car certainly would not. You're overthinking this Op, if anything the addition of an asset that cost you nothing but is worth more than your current asset, is a no brainer.

Look at it this way, what if you won a car in a raffle or on winning streak, what would you do then? Refuse it based on the same grounds?! This is a similar situation, the car is costing you nothing. If anyone asks or gets suspicious about it (why that's even a thing I'm not sure), then the paper trail for purchasing the car can be brought to their attention and it can be proven that you didn't purchase it yourself. It's not a big deal.

Sorry to ask this question, but are you in the process of having your mortgage written down or something? Why the worry about how a new (free!) car looks? If you're struggling that much financially, would it not be better to get your parent to gift you the money instead of a car to help that out instead?

Overall, there is no issue receiving a gift from someone that is obviously provable that it cost you nothing. You're worrying over nothing.

corktina

fergus1001 wrote: »

why isn't it just signed over to you again ?

and if going down that road the easiest way is to get them to insure the car and put you as a named driver it will cost more though as your no claim discount does not transfer onto a second vehicle

if your on another policy with open driving i think it is you can drive that car as long as its under 2l engine and your over 25 as long as it has tax and test

you can't do this as the named driver would be the main (sole) user and the Ins Co wont allow this.
You clearly in my view have an insurable interest in the car. You need to ask your broker for advice rather than us random strangers.
I hope this gives you a bit of a leg up to getting sorted out one day. Good luck.

ironclaw

corktina wrote: »

you can't do this as the named driver would be the main (sole) user and the Ins Co wont allow this.
You clearly in my view have an insurable interest in the car. You need to ask your broker for advice rather than us random strangers.
I hope this gives you a bit of a leg up to getting sorted out one day. Good luck.

Funnily enough, there is no issue in this. I asked my insurer and they said its irrelevant who is the main user. They would prefer if the owner was the main user, but for all purposes its just a name on a piece of paper. Other insurers may differ in this respect. Either way your shooting yourself in the foot as named driver as the benefits of being the main driver are far better from a discount and NCB point of view.

I'm not sure but being gifted a car may open you up for some form of capital gains. Its a large enough asset. You might want to check that out.

Your best bet OP is to have the car registered and insured in the parents name. And you as a named driver. You won't earn much NCB as a named driver but that should be irrelevant in your current financial case. However, remember you have to fully disclose the place it will be parked at night i.e. Don't insure it at your parents place if its going to spend all its time at yours (Unless you live next door etc)

Above all though, I'd seek proper financial advise.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

Funnily enough, there is no issue in this. I asked my insurer and they said its irrelevant who is the main user. They would prefer if the owner was the main user, but for all purposes its just a name on a piece of paper. Other insurers may differ in this respect.

I asked my insurer about this also. They said that they dont mind which of the named drivers is the primary driver, however they want to be informed of which of them it is (if that makes sense). So if I had a car and had a son who was a named driver and was using it for going to college every day, then there is no issues with doing that, so long as they have been made aware that the named driver is the primary user of the car.

djimi

Two reasons why I would not suggest going down the road of having your parents insure the car:

1. Your own NCB expires after two years, so depending on how much of a NCB you have currently built up, this could potentially be very costly when you do go to take out insurance in your own name again.

2. Its dont think that its very fair to expect your parents to risk their own NCB on a car that they are not driving. As a named driver, if you needed to claim then it would be your parents NCB that would be affected.

yoke

antodeco wrote: »

I've 3 cars and all I did was get the NCB mirrored on a second policy. It just means I dont earn an NCB on it, but I'm not screwed with no NCB on it either!

Did you have to get insured with the same crowd who did your insurance on the first car, or were you able to get them to issue you a letter stating your NCB and use that to get cheaper insurance elsewhere for the 2nd (and 3rd ) cars?

I'm interested in this because I don't know if it's a loophole or what, but I haven't seen anything yet which would suggest that it's illegal to do the following:

1. Get a small, cheap commuter car, insure it with a policy which allows you to drive "any car not owned by you" (most policies for over 25s do this).
2. Get a massively overpowered beast of a car ("expensive car"), which would normally cost you an arm and a leg to insure. Put it in your relative's name (or anyone you trust, and who already has an ordinary insured car).
3. Get your relative to phone their insurance company and transfer their insurance onto the expensive car, tax the expensive car for a year, then transfer their insurance back to their normal car.
4. You can now legally drive around in the expensive car, because it is fully taxed and not owned by you, even if there is noone who has a current insurance policy on that car.

Would this work?

MarkR

If you are worried about the car being used against you in a bankruptcy case, I found this online.

A debtor is also allowed to retain their car as long as the value is not
excessive and if sold would not yield a significant dividend to their creditors.

yoke

yoke wrote: »

Did you have to get insured with the same crowd who did your insurance on the first car, or were you able to get them to issue you a letter stating your NCB and use that to get cheaper insurance elsewhere for the 2nd (and 3rd ) cars?

I'm interested in this because I don't know if it's a loophole or what, but I haven't seen anything yet which would suggest that it's illegal to do the following:

1. Get a small, cheap commuter car, insure it with a policy which allows you to drive "any car not owned by you" (most policies for over 25s do this).
2. Get a massively overpowered beast of a car ("expensive car"), which would normally cost you an arm and a leg to insure. Put it in your relative's name (or anyone you trust, and who already has an ordinary insured car).
3. Get your relative to phone their insurance company and transfer their insurance onto the expensive car, tax the expensive car for a year, then transfer their insurance back to their normal car.
4. You can now legally drive around in the expensive car, because it is fully taxed and not owned by you, even if there is noone who has a current insurance policy on that car.

Would this work?

No i believe the car must be insured also in someone elses name

djimi

yoke wrote: »

I'm interested in this because I don't know if it's a loophole or what, but I haven't seen anything yet which would suggest that it's illegal to do the following:

1. Get a small, cheap commuter car, insure it with a policy which allows you to drive "any car not owned by you" (most policies for over 25s do this).
2. Get a massively overpowered beast of a car ("expensive car"), which would normally cost you an arm and a leg to insure. Put it in your relative's name (or anyone you trust, and who already has an ordinary insured car).
3. Get your relative to phone their insurance company and transfer their insurance onto the expensive car, tax the expensive car for a year, then transfer their insurance back to their normal car.
4. You can now legally drive around in the expensive car, because it is fully taxed and not owned by you, even if there is noone who has a current insurance policy on that car.

Would this work?

One of the biggest stumbling blocks would be that third party extension cover is just that - third party, so the car itself will not be covered when you are driving it, and will have absolutely no cover when you are not.

urbanledge wrote: »

No i believe the car must be insured also in someone elses name

Not necessarily. This used to be the case, but I think very few (if any) policies any more stipulate that both cars must be insured.

yoke

urbanledge wrote: »

No i believe the car must be insured also in someone elses name

Hmm my policy clearly states that any car not owned by me, which has valid tax and nct if applicable, may be driven by me. I might need to check with my insurance company about this when I get some time.

The key thing I am basing this on is that in Ireland, the car itself isn't usually insured - the driver is insured to drive a car, but the car itself isn't insured as such.

yoke

djimi wrote: »

One of the biggest stumbling blocks would be that third party extension cover is just that - third party, so the car itself will not be covered when you are driving it, and will have absolutely no cover when you are not.

If that's the biggest stumbling block, then we're in business, as the purpose of the steps was to avoid insurance fees while meeting the bare minimum legal requirement

The idea is to do this with an older sports car, say an old BMW M or Merc AMG car which would cost less than 10k to buy, but about 2k per year to insure, along with a relatively large excess normally for aforementioned driver.
You would effectively be side-stepping past the excess completely, and most of the insurance cost.

BradyH

emm..so that went wrong..

Basically I do not want the car to be considered as my asset, if at all possible.

Just phoned my broker there and as I was afraid, "The owner of the vehicle must be take out a policy on their car, regardless of whether they would be driving it"

"The owner could not apply their ncb to a second vehicle", and

"They wont allow me to be the policyholder because I dont own the car, they cant insure me for something I dont own..."

It seems to make no difference about being named driver as I would have to inform the insurance company that I was main driver anyway.


But I found this...

In most jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal for an individual to insure a vehicle in his or her name without actually owning the car. However, some individual insurance companies may refuse to underwrite a policy on a given vehicle without the explicit consent of the vehicle's owner. Some companies may even require that the name on the car's title matches the name on its insurance policy.

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/does-your-car-insurance-and-registration-have-to-be-under-the-same-name/

Is this applicable in Irish law, does anyone know?

"A debtor is also allowed to retain their car as long as the value is not
excessive and if sold would not yield a significant dividend to their creditors."

mmm.. how much is significant though??

djimi

yoke wrote: »

If that's the biggest stumbling block, then we're in business, as the purpose of the steps was to avoid insurance fees while meeting the bare minimum legal requirement

The idea is to do this with an older sports car, say an old BMW M or Merc AMG car which would cost less than 10k to buy, but about 2k per year to insure, along with a relatively large excess normally for aforementioned driver.
You would effectively be side-stepping past the excess completely, and most of the insurance cost.

Im not 100% on this, but the car itself having no insurance policy covering it would mean (I think) that you could never leave it parked in a public place, as it is a legal requirement for a car in a public place to have insurance cover. If this is the case then this would make it nigh on unworkable.

djimi

BradyH wrote: »

"A debtor is also allowed to retain their car as long as the value is not
excessive and if sold would not yield a significant dividend to their creditors."

mmm.. how much is significant though??

A new car costing €25k or thereabouts could well account for 10% or more of the debt, so I would have thought that would be considered significant enough.

whomitconcerns

your correct. When someone is driving a car on their 3rd party extention, and the car has no insurance specific to the car (and by extention no disc on the window), the car is uninsured when the driver is not in the car. And by extention is not insured if it is parked in public place! Non display is a seperate issue and would rely on the police seeing the car, but is could happen while driving anyway

ironclaw

I'm pretty sure you have to have an insurable interest in the car. Which makes sense. Why would you insure something you don't own? And on the flip side, would not suffer from its loss? Every insurer I know informed me I must own (At least on the logbook) the car I'm insuring and to me that make perfect sense.

OP, the easiest option is to have the car bought, named and insured by the parent. With you driving it as a named driver or as an 'open drive' on your current policy. Even at that, I think you are getting into a fairly sticky grey area. If you are that concern over your financial / asset liabilities, don't buy a new car. Just use the money to buy a decent second hand upgrade, and perhaps consider using an surplus to offset your current debt. That would be my two cents!

whomitconcerns

if you are in such a financial issue, why not get them to gift you the money instead of the car? Especially if its worth a few $$

(just noticed JAR already posted it)

ThisRegard

yoke wrote: »

Is it actually a requirement that the person who pays the tax on a car is the owner of the car (and hence, must be insured to drive the car in order to tax it)?

And how would they enforce that ?

Both cars in our house are in my wifes name due to an administrative error in one of the garages. I pay the insurance and tax on one of them as if I'm the owner (it's basically my car), the insurers are aware that both cars are in my wifes name but I'm the main driver of one of them and there's no issues.

Revenue don't check to see who's paying the car tax.

BradyH wrote: »

emm..so that went wrong..

Basically I do not want the car to be considered as my asset, if at all possible.

Just phoned my broker there and as I was afraid, "The owner of the vehicle must be take out a policy on their car, regardless of whether they would be driving it"

"The owner could not apply their ncb to a second vehicle", and

"They wont allow me to be the policyholder because I dont own the car, they cant insure me for something I dont own..."

Try a couple of different brokers, it may be different for me as the cars belong to a spouse in my case.

Bio Mech

whomitconcerns wrote: »

if you are in such a financial issue, why not get them to gift you the money instead of the car? Especially if its worth a few $$

(just noticed JAR already posted it)

Have to agree with this. You are in a bad position already, you are going to end up making it worse if you make the wrong decision here. Clear your arrears and buy a cheaper car, that's what I would do. Less headaches.

jimgoose

yoke wrote: »

...Is it actually a requirement that the person who pays the tax on a car is the owner of the car (and hence, must be insured to drive the car in order to tax it)?

Is it hell, like. I wish it was!!

yoke wrote: »

Further to that, is it also a requirement that the owner of the car stays insured on the car at all times, even if they are not driving it?...

No, it is not.

jimgoose

Bio Mech wrote: »

Have to agree with this. You are in a bad position already, you are going to end up making it worse if you make the wrong decision here. Clear your arrears and buy a cheaper car, that's what I would do. Less headaches.

^^^
This. OP, if you don't mind my saying I think you/your parent would be completely window-lickingly sitting-on-top-of-the-Opera-House-naked-singing-Avé-Maria off your head to spend the price of a new car in these circumstances.

yoke

djimi wrote: »

Im not 100% on this, but the car itself having no insurance policy covering it would mean (I think) that you could never leave it parked in a public place, as it is a legal requirement for a car in a public place to have insurance cover. If this is the case then this would make it nigh on unworkable.

I think the legal requirement is to never park the car in a public road, rather than a public place - for example, Mondello is a public place, yet you don't need insurance to drive your car on it.

Based on this, carparks are not public roads, so it would be fine to leave the car parked in a carpark (but not on a public road).

Regarding the non-display of the insurance disc issue - in theory I could carry around my insurance policy with me wherever I go, but in practice isn't this also the case when I'm driving someone else's car in ordinary situations, ie. I don't have any proof of my own insurance cover to drive that car - my mate's insurance disc displayed in the windscreen would be worthless in an accident if I was driving the car.

djimi

yoke wrote: »

I think the legal requirement is to never park the car in a public road, rather than a public place - for example, Mondello is a public place, yet you don't need insurance to drive your car on it.

Based on this, carparks are not public roads, so it would be fine to leave the car parked in a carpark (but not on a public road).

Mondello isnt a public place I dont think. The car park might be, but not the track.

According to Citizens Information it is a requirement to be insured in a public place, not a just on a public road.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_insurance.html

It is a legal requirement in Ireland to have motor insurance if you want to drive your car in a public place

CiniO

OP only clear way to do it, is leave car in your parent name, and let him pay the tax and insurance.
He can surely find insurer which will mirror his NCB on this car. And he can surely add you as a named driver.

Only issue for you here, is that you won't hold insurance yourself, so you will effecitvely loose your NCB in a while (2 years probably)

yoke

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

It's an offence to use your car in public place when it's untaxed or uninsured.

"Use" includes parking.

djimi

yoke wrote: »

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

How do you propose getting the car into the public place...?

I think the wording in the RTA is that it is an offense to use the car in a public place without insurance. Its not a case of whether or not the car is moving.

Also, unoccupied cars can still cause damage, ie if the handbrake were to fail, or it were to catch fire due to faulty wiring etc. This still needs to be covered while the car is in a public place.

djimi

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

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 or there is in force at that time either—

(a) an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, or

(b) an approved guarantee whereby there is guaranteed the payment by the user, or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, of all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user.

yoke

djimi wrote: »

How do you propose getting the car into the public place...?

Well, I would be covered while driving the car into the public place, by my own insurance policy :pac:

djimi wrote: »

I think the wording in the RTA is that it is an offense to use the car in a public place without insurance. Its not a case of whether or not the car is moving.

Well, this comes back to the definition of a car - in my view, a car or carriage is something designed to carry or transport people and things, and a parked car cannot be said to be "currently in use" any more than a "parked" knife in a kitchen drawer can be said to be "currently in use". Otherwise, my dinner guests can all start claiming that I was using my kitchen knife on them

djimi wrote: »

Also, unoccupied cars can still cause damage, ie if the handbrake were to fail, or it were to catch fire due to faulty wiring etc. This still needs to be covered while the car is in a public place.

Cheers for the statutebook quote btw - that is interesting as it (at least the part quoted! I'm unaware of the rest) explicitly says that the only requirement is someone to be liable for injury "caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time" - that seems to explicitly rule out the need to insure a car when the only risk of liability is due to something which was NOT caused by negligent "use" by the driver - eg. mechanical failure such as handbrake failing while parked, etc.

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Well, this comes back to the definition of a car - in my view, a car or carriage is something designed to carry or transport people and things, and a parked car cannot be said to be "currently in use" any more than a "parked" knife in a kitchen drawer can be said to be "currently in use". Otherwise, my dinner guests can all start claiming that I was using my kitchen knife on them

It's not up to you to decide what "vehicle use" means.
It's defined in the law, and it clearly says that "use" include "parking".

Cheers for the statutebook quote btw - that is interesting as it (at least the part quoted! I'm unaware of the rest) explicitly says that the only requirement is someone to be liable for injury "caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time" - that seems to explicitly rule out the need to insure a car when the only risk of liability is due to something which was NOT caused by negligent "use" by the driver - eg. mechanical failure such as handbrake failing while parked, etc.

No. You didn't understand it correctly.

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 or there is in force at that time either—

What's important is bolded.
You can not use a vehicle unless you have insurance.

yoke

fair enough - I didn't know that vehicle use was clearly defined in the law, and it explicitly included parking.

yoke

So in another twist, I went and looked at my actual insurance policy, and it turns out I am actually insured for "use" of any car not owned by me and not hired out by me (not just "driving" but "use").... guess that means the policy does actually allow me to park the car in public places, if parking constitutes use of a car

I'm with AXA btw - not sure if everyone's policy contains the same wording, but I'm guessing it is probably quite standard for most insurers.

Of course, this brings back the original question - is there any need for an owner of a car to insure it, for others to drive it (as long as the car is taxed and NCTed, and whoever is driving it is insured for use of it as per above style policy)?

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Of course, this brings back the original question - is there any need for an owner of a car to insure it, for others to drive it (as long as the car is taxed and NCTed, and whoever is driving it is insured for use of it as per above style policy)?

No, there isn't in most cases. Make sure with your policy that there is no such requirement, but I suppose that kind of requirement (for other car driven to be insured by owner) is quite rare thing.

However it's impossible to tax a vehicle when there is no policy attached to it. (at least legally).

Also your cover on driving other cars is most likely only third party, so the car itself is not covered in case it's damaged.

yoke

CiniO wrote: »

However it's impossible to tax a vehicle when there is no policy attached to it. (at least legally).

The original idea was to get the relative to transfer their existing policy onto the car, tax it immediately, and transfer insurance back to the old car, every year. You shouldnt lose much money doing this, depending on how much time was left on their policy at the time of transfer.

CiniO wrote: »

Also your cover on driving other cars is most likely only third party, so the car itself is not covered in case it's damaged.

yep - the purpose of this is to be able to insure a small, cheap commuter car, and still be able to drive a relatively low-value but expensive-to-insure "weekend car" without having to pay the typically high premiums and excess.

BradyH

Just to update,

Phoned both motorinsurance Ireland and Citizens info..
both gave conflicting accounts of the lawfullness surrounding a registered car owner having to be insured on their vehicle at all times..

I phoned a gazillion insurance brokers/companies and was repeatedely told that nobody would insure me on a car that I dont own until...
At last one broker told me that only two out of loads would insure me in this way with a premium beginning at €750..

I still dont know for sure about how to tax the car blah di blah under those circumstances..

Anywho so we finally got a quote for my parent and it is double the cost of the policy they have on their own car because of the lack of ncd..it would not be 'mirrored' by anyone..

But that is ok its not as extortionate as I imagined..
its still alot less than 750.

happy days..

There wasnt an option of taking cash instead of new car...I would have leapt at that but still that wouldnt have come within smelling distance of our debt mountain..

happy days:)

thanks.

christy02

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

CiniO

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

Sorry but what's wrong with parents buying a car and letting their flat broke children to use it. Nothing wrong with it.

Dord

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

I know which one I'd go for given the option of new car, or no new car.

In fairness actually, OP stated that their car is quite old. Should any unforeseen repairs come along they may only increase the debt issues and/or leave them without a car. A new car with good warranty might be the best for them.

unkel

I really struggle to see how OP does not want a new car in their name, unless they either claim off social welfare / are likely to be in a debt write-off or bankruptcy situation and can't have assets over a certain value

Dord wrote: »

In fairness actually, OP stated that their car is quite old. Should any unforeseen repairs come along they may only increase the debt issues and/or leave them without a car. A new car with good warranty might be the best for them.

It is very doable to buy a reliable family car for under a grand. For a bit over a grand, you can buy a relatively new luxury car. Have a look at the bangernomics thread

dar83

Can't believe we still have an issue of the Op not wanting to receive a gift, when the only reason not to is the previously mentioned Bankruptcy one. In which case can you not put it in the spouses name? Or is it a requirement that both declare bankrupty in a situation where they're trying to get debt written off?

I can only think that this situation has been way over complicated by people thinking too much and the simple facts being overlooked.

Dord

unkel wrote: »

It is very doable to buy a reliable family car for under a grand. For a bit over a grand, you can buy a relatively new luxury car. Have a look at the bangernomics thread

Well aware of that, but as we all know, there is an element of risk involved.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

yoke

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

fix the system then and close the loopholes, rather than moaning at someone trying to figure out how to legally live the best life they can.

If you want people to pay their mortgages, put higher penalties for not doing so.

If you want people to not be allowed to give gifts to whomever they choose, you have a very hard and possibly unenforceable battle ahead of you. Case in point - parents arent allowed to gift more than a certain value to their kids (without paying a high tax on it). stupid rule which is almost completely unenforceable, all that happens is that clever parents end up giving gifts untraceably.