Question regarding motor tax Ireland

Dazza123

Can I tax a motor vehicle using the policy number of another insured car or does it have to be linked to the car I am wanting to tax ?

Regards
Darren

Voodoomelon

You can write 12345678 in the policy field if you like, it makes no difference at all.

Toyotafanboi

I'm suposed to be for the car you are taxing but in reality you can enter anything in that box and continue to tax the car.

Agricola

Voodoomelon wrote: »

You can write 12345678 in the policy field if you like, it makes no difference at all.

I went into the motor tax office last time to tax a car. Didnt have the insurance details with me to fill in on the form and the one behind the counter wouldnt accept it til I went out to my car and took it down off the windscreen!

So I could have written anything and it's never checked?

Voodoomelon

Correct, she just wanted you to write something down. Providing that information is supposed to add your details to an insurance database, when in fact said database is utterly useless to the Gardai or anyone else as nothing is linked into it and it often provides bogus information.

Dazza123

Ok because i am having a hard time getting insurance in a range rover i recently bought.
My plan is to get insured in a smaller engine car with a 3rd party extension to allow me to drive other cars with permission of owner which are taxed and tested. Range rover will be put in my partner's name.
So would i be wise to put the policy number from the small car i ensure when I'm taxing the range rover or just go with a made up number ?

Thanks guys.

Voodoomelon

Can't advise you regarding that or recommend you do it either, insurance companies are very wise to this kind of thing, if they discover the RR is primarily driven by you in the event of a claim, they will not cover you and could potentially sue you for any costs arising from an accident you may cause.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Dazza123 wrote: »

Ok because i am having a hard time getting insurance in a range rover i recently bought.
My plan is to get insured in a smaller engine car with a 3rd party extension to allow me to drive other cars with permission of owner which are taxed and tested. Range rover will be put in my partner's name.
So would i be wise to put the policy number from the small car i ensure when I'm taxing the range rover or just go with a made up number ?

Thanks guys.

Put the number of the policy that covers you to drive the car on the tax form.

Driving on your 3rd party extension means you won't have an insurance disc on your windscreen and so you run the risk of an on the spot fine for no insurance displayed.

coylemj

Agricola wrote: »

I went into the motor tax office last time to tax a car. Didnt have the insurance details with me to fill in on the form and the one behind the counter wouldnt accept it til I went out to my car and took it down off the windscreen!

So I could have written anything and it's never checked?

Yes. When you renew in person, the counter clerk needs to see the insurance paperwork, the online system has no way of verifying if it's a genuine policy number or not so you can type in any old rubbish.

coylemj

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't advise you regarding that or recommend you do it either, insurance companies are very wise to this kind of thing, if they discover the RR is primarily driven by you in the event of a claim, they will not cover you and could potentially sue you for any costs arising from an accident you may cause.

+1 it's known as 'fronting' and typically involves a young driver buying a car, registering it in the Mammy's name and getting themselves on her policy as a named driver. What the OP is proposing isn't much different as far as the insurance business is concerned.

irisheddie85

Some 3rd party extionsuon policies say the other vehicle can't be owned by your partner or boss. Be careful of the wording on the policy before you go this.

Also you won't have a legitimate insurance disk for the range rover screen which is an offence in and of itself.

MackMack

Doesn't the driving other cars bit require the third party car to actually be insured as well though? Didn't think it covered other cars that weren't insured.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

MackMack wrote:

Doesn't the driving other cars bit require the third party car to actually be insured as well though? Didn't think it covered other cars that weren't insured.

This old chestnut. I've never seen a policy that stipulated that and I've seen a fair few.

quadrifoglio verde

Dazza123 wrote: »

Ok because i am having a hard time getting insurance in a range rover i recently bought.
My plan is to get insured in a smaller engine car with a 3rd party extension to allow me to drive other cars with permission of owner which are taxed and tested. Range rover will be put in my partner's name.
So would i be wise to put the policy number from the small car i ensure when I'm taxing the range rover or just go with a made up number ?

Thanks guys.

Well then you'd definitely be screwed in an accident.
They'd know straight away it was yours if they can get access to that data. Perhaps they can't, but I wouldn't leave a trail.
Put it in parents name. Pay tax with parents cars. Repay parents with cash.

Dazza123

coylemj wrote: »

+1 it's known as 'fronting' and typically involves a young driver buying a car, registering it in the Mammy's name and getting themselves on her policy as a named driver. What the OP is proposing isn't much different as far as the insurance business is concerned.

Its not the route i want to go down but if nothing can be done otherwise its the route i may have to take. It is not quite fronting.
These companies bend us over and screw us year after year why cant we do the same to them !!

Voodoomelon

You'll not be screwing them, you'll be screwing yourself. Personally I'd hate to be paying even a cent of insurance, and know there's a possibility that they won't pay out come claim time.
If this is the case, what's the point?

Dazza123

Dazza123 wrote: »

Its not the route i want to go down but if nothing can be done otherwise its the route i may have to take. It is not quite fronting.
These companies bend us over and screw us year after year why cant we do the same to them !!

You've never had insurance here, when did they ever screw you?

Dazza123

Voodoomelon wrote: »

You'll not be screwing them, you'll be screwing yourself.

Im fully aware of only having 3rd party on the RR, It's only to get me past the cops if need be. I have dogs and need a reliable 4X4 its the reason i bought the range, i don't want to be driving some ****ty 4x4 that cant make it up a steep hill

Dazza123

Deleted User wrote: »

You've never had insurance here, when did they ever screw you?

Theyre screwing everybody, what percent did your insurance go up this year for no apparent reason ? Premiums were raised as much as 20 percent last year for no reason only fools causing accidents on the road costing everybody hard earned money.

Voodoomelon

I mean you'd be screwed if ever you're the cause of an accident and they refuse to payout. You could be personally liable for hundreds of thousands. Worse case and all that, but your life would ruined.

uck51js9zml2yt

Remember that when filling in the tax form and signing it you are signing a legal document.
The guards do check these occasionally and if you've given bogus information , you're screwed!

MojoMaker

Every car driven on the road legally requires a valid insurance disc in the window with the reg of that car displayed on it. This is fine if you borrow your mates car and he is showing his disc in the window, however in your case the RR will never have an insurance disk in the window and you'll be done if you're caught. Once you're caught a can of worms will open and it will be looked at in a lot more detail, up to and including AGS advising your insurance company.

Think long and hard about doing this, the downside is significant.

Marcusm

Dazza123 wrote: »

Ok because i am having a hard time getting insurance in a range rover i recently bought.
My plan is to get insured in a smaller engine car with a 3rd party extension to allow me to drive other cars with permission of owner which are taxed and tested. Range rover will be put in my partner's name.
So would i be wise to put the policy number from the small car i ensure when I'm taxing the range rover or just go with a made up number ?

Thanks guys.

You have a significant issue here which is that you are proposing to carry out a fraud and you have already laid the groundwork for a prosecution by seeking insurance for it in your own name in the first instance. The fact that your partner equally won't have it insured is further support. Realistically this is not just illegal but it's also taking the rest of us (who will have to pick up the cost of any accident) as gobshįtes.

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

+1 it's known as 'fronting' and typically involves a young driver buying a car, registering it in the Mammy's name and getting themselves on her policy as a named driver. What the OP is proposing isn't much different as far as the insurance business is concerned.

This is not even fronting, it's simple fraud. With fronting, the insurer gets, at least, to assess whether they want to take on the insured car. In this case, there will not be any policy covering the car at all. At least it won't last long as the absence of an insurance disc will likely be picked up at some stage.

coylemj

MackMack wrote: »

Doesn't the driving other cars bit require the third party car to actually be insured as well though? Didn't think it covered other cars that weren't insured.

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

This old chestnut. I've never seen a policy that stipulated that and I've seen a fair few.

No longer an urban myth, some companies have started to introduce that condition for cover under 'driving other cars'.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

What companies ? Have you actually seen a policy with that wording in it.

coylemj

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

What companies ? Have you actually seen a policy with that wording in it.

Yes, at least two of them. Believe me, I was as p1ssed off with the old myth that kept getting repeated here but it's now true for some policies. The OP's situtation tells you that it's probably a necessary condition. The other one is that a lot of insurance companies are now extending fully comp cover to driving other cars as a loyalty bonus and that condition being inserted in the policy stops that facility from being abused.

Edit....

Axa, no such condition
Aviva......

In the section 'Driving other cars' on p.17.... this cover will only apply if....

4. a current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the Driving other cars cover provided;

http://www.aviva.ie/media-library/MotorCare-Policy-Booklet.pdf

galwaytt

Dazza123 wrote: »

Im fully aware of only having 3rd party on the RR, It's only to get me past the cops if need be. I have dogs and need a reliable 4X4 its the reason i bought the range, i don't want to be driving some ****ty 4x4 that cant make it up a steep hill

..you actually won't have 3rd Party on the RR, as the premise you are attempting to insure it under is false. You will actually have no insurance at all, but are merely doing this as you admit yourself, to get a tax disc.

And as for "need a reliable 4X4 ", lolz, dunno what you bought an RR for at all then........

icjzfmq7ewon1t

coylemj wrote:

Aviva......

coylemj wrote:

In the section 'Driving other cars' on p.17.... this cover will only apply if....

coylemj wrote:

4. a current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the Driving other cars cover provided;

But have you actually seen it written into the policy document. I know a couple of people insured with Aviva and there's no such proviso in the policy wording. Don't know what's in their handbook I haven't seen them.

CiniO

Everyone seems to be attacking OP for his cunning plan, and calling it a fraud.
But I don't think that's the case. It's just how insurance system works here.

I used to do the same for a while good few years ago, and AFAIK it was all above board.

I had a car which was registered and insured in my name, and my wife added as named driver - so we could both drive it.
Then we had another car, which was registered in my wife's name, but not insured at all.
However my own policy covered me to drive other cars (which didn't belong to me), so I could drive the other car.
So on days we both needed to use the car, my wife was using our main car which had policy on it, and I was using other one without policy, using my "driving other cars" extension.
All was fully OK, and insurer couldn't do anything about it, as it was all in line with their policy terms and conditions.

We abandoned doing that though, as it was impractical.

However what OP is planning to do, looks pretty much the same to me, and I can't see where fraud bit is coming from.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

CiniO

testicles wrote: »

Third party extensions normally don't cover vehicles owned by one's spouse or partner for this reason

Some don't, some do.

unkel

CiniO, that's the very reason insurance policies these days say "don't belong to you". Mine does this as well. A car legally owned by your spouse / partner isn't owned by you, but does belong to you.

So you would drive your wife's car without insurance. Should you be liable in an accident, somebody could claim thousands, even millions and you would be personally responsible. Think about that for a moment.

Voodoomelon

I get his point though, how would the insurance company prove the car belongs to him? Even from the Gardai's point of view, they verify ownership via the log book, for example if you are asked to produce insurance details at the station. The only way they have to verify who "owns" a car is to look at the logbook.

CiniO

unkel wrote: »

CiniO, that's the very reason insurance policies these days say "don't belong to you". Mine does this as well. A car legally owned by your spouse / partner isn't owned by you, but does belong to you.

So you would drive your wife's car without insurance. Should you be liable in an accident, somebody could claim thousands, even millions and you would be personally responsible. Think about that for a moment.

Mine also says "don't belong to you".
However I enquired with them, and I have confirmation on writing that I'm covered to drive a car which is registered in my wife's name.

Effects

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

This old chestnut. I've never seen a policy that stipulated that and I've seen a fair few.

So I can buy a Ferrari, register in friend's name and drive it under third party extension of the insurance I have on my 1L Fiesta?

And insurance companies are so dumb they haven't copped on to this?

CiniO

Effects wrote: »

So I can buy a Ferrari, register in friend's name and drive it under third party extension of the insurance I have on my 1L Fiesta?

And insurance companies are so dumb they haven't copped on to this?

I don't think you'd much higher risk in ferrari than the micra.

In the end of the day, old micra would be worth nothing in case you crash it so no big lose for you.

And you might be vary of crashing a ferrari worth €100k without comprehensive cover.

Del2005

CiniO wrote: »

Mine also says "don't belong to you".
However I enquired with them, and I have confirmation on writing that I'm covered to drive a car which is registered in my wife's name.

You have an insurable interest in it though, that's how married couples are allowed to take out a policy on property in their spouses name. What you are saying contradicts this, in that your spouses property isn't yours. Even the courts rule that a spouse owns half of the property even if their name isn't on the ownership documents. Was the letter from a broker or the underwriters?

CiniO

Del2005 wrote: »

You have an insurable interest in it though, that's how married couples are allowed to take out a policy on property in their spouses name. What you are saying contradicts this, in that your spouses property isn't yours. Even the courts rule that a spouse owns half of the property even if their name isn't on the ownership documents. Was the letter from a broker or the underwriters?

Yes, but insurable interest doesn't matter IMO, as we are only talking about third party cover.

It was letter from underwriter - bought policy directly from them.

Del2005

CiniO wrote: »

Yes, but insurable interest doesn't matter IMO, as we are only talking about third party cover.

It was letter from underwriter - bought policy directly from them.

The courts have ruled that a spouse half owns property regardless of the name on the document. So technically you owned the car.

But you had a letter from the underwriter so were legit. I wonder what would of happened if you crashed into each other

unkel

CiniO wrote: »

Mine also says "don't belong to you".
However I enquired with them, and I have confirmation on writing that I'm covered to drive a car which is registered in my wife's name.

Wow. Well first off, fair play that you enquired and got confirmation!

I'm very surprised by this though. I'll enquire myself with my insurer.

coylemj

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

But have you actually seen it written into the policy document.

1. Yes I did, I copied and pasted the text from the policy document. The quoted text is in italics in my post following the convention used on boards.

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

I know a couple of people insured with Aviva and there's no such proviso in the policy wording. Don't know what's in their handbook I haven't seen them.

2. Maybe you should read my post (#27) again. This time you may notice that I provided the page number and a link to the current Aviva policy document.

coylemj

Del2005 wrote: »

The courts have ruled that a spouse half owns property regardless of the name on the document. So technically you owned the car.

I think you'll find that that applies in a divorce situation, not everyday life.

Otherwise, the effect of what you're claiming would be that if a husband crashed into his wife's car and wrote it off, she would only be able to sue him for half the value since he would be at the loss of the other half. If he had third party cover only, that would be the limit of the claim.

The Married Womans's Property Act 1882 established that a married woman could own and buy and sell property in her own right i.e. separate from her husband.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

coylemj wrote:

1. Yes I did, I copied and pasted the text from the policy document. The quoted text is in italics in my post following the convention used on boards.

coylemj wrote:

2. Maybe you should read my post (#27) again. This time you may notice that I provided the page number and a link to the current Aviva policy document.

I'm not talking about what's in a booklet. When I say policy document I mean the cert that's posted out when you pay your premium which has the disc for the window as part of it. It's what's included in that that matters not what's in some page of a booklet.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

Effects wrote:

So I can buy a Ferrari, register in friend's name and drive it under third party extension of the insurance I have on my 1L Fiesta?

You can. You won't have a disc for the window but you'll have third party insurance cover.

Luap

Think it will only cover up to 1.6l could be wrong though!

icjzfmq7ewon1t

Luap wrote:

Think it will only cover up to 1.6l could be wrong though!

Another myth

Allinall

Utmost good faith.

Covers an awful lot.

Marcusm

Monica Dirty Surface wrote: »

I'm not talking about what's in a booklet. When I say policy document I mean the cert that's posted out when you pay your premium which has the disc for the window as part of it. It's what's included in that that matters not what's in some page of a booklet.

Nope; the cert carries the name, address, ref details and information as to whether it's comprehensive, toft, whether driving other cars is included etc. The booklet from which coylemj has quoted is an integral part of the insurance contract and, if you check the cert, you'll see that the two must be read in conjunction to find all the Ts&Cs applicable to the policy.

icjzfmq7ewon1t

Marcusm wrote:

Nope; the cert carries the name, address, ref details and information as to whether it's comprehensive, toft, whether driving other cars is included etc. The booklet from which coylemj has quoted is an integral part of the insurance contract and, if you check the cert, you'll see that the two must be read in conjunction to find all the Ts&Cs applicable to the policy.

How many times has a guard asked you to produce your booklet within ten days

scamalert

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Can't advise you regarding that or recommend you do it either, insurance companies are very wise to this kind of thing, if they discover the RR is primarily driven by you in the event of a claim, they will not cover you and could potentially sue you for any costs arising from an accident you may cause.

unless smth changed in last 5 years insurance companies dont give a crap who is insured or who is driving believe me,prob every third person who has kids or family is doing that on daily basis,if one looked at database what car is insured and whos and most likely who main driver is wouldn't make much to find out that most people who are on named policy are actually full time users of vehicle,since given current insurance prices cant see how mentally anyone under 25yr age bracket with new license could afford to fork out 3k+ for few years.

Had spoken with neihgboor in the past and hes old guy and he told me in the past insurers used to push for people to put named drivers on,since in many cases if accident happens they slap you with unreal excess and no point to turn away.

I see them ads for dont scam insurance but in reality they dont bother investigating who uses car on daily basis,since it would be hard to prove if one decided to go to shop or maybe was using when other person didn't need it,and if accident happens guards only concern is to see your name somwhere on the policy to that vehicle,no other interest.