Does changing ownership affect insurance or tax?

k mac

Sorry to bump old thread. Similar question and problem. I have a car which I am the registered owner and it's insured in my name. It's a car I don't use as I have a work vehicle which I got after I bought the car but have kept the car insured as I want a policy in my own name. The car is also ncted but without tax as I don't use it.
Now my problem is a relative has came home from abroad for 2 months and I want to let him make use of the car and save renting one. I have put him on the insurance but in order to tax it I would need to back tax it for 2 years. However someone advised me to transfer the ownership of the car to him and he can then tax it for 3 months and transfer the car back to me when he goes back. Problem is if I'm not the registered owner but I'm the insurance policy holder will this make the insurance void.?

biko

Moved out from old thread.

ironclaw

Axiom of most insurance policies is that you must suffer from the loss of the article you insure e.g. You must have an interest in the article. If a car not registered to you nor cost you anything gets burnt out, why would you care? One could make good money insuring cars they don't own and have no financial loss from if damaged, then claim when they are damaged.

Check with your insurance provider, most if not all require that the car be registered in the same name as the policy holder. There are some exceptions however but I think its limited to businesses and legal spouses, partners etc.

Blut2

ironclaw wrote: »

Axiom of most insurance policies is that you must suffer from the loss of the article you insure e.g. You must have an interest in the article. If a car not registered to you nor cost you anything gets burnt out, why would you care? One could make good money insuring cars they don't own and have no financial loss from if damaged, then claim when they are damaged.

Check with your insurance provider, most if not all require that the car be registered in the same name as the policy holder. There are some exceptions however but I think its limited to businesses and legal spouses, partners etc.

I would have thought it would be very easy to prove an insurable interest in a car even if you don't own it. If I use a car one day a week then I have an insurable interest in it not being burnt out, regardless of who owns it.

bazz26

The insurance company will insist on the policy holder being the registered owner ie the person who has an insurable interest in the car, who would suffer a financial loss if the car were damaged or destroyed.

Atlantic Dawn

One way for the tax would be to sell and buy back a week later, however the problem could be that the insurer may not give you a new policy on the car because it's an old car or because it's an old car you have just come in to posession of.

ironclaw

Blut2 wrote: »

I would have thought it would be very easy to prove an insurable interest in a car even if you don't own it. If I use a car one day a week then I have an insurable interest in it not being burnt out, regardless of who owns it.

Depends on your 'loss'

If the car brought you to and from work, and you didn't own it, but not having that car would cost you financially, you could insure that eventuality. But that's not the same as the OP is discussing here. The insurance the OP needs is full whack insurance e.g. If the car is burnt out or is involved in a collision that injuries another party etc etc. Hence the insurance is both on the asset (the pure financial loss and cost) and the OP themselves (Their legal liability costs etc as required by law)

Its very tricky to insure a car that you don't have registered in your name. Its possible but not common.

uck51js9zml2yt

tax stays with the vehicle, not the owner