Car transfered into persons name without consent.

gabe1977

Hi folks.
Just wondering where my wife stands in the following situation.
Basically her brother who is a bit of a scrot(thats a whole other issue) had a car which tax was out for nearly 12 months decided to transfer his car into my wifes name without her knowledge so he could tax it without having to back tax it.
So my concern is what would be the ramifications if he had an accident etc with the car when its in her name and who knows if he even has it insured or NCT'd.
Needless to say we're not impressed as he obviuosly forged her signature on the log book to change ownership plus its a sneeky thing to do anyway.

Gumbo

Did the log book arrive to your house in your wife's name?

gabe1977

kceire wrote: »

Did the log book arrive to your house in your wife's name?

No. It went to her home address where said brother lives with their parents

Del2005

You can change address when doing online tax. Tax for 3 months, change address, request lost VLC and then sell it.

ancuncha

I'm told by my brokers that if the log book doesn't have the same name as the person insuring the car, it's worthless.

So, if the scrot has an accident and it's his insurance, but your wifes the "owner" there is no insurance. Then as he'll probably say it's not his car, i don't know if they can go after the "owner" of the car or the person driving then

I'd get it out of her name asap, try ringing Shannon

uck51js9zml2yt

Get onto Shannon on Monday and tell them a car has been transferred into her name and its not her car. She should also inform the guards.

mikeecho

I'd take the car and hide it for a few days.

Should be fun if he tries to report a stolen car that he no longer owns.

CiniO

Take the car off him, and sell it.
Keep the cash.

CJhaughey

I'd report it stolen.

ThisRegard

ancuncha wrote: »

I'm told by my brokers that if the log book doesn't have the same name as the person insuring the car, it's worthless.

Not a great broker so. You can insure your husband's/wife's car in your name for example.

gabe1977

ancuncha wrote: »

I'm told by my brokers that if the log book doesn't have the same name as the person insuring the car, it's worthless.

So, if the scrot has an accident and it's his insurance, but your wifes the "owner" there is no insurance. Then as he'll probably say it's not his car, i don't know if they can go after the "owner" of the car or the person driving then

I'd get it out of her name asap, try ringing Shannon

Thats my main concern. God forbid there was a serious incident and personnel injuries etc and there was any issue over ownership/responsibilty for the car, my concern would be my wife would end up being liable.

Sam Kade

mikeecho wrote: »

I'd take the car and hide it for a few days.

Should be fun if he tries to report a stolen car that he no longer owns.

Probably worth less that the cost of taxing it.

gabe1977

mikeecho wrote: »

I'd take the car and hide it for a few days.

Should be fun if he tries to report a stolen car that he no longer owns.

Get onto Shannon on Monday and tell them a car has been transferred into her name and its not her car. She should also inform the guards.

I'dove to teach the little p€@#k a lesson like mentioned above but it wouldnt be worth the aggro he would cause. Trust me, he's a proven track record!!

gabe1977

mikeecho wrote: »

I'd take the car and hide it for a few days.

Should be fun if he tries to report a stolen car that he no longer owns.

Preferably with him in it :-P

Isambard

transfer it into someone elses name and then see how he proposes to regain it.

mikeecho

Isambard wrote: »

transfer it into someone elses name and then see how he proposes to regain it.

Now that's a great idea.
It'll be months before he realises it.

colm_mcm

He should put it back in his own name now.

How did he get her to signs the transfer?

Avada

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How did he get her to signs the transfer?

He forged her signature.

evolving_doors

Tell his mammy

jelutong

Be prepared for potential parking fines,points on license etc, to land in your letterbox.

CeilingFly

jelutong wrote: »

Be prepared for potential parking fines,points on license etc, to land in your letterbox.

That's the primary danger as the registered owner.

Add M50 tolls if you are in the Dublin area.

I'd write to motor reg office in Shannon and declare that you did not purchase the car and did not put your signature to any documents.

Pete67

Just wondering how you found out he transferred it? Definitely send a registered letter to Shannon stating that you are not the owner of the car so that there is a record when the fines start to arrive.

uck51js9zml2yt

CeilingFly wrote: »

That's the primary danger as the registered owner.

Add M50 tolls if you are in the Dublin area.

I'd write to motor reg office in Shannon and declare that you did not purchase the car and did not put your signature to any documents.

A phone call is much easier. Also a call to the local MTO. Ask for the Garda Enquiries Section. They will advise you on what to do, they see it all the time.

Isambard

Pete67 wrote: »

Just wondering how you found out he transferred it? Definitely send a registered letter to Shannon stating that you are not the owner of the car so that there is a record when the fines start to arrive.

the paperwork dropping through the letterbox would be a clue

rizzodun

Isambard wrote: »

the paperwork dropping through the letterbox would be a clue

Op already stated the scrote used his parents home address where he lives, not his sisters address

selectamatic

colm_mcm wrote: »

He should put it back in his own name now.

This.

It's not rocket science.
Your wife was/is at risk for a few days those days will end the minute she "sells" it back to him.

Reporting it stolen or any of the other suggestions while they do impact on him they'll also cause ye stress so what's the point. Just f*ck the head of him next time ye see him and as posted earlier tell his mammy.

da6xsi

Cant believe how bent out of shape some of ye get over trivial rubbish like this.

he changed logbook temporarily to tax the car fresh and not pay back tax so what the whole country does it..

his insurance would still be on the car so doesnt really matter whos name its in how could you think your wife could be liable for a crash or anything if theirs someone else driving it..on their own insurance.. even if he dont have insurance unless your wife is driving the car how could you see her being liable??

if you do get a fine or anything god forbid the shame and mortification.. theirs a part at the end of where you fill in the details of the driver..quite simple really as people actually do this the whole time so its not this treacherous scummy act your making it out to be haha

Your wife wouldnt be liable for anything and as soon as car is taxed hell be changing logbook back so whats the problem

Del2005

da6xsi wrote: »

Cant believe how bent out of shape some of ye get over trivial rubbish like this.

he changed logbook temporarily to tax the car fresh and not pay back tax so what the whole country does it..

his insurance would still be on the car so doesnt really matter whos name its in how could you think your wife could be liable for a crash or anything if theirs someone else driving it..on their own insurance.. even if he dont have insurance unless your wife is driving the car how could you see her being liable??

if you do get a fine or anything god forbid the shame and mortification.. theirs a part at the end of where you fill in the details of the driver..quite simple really as people actually do this the whole time so its not this treacherous scummy act your making it out to be haha

Your wife wouldnt be liable for anything and as soon as car is taxed hell be changing logbook back so whats the problem

If someone is cheeky enough to change the ownership of their car to someone else without asking I doubt that they will be willing to accept the penalty points or fines.

Jobs OXO

Report to your local Garda station. He might get a few months in the joy - could straighten out his ways

da6xsi

Del2005 wrote: »

If someone is cheeky enough to change the ownership of their car to someone else without asking I doubt that they will be willing to accept the penalty points or fines.

Once the registered owner has notified whoever of the actual driver its out of their hands then and if ever it did somehow make it to a court room which it wouldnt it would be thrown out straight away.

there are no circumstances in which the OP wife could be liable for anything. People drive other peoples cars everyday of course the system has allowances and such in place for this.

His wife can hardly be liable for something while shes sitting in work/home 50 miles away from wherever this hypothetical situation would take place

da6xsi

Jobs OXO wrote: »

Report to your local Garda station. He might get a few months in the joy - could straighten out his ways

a few months in the joy for signing a logbook into a relatives name to save on tax hahaha

i dunno whats worse

fact you see it as a criminal offence worthy of jail or that you think the guards would take you seriously over a logbook of a car its a very very common scenario common practice for years in this country for people avoiding back tax.

LaLa2004

I thought you had to own an item before you could insure it.

He cannot have an insurance policy on his sister's car.

ba_barabus

da6xsi wrote: »

a few months in the joy for signing a logbook into a relatives name to save on tax hahaha

i dunno whats worse

fact you see it as a criminal offence worthy of jail or that you think the guards would take you seriously over a logbook of a car its a very very common scenario common practice for years in this country for people avoiding back tax.

It's not common for years as it's only been an issue for 2.

It's also illegal to forge someone's signature.

The bottom line here is they didn't ask if the ops wife was ok with this. Clearly they're not.

And yes I would be ****ed off if for some reason the Gardai called to my door asking questions about a car I didn't own but was the registered keeper of.

da6xsi

LaLa2004 wrote: »

I thought you had to own an item before you could insure it.

He cannot have an insurance policy on his sister's car.

If he was clever enough hed only have to be uninsured technically for 24 hours.

signs logbook into her name for 1/9 when logbook arrives send it back of dated 2/9 were gone past the date anyways so hes already the owner again of the car regardless of when shannon gets it the document is legal if he signs it 2/9 hes covered 100%

ba_barabus

da6xsi wrote: »

If he was clever enough hed only have to be uninsured technically for 24 hours.

signs logbook into her name for 1/9 when logbook arrives send it back of dated 2/9 were gone past the date anyways so hes already the owner again of the car regardless of when shannon gets it the document is legal if he signs it 2/9 hes covered 100%

Has he done this?

Uninsured for 24hrs with the car parked up isn't a massive deal but being realistic he probably was driving around.

da6xsi

ba_barabus wrote: »

It's not common for years as it's only been an issue for 2.

It's also illegal to forge someone's signature.

The bottom line here is they didn't ask if the ops wife was ok with this. Clearly they're not.

And yes I would be ****ed off if for some reason the Gardai called to my door asking questions about a car I didn't own but was the registered keeper of.

hows it only been an issue for 2 people have been changing logbooks between family members to dodge back tax for as long as i can remember being in the trade and i started in 2008.

it is illegal but unless these hypothetical situations happen why bother worrying about it and the wife cant be liable anyways so nothing will come of it car will be back in his name in 2-4 weeks and thats that theirs no need to be thinking of hypothetical scenarios where his wife will get screwed over somehow

jelutong

Explain " uninsured technically " .

da6xsi

ba_barabus wrote: »

Has he done this?

Uninsured for 24hrs with the car parked up isn't a massive deal but being realistic he probably was driving around.

technically uninsured a good solicitor could easily proof it was car all along so the policy would still need to cover it .

all the people who drive without nct their policies can be considered void
all the people driving unaccompanied on L plates their policies can be considered void.
changing the alloys on your car or simple parts people pay no attention to can void your policy

if we want to be technical about it insurance companies can think of plenty of ways not to pay out the only issue here is the op wife position for liability which i can promise she will not be liable for anything in any scenario

Pete67

Here's a novel idea, he could just keep his car taxed like the vast majority of law abiding motorists, and stop expecting the rest of us to pay his share. The sooner this loophole is closed the better.

da6xsi

jelutong wrote: »

Explain " uninsured technically " .

the argument presented is that the driver wont be insured because he technically isnt the owner of the vehicle for a few hours.

if he dates logbook for day after the first sale to op wife he would only have not been the owner for 24 hours but he could just say he bought the car at any point during them 24 hours and that would legally be binding enough for the insurance to have to concede he is the owner and the policy was active on the car.


He could be technically uninsured for a few hours while legally the car was someone elses but unless these hypothetical worst case scenario events happen theirs no need to be worrying about him just make sure he has it dated for an immediate re sale to himself

da6xsi

Pete67 wrote: »

Here's a novel idea, he could just keep his car taxed like the vast majority of law abiding motorists, and stop expecting the rest of us to pay his share. The sooner this loophole is closed the better.

how are we expected to pay his share? in what way does anyone "cover" someone elses unpaid motor taxes?

Car tax is extortion in this country. How are young people expected to pay tax and insurance on cars these days? have a look at road tax rates for cars pre 08 up north then check uk then check ireland when you see how harsh we have it youll see why not everyone can afford to pay road tax.

once someones car is legally insured and road worthy thats whats real and important the tax is a trivial thing whether the motor tax accounts on a computer screen read collected 10,000,000 or 10,000,300 doesnt really make a difference to anyone or anything.

ravima

owner is equally liable as driver in the event of an accident. If car is uninsured, then wife stands to lose whatever assets she owns if the MIBI have to deal with the claim and then sue her for recovery of their outlay.

As others have pointed out, registered letter to authorities in Shannon clearly stating that wife does not and never has owned the vehicle.i

Pete67

It's really simple. The state needs a certain income to provide services to society. If a section of society decide they will avoid paying motor tax every other year by transferring their car to a family member to clear the back tax, then that revenue does not accrue to the state. If, as has been claimed here that the whole country is at it, then it's not a shortfall of a few hundred, it's a sizeable gap in income for the Exchequer. This gap has to be closed, so it results in additional taxation on law-abiding members of society, who therefore are paying a portion of the share of the tax evaders. This loophole should be closed immediately.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right, if you can't afford it then you can't afford it. Find another way to get around.

CJhaughey

Pete67 wrote: »

It's really simple. This loophole should be closed immediately.

How do you propose this loophole will be closed? If we ape the UK and require vehicles to be taxed all the time then any time a car is sold the tax immediately be refunded to the previous owner. This will necessitate a huge amount of money moving in and out of tax offices daily. The system is a one way valve at present. Tax is paid and it's extremely hard to get a refund unless the car is physically scrapped or stolen and unrecovered. Any other system would mean probably more likelihood of less tax being paid as people would sell the car to someone and keep the tax while the vehicle is declared off road. The UK system has led to massive loss in tax revenue for them.

da6xsi

ravima wrote: »

owner is equally liable as driver in the event of an accident. If car is uninsured, then wife stands to lose whatever assets she owns if the MIBI have to deal with the claim and then sue her for recovery of their outlay.

As others have pointed out, registered letter to authorities in Shannon clearly stating that wife does not and never has owned the vehicle.i

if the young lad has insurance thats active on the vehicle hes liable how can they both be liable if his policy is active on the car? He might have 3rd party extension also so even if car not in his name hes still covered and liable..How can liability be shared on the case?

op wife cant be liable because either

1. his policy is active
2. 3rd party extension is active
3. he is the real owner easy to prove and removes liability from wife
4. if she is shown to be the owner at the time she only has to say he took car without her permission and shes not liable

no need to scare monger with talk of asset seizure by mibi in a worst case scenario any half decent solicitor would have it sorted in one meeting and one phone call/correspondence to the insurance company.

Pete67 wrote: »

It's really simple. The state needs a certain income to provide services to society. If a section of society decide they will avoid paying motor tax every other year by transferring their car to a family member to clear the back tax, then that revenue does not accrue to the state. If, as has been claimed here that the whole country is at it, then it's not a shortfall of a few hundred, it's a sizeable gap in income for the Exchequer. This gap has to be closed, so it results in additional taxation on law-abiding members of society, who therefore are paying a portion of the share of the tax evaders. This loophole should be closed immediately.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right, if you can't afford it then you can't afford it. Find another way to get around.

2/3 of motor tax revenue in the last few years has been given to irish water hardly a good use of the money by any means and its evident in many parts of the country that collected motor taxes aren't being reinvested into local infrastructure.

your right it is a privilege but that doesnt mean it should be so expensive that vast majority of people cant afford it aswell as insurance.

a typical young male/female who wants to drive a diesel car on a reasonable budget would have to drive a 1.9tdi the tax on a pre 08 1.9tdi along with insurance costs is ridiculous its easy when your driving 08+ cars on cheap insurance policy cos 30+

doesnt matter how hard you work i cant see how anybody below 21 is expected to afford tax/insurance/maintenance and fuel every year its crazy something obviously gets skipped and tax is the logical option make it cheaper and easier to pay and lot more people will pay.

motor tax and vrt rates are extortionate in this country thats the problem

Pete67

To start with, how about if you become the registered owner of a car that you have previously owned, you immediately become liable for any back tax owed on that car from the first day you owned it. That would close the loophole pretty comprehensively.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Isambard

CJhaughey wrote: »

How do you propose this loophole will be closed? If we ape the UK and require vehicles to be taxed all the time then any time a car is sold the tax immediately be refunded to the previous owner. This will necessitate a huge amount of money moving in and out of tax offices daily. The system is a one way valve at present. Tax is paid and it's extremely hard to get a refund unless the car is physically scrapped or stolen and unrecovered. Any other system would mean probably more likelihood of less tax being paid as people would sell the car to someone and keep the tax while the vehicle is declared off road. The UK system has led to massive loss in tax revenue for them.

It's not true that the UK require cars to be taxed all the time, they have their SORN system which is similar to ours except there is no loophole. You have the car taxed or SORNd or you get a fine in the post.
Our system is cracked, it needs fixing so that everyone with a car on the road pays their whack.

CJhaughey

Isambard wrote: »

It's not true that the UK require cars to be taxed all the time, they have their SORN system which is similar to ours except there is no loophole. You have the car taxed or SORNd or you get a fine in the post.
Our system is cracked, it needs fixing so that everyone with a car on the road pays their whack.

Their system of VED requires a car to be taxed immediately following transfer of ownership or SORN.
The tax is refunded to a previous owner after they sell the vehicle.
Our system is much more unfair in that it does not allow tax to be refunded except in certain scenarios.
And guess what? Its led to a huge increase in untaxed cars, yes this is partially the result of doing away with physical discs but also people declaring a car SORN and still driving it.
You will never get everyone in the net, and ours is onerous enough that some vehicles are simply untaxable @2350 pa.
Unless you cover every single road with an ANPR camera it will always be this way.
The Green party stood over this whole debacle and thought it was A Good Thing.
Anyway we are so far OT that I need a map to find my way back.

https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/cost-of-motoring/government-loses-millions-in-unpaid-road-tax

Pete67

Motoring has always been expensive. Go back a generation or two and it was the preserve of the well to do, your average Joe in his first job had no hope of owning and running a car. Now in real terms it's probably more affordable than it has ever been and this is reflected by the percentage of the population who are car owners compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
Everybody now feels entitled to own and drive a car, regardless of their personal circumstances. If you can't afford it you need to find another way of getting around.