The Lemon Fool

My son has just called me with a worrying tale; any guidance appreciated.

He part exchanged his car with a main dealer (Bristol Street Motors) in August 2022 for a newer more expensive model. They said they would complete the transfer of ownership paperwork (he now knows he should have done this). He then moved house and has just collected his mail from the old house and has a number of letters from DVLA, and more worryingly a Magistrate's Court letter inviting him to plead guilty or face a trial for failure to insure the car on 10 Jan 2023, some 5 months after he sold it.

He seems to have a short window in which he can pay a "fine" of £100 to the Magistrates Court, or go to court for a hearing. He has proof from Bristol Street Motors that he sold it in August 2022.

What should he do?

He wants the issue to be resolved and is willing to pay the £100 tomorrow, but does not want a CCJ or indeed any reference to being 'guilty' of the offence to hang around next time he applies for his insurance renewal.

I am at a loss as to what to say he should do.

Hi,
I know it doesn't help your son but may help others. I just part ex'd and bought a car from Available Car, Cannock. They did the transfers on line while I was sat there and I got the confirmation emails on my phone there and then. It takes all of five minutes. No real reason to 'Do it later' these days apart from no internet access.
Ray.

Firstly, he should go online and make sure he is no longer the owner, assuming that is even possible as he probably handed over the entire V5 document.

I suggests he replies to the Court with a copy of the evidence that he had sold the vehicle, apologising for any confusion, and explaining that he believed the dealer would take car of the paperwork.

He should also look at the DVLA info and provide them with the same evidence and respond to any of the letters he has had from them.

The Court letter is possibly less of an issue than DVLA if it is addressed promptly - his failure to fill a form in and post it is the error he made (I wouldn't suggest claiming he had posted it and it never arrived). Technically he didn't fail to insure the vehicle, he couldn't insure it as he no longer had an insurable interest in the vehicle.

The DVLA have strict rules and penalties for not notifying them of a change of owner, however the subsequent failure to tax or insure a vehicle he no longer owns is down to a failure on the part of the new owner to register it. If he has numerous DVLA letters, it is possible/probable the new owner tried to register it, in which case they would write to the registered keeper asking them to respond and confirm/deny sale of the vehicle. AIUI they have a limited time to respond before a new Keeper V5 document is issued.

Paul

Bobwood wrote:My son has just called me with a worrying tale; any guidance appreciated.

He part exchanged his car with a main dealer (Bristol Street Motors) in August 2022 for a newer more expensive model. They said they would complete the transfer of ownership paperwork (he now knows he should have done this). He then moved house and has just collected his mail from the old house and has a number of letters from DVLA, and more worryingly a Magistrate's Court letter inviting him to plead guilty or face a trial for failure to insure the car on 10 Jan 2023, some 5 months after he sold it.

He seems to have a short window in which he can pay a "fine" of £100 to the Magistrates Court, or go to court for a hearing. He has proof from Bristol Street Motors that he sold it in August 2022.

What should he do?

He wants the issue to be resolved and is willing to pay the £100 tomorrow, but does not want a CCJ or indeed any reference to being 'guilty' of the offence to hang around next time he applies for his insurance renewal.

I am at a loss as to what to say he should do.

1. Very important: What is the charge? Get all the details from your son, including the exact part of the law quoted. Maybe post it here.
2. Then, go and read the law, and decide whether your son is guilty of the actual charge against him.
3. Check the documentation carefully for any mistakes -- out of time, wrong dates, wrong name, date of birth, anything.
4. Based on 2 or 3 you and he need to decide whether he will plead guilty. If he pays the fine he is effectively pleading guilty, so he must not do that if he is innocent of the charge. Better to present a defence and have it taken to court. If the defence is good then it's likely he will not even be prosecuted.
5. Don't panic. Go through all the steps carefully so he knows where he stands before doing something rash.

I am not a lawyer. Hopefully one will be along at some point.

GS

As far as I can see from the gov.uk page (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-policy), the 'fine' mentioned by the OP is likely to be a fixed penalty notice. Unless he really has a defence to the charge of not notifying DVLA of the sale (IMHO from the facts stated, he probably doesn't), he would be best advised to pay, or he'll end up being prosecuted for failure to pay.

Have you/he checked the vehicle status at https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk ? If it's now SORN, or taxed since he sold it, the new keeper must have notified DVLA and been able to insure and tax it. So the only offence remaining would be failure to notify.

chas49 wrote:As far as I can see from the gov.uk page (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-policy), the 'fine' mentioned by the OP is likely to be a fixed penalty notice. Unless he really has a defence to the charge of not notifying DVLA of the sale (IMHO from the facts stated, he probably doesn't), he would be best advised to pay, or he'll end up being prosecuted for failure to pay.

Have you/he checked the vehicle status at https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk ? If it's now SORN, or taxed since he sold it, the new keeper must have notified DVLA and been able to insure and tax it. So the only offence remaining would be failure to notify.

I've drawn the same conclusion as you Chas, that it's a fixed penalty notice for the lesser charge of "Keeping a vehicle without insurance" rather than driving one. He paid the fine at the first opportunity, and has written to, and telephoned the DVLA to explain he sold the car last summer. Bristol Street Motors won't give him a copy of the log book that he handed over, due to data protection (ironically, he has no legal right to see their copy), so he can't use the online facility to informing them that way.

I found this website to be useful: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring ... insurance/

Scroll down the article to the Section titled "Keeping a Vehicle without Insurance", it's quite a way down. It says you are liable for a Fixed Penalty notice of £100 but no penalty points.

Then read on from the lower heading "Keeping without insurance penalties" and "What to do if you are accused of keeping with no insurance" and then "In Practice". It looks like you just pay the fine and move on.

I have no doubt whatsoever that BSM (and other dealers) perform this trick routinely such that they can pass cars through to auction without them touching their books. It's wilfully misleading IMHO, and they should be ashamed. He should have read the V5C properly, but when a main dealer says "leave that, we'll do it" you kind of expect them to act accordingly. Shame on them.

What I don't know is whether it will up his premium in future years. I hope not, he isn't the wealthiest of people, but is an honest lad trying to live his life cleanly, and without debt.

Bobwood wrote:He part exchanged his car with a main dealer (Bristol Street Motors) in August 2022 for a newer more expensive model. They said they would complete the transfer of ownership paperwork (he now knows he should have done this).

Actually the DVLA state that a dealer buying the car can do this, and my experience with dealers is some are quite pushy about wanting to -

https://insidedvla.blog.gov.uk/2021/05/ ... r-vehicle/

“If you sell your vehicle to a motor trader or garage or need to tell us the vehicle is scrapped or written off

With your consent, the trader can tell DVLA that you’ve sold the vehicle to them online - just give them the V5C and ask them to use the online service to tell us straight away. You, as the vehicle keeper, are legally responsible for the vehicle until the motor trader or garage informs us of the sale and your details have been removed from the vehicle record.

If you prefer, you can tell DVLA online that you’ve sold or transferred a vehicle yourself by using the 11-digit document reference number on the yellow slip (V5C/3).”

Since the dealer offered to do it, then I would argue that it was part of the contract of selling the car, a part which they failed to do and now should compensate your son for their error.

I suggest a ‘letter before action’ to the Dealer Principal requesting they compensate for the fine and confirm that the necessary action with the DVLA has now been completed.

Sure there is the issue of proving what was said when the sale took place, but is a dealership really going to want to send staff to a court to defend it - particularly if a question is raised about the normal processes, i.e. if 99% of the cars they buy they do process the change of ownership with the DVLA then it would not be very believable that they hadn’t offered it on this occasion and far more likely they had just failed to do it.

Bobwood wrote:

chas49 wrote:As far as I can see from the gov.uk page (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-policy), the 'fine' mentioned by the OP is likely to be a fixed penalty notice. Unless he really has a defence to the charge of not notifying DVLA of the sale (IMHO from the facts stated, he probably doesn't), he would be best advised to pay, or he'll end up being prosecuted for failure to pay.

Have you/he checked the vehicle status at https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk ? If it's now SORN, or taxed since he sold it, the new keeper must have notified DVLA and been able to insure and tax it. So the only offence remaining would be failure to notify.

I've drawn the same conclusion as you Chas, that it's a fixed penalty notice for the lesser charge of "Keeping a vehicle without insurance" rather than driving one. He paid the fine at the first opportunity, and has written to, and telephoned the DVLA to explain he sold the car last summer. Bristol Street Motors won't give him a copy of the log book that he handed over, due to data protection (ironically, he has no legal right to see their copy), so he can't use the online facility to informing them that way.

I found this website to be useful: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring ... insurance/

Scroll down the article to the Section titled "Keeping a Vehicle without Insurance", it's quite a way down. It says you are liable for a Fixed Penalty notice of £100 but no penalty points.

Then read on from the lower heading "Keeping without insurance penalties" and "What to do if you are accused of keeping with no insurance" and then "In Practice". It looks like you just pay the fine and move on.

I have no doubt whatsoever that BSM (and other dealers) perform this trick routinely such that they can pass cars through to auction without them touching their books. It's wilfully misleading IMHO, and they should be ashamed. He should have read the V5C properly, but when a main dealer says "leave that, we'll do it" you kind of expect them to act accordingly. Shame on them.

What I don't know is whether it will up his premium in future years. I hope not, he isn't the wealthiest of people, but is an honest lad trying to live his life cleanly, and without debt.

Good God! You learn something new every day! I knew about SORN and road tax, but had no idea about the insurance!

The charge of keeping a vehicle without insurance should not be confused with using a vehicle without insurance.
“Using” is the one that most people will know and covers any person who drives or permits someone to drive a car without insurance. The offence carries 6-8 penalty points.
“Keeping” is very different and doesn’t require any person to drive the car – merely keep it without a policy in place.
In accordance with Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1998 if you are found to be the registered keeper of a vehicle without the required insurance you will be subject to a fixed penalty notice of £100 – but no penalty points.

As long as I can remember, someone in our family occasionally had a car that they weren't using for months, for many reasons. They simply kept it in the garage, kept the road tax up to date, but cancelled the insurance. Then, the day before wanting to use it again, they simply phoned the insurance agency and re-started the policy.

So, without a SORN, are you really supposed to keep a car insured, even if it's in a locked garage and never used?

Steve

stevensfo wrote:So, without a SORN, are you really supposed to keep a car insured, even if it's in a locked garage and never used?

You've already answered that yourself.

Scott.

stevensfo wrote:So, without a SORN, are you really supposed to keep a car insured, even if it's in a locked garage and never used?

You certainly are - continuous insurance was the term used politically when it was introduced. If its off the road and you don't want to insure it then you have to declare it SORN.

The purpose was to stop all sorts of tricks the less honest were using to avoid insuring their cars, but as usual it is the honest who tend to end up in trouble when they fail to jump through the hoops, and the less honest just find other ways of avoiding paying for insurance whilst continuing to drive around.

stevensfo wrote:
As long as I can remember, someone in our family occasionally had a car that they weren't using for months, for many reasons. They simply kept it in the garage, kept the road tax up to date, but cancelled the insurance. Then, the day before wanting to use it again, they simply phoned the insurance agency and re-started the policy.

So, without a SORN, are you really supposed to keep a car insured, even if it's in a locked garage and never used?

Steve

I am similarly taken aback. For much of my life I've owned more than one vehicle, routinely keeping unused vehicles off the road, untaxed and uninsured. I had no idea this was an offence.

I'm sure it wasn't back in the mists of time when I first took an interest in cars. When did it change? Or has this always been the case that every vehicle in existence must be insured?

Edit to add: Oh I see, SORNing releases one from this requirement.

Mike4 wrote:

stevensfo wrote:As long as I can remember, someone in our family occasionally had a car that they weren't using for months, for many reasons. They simply kept it in the garage, kept the road tax up to date, but cancelled the insurance. Then, the day before wanting to use it again, they simply phoned the insurance agency and re-started the policy.

So, without a SORN, are you really supposed to keep a car insured, even if it's in a locked garage and never used?

I am similarly taken aback. For much of my life I've owned more than one vehicle, routinely keeping unused vehicles off the road, untaxed and uninsured. I had no idea this was an offence.

I'm sure it wasn't back in the mists of time when I first took an interest in cars. When did it change? Or has this always been the case that every vehicle in existence must be insured?

Edit to add: Oh I see, SORNing releases one from this requirement.

It has been a thing since SORN became a thing, whenever that was.

Like you I have routinely kept cars off the road and never worried about taxing or insuring them. And as long as they were not used then it is unlikely there would ever be a problem. But now it seems they try and make you submit a formal declaration for that. Hopefully that is not just so more revenue can be squeezed out of us.

Lootman wrote:

Mike4 wrote:I am similarly taken aback. For much of my life I've owned more than one vehicle, routinely keeping unused vehicles off the road, untaxed and uninsured. I had no idea this was an offence.

I'm sure it wasn't back in the mists of time when I first took an interest in cars. When did it change? Or has this always been the case that every vehicle in existence must be insured?

Edit to add: Oh I see, SORNing releases one from this requirement.

It has been a thing since SORN became a thing, whenever that was.

No, continuous insurance came in in 2011, SORN has been around a lot longer than that.

Scott.

Lootman wrote:Hopefully that is not just so more revenue can be squeezed out of us.

The political argument is that it was to keep uninsured cars off the road.

Prior to continuous insurance it was difficult for the authorities to prove a car was being uninsured. If it was taxed and parked, but not insured then the registered keeper would just say it was never used, so the authorities needed to catch someone actually using it. And then when they did there was the issue of the Driving Other Cars clause, that at the time often didn't require the 'other' car to be insured in its own right, and so you could own multiple cars and insure only one, or even have one person in the family insure one and everyone else pretend to be that person.

Has it had an effect - amongst the honest it has, people now tend to jump through the hoop to avoid the penalty, but it is still possible to avoid it if you are dishonest - cloned plates, trade policies, registered keeper gone overseas, etc.

AF62 wrote:there was the issue of the Driving Other Cars clause, that at the time often didn't require the 'other' car to be insured in its own right, and so you could own multiple cars and insure only one, or even have one person in the family insure one and everyone else pretend to be that person.

I guess the question is ultimately whether it is drivers or vehicles that need to be insured.

If I have a policy saying that I am insured to drive any vehicle then where is the need to separately insure each of those cars, assuming nobody else drives them?

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:there was the issue of the Driving Other Cars clause, that at the time often didn't require the 'other' car to be insured in its own right, and so you could own multiple cars and insure only one, or even have one person in the family insure one and everyone else pretend to be that person.

I guess the question is ultimately whether it is drivers or vehicles that need to be insured.

If I have a policy saying that I am insured to drive any vehicle then where is the need to separately insure each of those cars, assuming nobody else drives them?

Well, in Italy, you insure the car. I think there are conditions like min/max age, minimum time of holding licence etc, but in theory, anyone can then drive the car. It makes life much easier!

Re. Declaration to DVLA, our car was written off while living in the UK and my uncle who owned a garage, sold us an old banger that had terrible steering. However, I used it to drive down to Italy when I started a new job there. After a year, I ran over a large rock and the car was declared not worth repairing. It was only after I'd taken it for demolition that I discovered that I'd never been the registered owner. My uncle had obviously promised to send the forms off but had forgotten.

The Italian demolition boss made me take the old GB number plates, standard practice to stop criminals stealing the car before demolition and using it for robberies. I though it was overkill, but then had visions of the original owner being woken up at 3am by a group of British police, carabinieri and Interpol.

This was 20 years ago. Obviously, things have changed!

Steve

Lootman wrote:I guess the question is ultimately whether it is drivers or vehicles that need to be insured.

If I have a policy saying that I am insured to drive any vehicle then where is the need to separately insure each of those cars, assuming nobody else drives them?

The problem is that you are looking from the position of an honest person - *you* know you will only be driving an insured car, but the trouble is that the police don’t know that and can’t check unless they stop you when driving, identify who you are, then run your details through the insurance database.

If you are content with a massive increase in police presence and police stops, plus a mandatory requirement to carry a government ID card whilst driving, then personal rather than vehicle insurance would work, but I doubt most people would be happy with that.

Hopefully your son included legal cover when taking out his insurance, car or otherwise, because this is exactly the kind of circumstance where it would become useful. I would imagine he would be able to get quick advise over the phone as to how to progress with it