Advice please on using parent's car almost permanently

There's a certain irony in asking other taxpayers advice on how you can swing things to ensure you get more money from them and increase their tax burden.

Toom

Not sure about the bit where you suggest only an owner can insure a car but you would be best asking an Ins Company that you want to insure with or consult a broker ...Probably OK so long as you have it in writing ( for your own peace of mind in case of future disputes) from the Ins Co that they are aware that you are the sole driver .Would you be doing this through your mothers existing insurer ? That might make it easier .

Why do you need legal aid? Don't you have "family legal protection" insurance which covers that sort of thing?

In fact, I wasn't aware you could even *get* legal aid for pursuing a claim (as opposed to defending one).

If your chances of winning are so slim that no lawyer will agree to take you on NWNF basis, perhaps you should just not bother.

How long is the action expected to last? Can't she just wait until it's all over and then give you a car?

I don't think there's any problem in principle with that.

If you say that, then presumably you haven't owned a car before, and so waiting the few months the case will last shouldn't matter that much in terms of your starting to build up a discount history. This applies irrespective of whether she lends you a car or not.

There's the thing. She would not have any NCB to lose. The discount she has earned over the years will apply to her existing car. If she adds a second car, I don't think she would get the same percentage off *both* premiums, but only the one. This would especially be the case with an added named driver without any history.

How about a motor scooter?

Yes. Just ask for that, and have her say you would be the main driver.

Not against fire/theft, possibly for third party only, but it would be harder to find a company prepared to do that.

Make sure that she says it would normally be there.

If she has another car, it would be a new policy and not affect her old NCB. If she has some NCB and no car, it would make sense to the insurer that she wanted a car for her son to drive her around in. Although 130 miles might be a bit much for some of them

You, and your mother, must make sure that you declare all relevant facts to the insurer. That includes, but is not limited to, who is the main driver and where the car is usually kept. Whilst the chances of detection may be low what you are proposing is being done specifically to defraud the legal aid system. If you and your mother are unscrupulous, and prepared to take the risk of imprisonment, then go ahead.

Peter Crosland

...

I looked at doing that when I was a student, admittedly a long time ago now, and the insurance company stated that it would invalidate the insurance, as it has to be in the name of the main driver.

Colin Bignell

Not a problem in the Op's situation .Mother buys car so she is the owner .Son becomes the registered keeper and it gets insured in his name .Sorted . Stuart

I tried insuring a car, "not as the keeper" and the quotes where 4 times that of me being the keeper.

And yes, I know that the keeper is not the owner, but there is no official way of documenting them being different people

tim

Prexactly. I don't see any problem with doing just that. Everything aboveboard, and as far as the OP and legal aid is concerned, the cars value can't be counted as an asset. Mike.

"nightjar .me.uk>"

insurance, as

Sounds like bullshit. What's their definition of "main driver"? If it's the obvious of "the person who drives the most", then are couples who share a car in trouble if they use the car approximately equally but the one who uses it slightly more isn't the one whose name the insurance is in? What if they can't predict in advance who will use it more?

I would imagine there are rules for this sort of arrangement in the same way as there are for benefits, otherwise you could simply give all you own including your house to someone you trust, like your mother, and claim to have no capital.

Except in this case the Op is not giving away an asset . His mother buys a car and it remains her property .She just allows her son to use it on an ongoing basis .He has no title to it. Sounds OK to me

Strange. I have had no similar problems with insuring a lease-hire car.

It might be regarded as a gift, if the mother never uses the car. Benefits rules would almost certainly regard such an arrangement as being a gift is disguise (and therefore treat the car as the son's property whatever the legal title is), I'd image legal aid rules are similar.

Being the registered keeper does not affect whether you are the main driver. Only the owner can insure against loss of the car (fire, theft, vandalism, accidental).

Insurance companies do object to this practice. The main driver should be the policy holder.

Surely you are the keeper and the lease company have some evidence that they own it, because that is what they do for a business.

But this is not the same in a 'family' relationship, If the OP's mother buys the car, with him as the keeper, he is going to have one difficult job convincing people that he doesn't own it.

tim

Why? His mother would have the receipts etc. Maybe it might be easier to show non-ownership if the OP were to 'hire' the car from his mother, paying her a nominal amount (say £1.00 per month). This would counter any claim that the car was a gift from his mother.

I don't. I agree with Stuart B. AFAIK an asset is something which has a realisable financial value for it's owner. Such as shares, capital, ins policies, property etc. If that is the case, it would not include a car that is owned by someone else, even if they did have use of it. Mike.