bought a car saturday afternoon no tax supplyed are you able to drive it around?

[gwc1000]

gwc1000...

 

Out of curiosity (...whilst also trying to drag the Thread back ON Topic),

how often/many cars would U sell to 'Mr Average Joe Public' on an average late Sat afternoon, when U KNEW it would be extremely difficult for them to be able to Tax the vehicle that U were selling them??...

 

Do U have a cut-off time, for instance??...

Yes please let's get back on topic. As I stated in an earlier post we have a post office within four miles of us who is open Monday to Saturday until 6pm. and does road tax. I have driven many people there on a Saturday afternoon to get road tax. More often than not the vehicle isn't taken on the day of sale anyway.

Anyway back to the OP's question: No you shouldn't have driven it!

[make them aktiv runners]

I have never taken a car on the day of purchase.

 

Not being awkward gwc, think of the moral side more on those few sales where you have no evidence of insurance. It only takes a second for a driver to run a child over. Whether the driver is at fault would be irrelevant, whereas untaxed, uninsured and recently having left your garage could well be a unrecoverable disaster for your business after a factual local press report.

[MilkTrayMan]

???...What would the point be of buying a car + then leaving it on a garage forecourt uninsured???...

Whenever I have bought a car, I have ALWAYS signed on the dotted line + immediately driven the car away the same day, AFTER I have arranged my insurance.

Who would be liable, if a car was damaged/stolen, if it HAD been left on a garage forecourt over a night/weekend??...

[make them aktiv runners]

MTM stopbeing pedantic, I have only signed on the bottom line upon collection!

[MilkTrayMan]

MTAR...

I am NOT being pedantic!

My question was for gwc1000 anyway btw.

I just find it extremely strange, that both U + he seem to think that it's quite normal + ok to 'PURCHASE' a car one day, then take the car away on another day??...

My questions related to the legality of ownership/insurance liability, should anything untoward happen to said vehicle in the interim 'grey' period...

[gwc1000]

MTAR...

 

I am NOT being pedantic!

My question was for gwc1000 anyway btw.

 

I just find it extremely strange, that both U + he seem to think that it's quite normal + ok to 'PURCHASE' a car one day, then take the car away on another day??...

 

My questions related to the legality of ownership/insurance liability, should anything untoward happen to said vehicle in the interim 'grey' period...

Well, normally the customer has only left a deposit, so should something happen to the car in the meantime, for instance be stolen, I would return the deposit and either try and sell them something else or if nothing took their fancy I would accept that I have lost them. I would then make a claim on my own insurance. If the car has been paid for outright, and it was stolen from my premises, morally I would still feel liable and give them a complete refund and make a claim. Obviously when making a claim on a trader's policy you would only normally get a "trade value" on the car.

Remember, when buying a car or for that matter anything at auction the item becomes your responsibility as soon as the hammer falls. The auction will take no responsibility after the hammer comes down. So if say you buy a house at auction at 1pm and it gets burgled or vandalised at 1.15pm it is down to you.

[crash3903]

I think everyone needs to calm down a bit here. Some of the comments are starting to get into territory that could be viewed as quite dangerous

 

The idea of this forum is to exchange views and not legal opinion.

 

For those of you that don't know, it is the user/owner of the vehicle to prove that they had insurance at the time they were driving on the road. It is not for the prosecution to prove they weren't.

 

As far as I am concerned, as soon as the sale is complete the new owner is responsible for having the relevant documents including tax and insurance. There is no conspiracy. If you really want to push the point make sure you also have a bail of hay in your boot (taxi drivers) and a man with a sign walking in front of you.

[advisee]

The idea of this forum is to exchange views and not legal opinion.

 

This forum seems a lot worse than most others, in that there are a large number of people who will happily post what they _think_ is the truth, without either qualifying it, or checking it first. As I said a few pages earlier, some of them don't seem to have any knowledge/experience of how the REAL WORLD operates.

 

Theres a garage in my home town, I have the image in my head now, typical back street couple-of-hundred-quid place, I can just imagine some of these little Hitlers saying to the burly rough blokes who run it "you cant let me leave with no tax, you've got to go tax it" - and then getting their head kicked in!

 

I'm sure the traders on here are well aware, but it is entirely possible for a car to have no MOT and yet be roadworthy, just as it is for a car to have been MOT'd yesterday and not be roadworthy today.

 

Just in case anyone was wondering, I have qualifications in company and employment law (but do not practice). I certainly don't claim to be right, but have experience advising businesses of various types (inc the motor trade) on various compliance issues.

[JonCris]

Despite what some dealers might claim there is a duty on them to ensure that a vehicle sold by them & then at the outset taken onto the public highway complies with the law.

 

Reputable dealers will insist on sight of a valid insurance certificate & that the car is taxed before allowing it's removal by the purchaser

 

They cannot claim "it ain't my problem" after selling it & those dealers who think they can, without possible repercussions, should consult a competent solicitor before doing it again.

 

We all have general 'duty of care' when we go about our daily activities & that is why firms have public liability insurance & to allow an unlicenced or uninsured vehicle to be driven on a public road is a breach of that duty

[crash3903]

Despite what some dealers might claim there is a duty on them to ensure that a vehicle sold by them & then at the outset taken onto the public highway complies with the law.

 

Reputable dealers will insist on sight of a valid insurance certificate & that the car is taxed before allowing it's removal by the purchaser

 

They cannot claim "it ain't my problem" after selling it & those dealers who think they can, without possible repercussions, should consult a competent solicitor before doing it again.

 

We all have general 'duty of care' when we go about our daily activities & that is why firms have public liability insurance & to allow an unlicenced or uninsured vehicle to be driven on a public road is a breach of that duty

 

Excellent response JC - Can we now have the legislation and/or case law that reiterates this to put it to bed once and for all?

[JonCris]

Well, normally the customer has only left a deposit, so should something happen to the car in the meantime, for instance be stolen, I would return the deposit and either try and sell them something else or if nothing took their fancy I would accept that I have lost them. I would then make a claim on my own insurance. If the car has been paid for outright, and it was stolen from my premises, morally morally has nothing to do with it. If it's in your care you ARE responsible no matter what any displayed signs might claim I would still feel liable and give them a complete refund and make a claim. Obviously when making a claim on a trader's policy you would only normally get a "trade value" on the car.

Remember, when buying a car or for that matter anything at auction the item becomes your responsibility as soon as the hammer falls. The auction will take no responsibility after the hammer comes down. Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described. Most allow a period of 24 hours during which time you can return it of found not to be the case. So if say you buy a house at auction at 1pm and it gets burgled or vandalised at 1.15pm it is down to you.

Irrelevant comparison

 

As for you having no responsibility for a vehicle stolen from your premises, even one you don't own, I strongly suggest you seek legal advice.

[crash3903]

Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described.

 

What is SAGO?

[JonCris]

What is SAGO?

 

It's a food - Sorry meant SOGA

[crash3903]

just trying to lighten the mood

[advisee]

Reputable dealers will insist on sight of a valid insurance certificate & that the car is taxed before allowing it's removal by the purchaser

 

Can you give an example of such a dealer, and also advise whether they are on planet earth or planet JC?

 

Please tell us what happened the last time you (or your parents) bought a car, specifically in terms of all these documents you showed to the dealer!

[MilkTrayMan]

...Remember, when buying a car or for that matter anything at auction the item becomes your responsibility as soon as the hammer falls. The auction will take no responsibility after the hammer comes down. So if say you buy a house at auction at 1pm and it gets burgled or vandalised at 1.15pm it is down to you.

I didn't mention ANYTHING about auction sales in MY Post!

...I SPECIFICALLY stated 'garage forecourt'!...

 

U have also 'neglected' to answer my previous questions re: Sales on late Sat afternoon etc....

 

btw...How often do U have to Claim on your 'Traders Policy', for damage/theft relating to cars having already previously been 'PURCHASED' by customers, who have NO insurance themselves at the time??...

[barracad]

think of the moral side more on those few sales where you have no evidence of insurance. It only takes a second for a driver to run a child over.

 

What's that got to do with anything? If the driver was insured it would still only take a second to run a child over. I have no idea why the emotional cards are being played - insured drivers run children over too.

 

 

MTM I don't know where you buy your cars from but when you buy cars from a dealer, you normally pay the deposit to secure the car, and then collect the car a few days later. From my own personal experience, in this time the dealer will normally clean the car and get it valeted, and more often than not will get the car taxed on my behalf (using their own insurance, and yes - this is a very reputable dealer). It also gives me adequate time to change my insurance and check the details carefully on my new insurance certificate so that I have peace of mind when I go back to collect the car.

[make them aktiv runners]

Barracad, here is the rest of post 77.

 

Whether the driver is at fault would be irrelevant, whereas untaxed, uninsured and recently having left your garage could well be a unrecoverable disaster for your business after a factual local press report.

 

We were simply discussing the legal & moral issues of garage owners allowing untaxed and uninsured cars on the road to new buyers. The above was the most extreme example of morals, together with possible effects.

 

Yes, the same could happen to an insured driver but in the same scenario there would be a totally different view of the garage.

[JonCris]

Can you give an example of such a dealer, and also advise whether they are on planet earth or planet JC?

 

Please tell us what happened the last time you (or your parents) bought a car, specifically in terms of all these documents you showed to the dealer!

 

 

The last time (& at least 2 times previously) I purchased a vehicle from a reputable franchised dealer I had to produce an insurance cover note (a copy of which my broker 1st faxed, then delivered) & they said they couldn't release the vehicle until it was taxed as it was illegal to drive a vehicle on the public road whilst not displaying a valid excise licence which of course is correct.

 

Like I said if any dealers here have any doubt as to my statements then consult a competent solicitor

[patdavies]

they said they couldn't release the vehicle until it was taxed as it was illegal to drive a vehicle on the public road whilst not displaying a valid excise licence which of course is correct.

 

 

Which is utter nonsense.

 

The requirement does not apply to exempt vehicles. A vehicle travelling to/from a written MoT test appointment is one of the most common exemptions - and it applies whether or not the MoT test is legally required. In theory, you could book a test for a brand new vehicle and it would be an exempt vehicle - daft, but true.

[crash3903]

Which is utter nonsense.

 

The requirement does not apply to exempt vehicles. A vehicle travelling to/from a written MoT test appointment is one of the most common exemptions - and it applies whether or not the MoT test is legally required. In theory, you could book a test for a brand new vehicle and it would be an exempt vehicle - daft, but true.

 

What the heck has this got to do with what JC said about having a valid tax disc?

[patdavies]

What the heck has this got to do with what JC said about having a valid tax disc?

 

An exempt vehicle does not require VED

[MilkTrayMan]

when i bought my car from a dealer they said they do not tax vechicles they sell. this was on a saturday afternoon so i could only tax it on monday, i had the rest of my particulars, insurance etc was i still legal to drive? i have been unable to find out any were else.

I believe that this is a similar scenario to the OP's original question?!...

...lol...

[crash3903]

Presumably then you are saying a brand new car is exempt from a VE(L) or am I reading this wrong - If so what is an exempt vehicle?

[MilkTrayMan]

Presumably then you are saying a brand new car is exempt from a VE(L) or am I reading this wrong - If so what is an exempt vehicle?

Here U go...

Exemptions from paying vehicle tax : Directgov - Motoring

 

 

 

...