Insurance troubles May 2023

[Jason71]

I’d say thats unambiguous in its wording, but doesn’t add any clarity to the issue under discussion here. The question in your screenshot is ‘Are you the owner and registered keeper?’ so the answer to that question for the vast majority of people (anyone whose method of purchase was not cash or personal loan) is No. Mine is on PCP and I have the V5C with my name on it - yet by rights I should be answering No to that question, in the Tesla Finance docs it even mentions that you should notify the insurance company of their interest in the vehicle - it doesn’t state that you need to declare them the owners or keepers.

If you answer no then you get to specify what no means

 

[FastLaneJB]

This is a big problem to be honest in terms of cost. The prices some of you seem to be paying or getting quoted are bonkers. I’ve had faster (Beyond 60), way more expensive cars that cost half as much to insure. Glad the wife’s is a lease with insurance included.

I can actually see this getting worse as they move to a structural battery pack. Even more likely what might seem like a small crash could be a write off.

 

[TheManofMead]

I don't disagree with the principal but if the insurance company asks if you are the "registered keeper" and if your name is not on the V5 then you cannot answer "yes". You may be the keeper but you are not the "registered keeper".
It may be true that you SHOULD be the registered keeper based on the guidance from the DVLA but if your lease company will not put you on there, and most won't,like in the Ops case, then what are you suggesting he should do? lie?
Here is an example from Money Supermarket not much ambiguity there. it is not asking who reads the car a bed time story it is unambiguously asking whose name is on the official document.
View attachment 933877

I agree with you. The question is poorly worded and based on the false premise that the (registered) keeper and owner are the same.

EDIT
After posting I noticed a subsequent post has noted answering “no” does then actually break down the split between owner and keeper.

 

[bobbychariot]

no. that it not correct.
I was the sole and only user of the vehicle. it was a company car. But it was leased via Arval, my employer was paying lease/service/insurance/whatever costs and I have not seen any V5.

but it was me who paid the speeding fine and it was also me who had to pay the parking ticket - all these were forwarded to me from Arval via employer

So like I said which was correct, you didn't receive the fines directly, they were forwarded to you.

 

[yessuz]

So like I said which was correct, you didn't receive the fines directly, they were forwarded to you.

yes. but nor Arval (lease company) not Employer (legal keeper?) paid anything..

 

[Magic8Ball]

@camsoft2000 any updates on your search? I'm in the same boat, about to order via company EV scheme without insurance bundled in.

 

[Leytonstone]

In addition to having your trousers pulled down for motor cover, prepare yourself for quaint aspects of ownership such as the bizarre lack of parking sensors. In the space of two years I've gone from recommending these cars to sucking in air through my teeth when asked. Personally I wouldn't do it unless you are able to overlook or possibly enjoy the quirks, or have been offered a sacrifice scheme which includes insurance. Which you have not.

 

[SpanishJ0n]

I've just purchased an M3; found quotes around £580 with Churchill however thats after including a voluntary excess of £250; bringing the total to £750.

Reason the insurance is so expensive for these vehicles is that as soon as there's the slightest of damage to the battery the vehicle is written off entirely in the event of an accident.

In that case why is my ins with Admiral just £400

 

[Magic8Ball]

In addition to having your trousers pulled down for motor cover, prepare yourself for quaint aspects of ownership such as the bizarre lack of parking sensors. In the space of two years I've gone from recommending these cars to sucking in air through my teeth when asked. Personally I wouldn't do it unless you are able to overlook or possibly enjoy the quirks, or have been offered a sacrifice scheme which includes insurance. Which you have not.

I hear you, for sure. The parking sensors are probably going to annoy me, but I'll really benefit from an EV (based on usage profile) and the sacrifice scheme is the cheapest and most sensible way (no up front costs). I'll have the same insurance headache regardless of which car I pick so I guess I'll just have to suck it up because I can't bring myself to go for an ICE vehicle at this point.

 

[bobbychariot]

Btc1k disagreed with my post but offered no explanation why it was wrong.
Helpful

 

[Jason71]

Slightly off Topic but car dealer near me was fined recently for failing to disclose who the driver of a vehicle was after a speed camera caught the car and it made me wonder if the finance companies insist on making themselves the keeper of their vehicles (even though they patently aren't) then presumably they assume the legal responsibility for identifying the driver in the event of a speeding fine. If a car has multiple drivers how do they solve that?

 

[Andywil]

Slightly off Topic but car dealer near me was fined recently for failing to disclose who the driver of a vehicle was after a speed camera caught the car and it made me wonder if the finance companies insist on making themselves the keeper of their vehicles (even though they patently aren't) then presumably they assume the legal responsibility for identifying the driver in the event of a speeding fine. If a car has multiple drivers how do they solve that?

Presumably they would just take the money from the lease holder by direct debit.

 

[Jason71]

Presumably they would just take the money from the lease holder by direct debit.

you are missing the point(s) .
Speeding is not parking. The police want to know who was driving to assign points. Its the keepers responsibility to say who was driving. Just wondering how that works with a lease car?

 

[init6]

you are missing the point(s) .
Speeding is not parking. The police want to know who was driving to assign points. Its the keepers responsibility to say who was driving. Just wondering how that works with a lease car?

In accordance with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the "person keeping the vehicle" is obliged to supply the identity of the driver or any other person can be asked to give information if it is "in his power to give and may lead to the identification of the driver". In reality, a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) will normally be served on the registered keeper whose details are supplied by the DVLA. If the keeper then identifies another person as either the driver or having the information to supply the driver's identity, that obligation can be passed to that individual.

 

[Cardo]

Ah, the joyous disagreements and disinformation in relation to owners and registered keepers.

I’ll throw my tuppence in, as someone who has been involved in the prosecution of driving offences.

Owner - The legal owner of the car. Actually quite a straight-forward question (ie. who has the right to sell it and would get the money?) If it’s a lease, it’ll be the lease company.

Registered keeper - The person or company whose name appears on the V5. And none of that C/O nonsense in the first line of the address, it is utterly meaningless.

In the case of a lease, both the owner and R/K are the lease company. Yes, guidance from DVLA states the R/K should be the person who keeps/drives the car on a regular basis, however that is not how it works in practice for lease vehicles.

As for the OP’s original query, are you certain you are stating the owner and R/K of the vehicle is a lease company and not just a generic company? Insurance companies took a dim view on cars that were owned and registered to companies however privately insured a couple of years back and stopped providing insurance for this situation. We ended up having to re-register our car from the company to my wife in order to get insurance, as otherwise nobody would do it, and the couple of companies that did offer a quote were silly money. However, this doesn’t apply to lease vehicles, so you need to make sure you show both the owner and R/K of the car as a lease company when obtaining quotes. Forget your employer, they’re just a middle man. I suspect the OP is selecting a generic company for the R/K and this is why they’re refusing to quote.

 

[yessuz]

you are missing the point(s) .
Speeding is not parking. The police want to know who was driving to assign points. Its the keepers responsibility to say who was driving. Just wondering how that works with a lease car?

again:
I had leased car (company car, leased from Arval).

got speed checked on M40. Police sent ticket to Arval, asking who was driving. Arval - forwarded this to my employer's HR / fleet manager asking to contact police and to tell who was driving. My HR - forwarded to me asking to contact police and to tell who was driving (well I was on the pic...).

 

[Cardo]

again:
I had leased car (company car, leased from Arval).

got speed checked on M40. Police sent ticket to Arval, asking who was driving. Arval - forwarded this to my employer's HR / fleet manager asking to contact police and to tell who was driving. My HR - forwarded to me asking to contact police and to tell who was driving (well I was on the pic...).

This is exactly how it works, as per your example. Though they wouldn’t have sent the ticket per-se to Arval, more a request to notify who the driver was in order to issue a ticket.

 

[ajmorr.is]

This is exactly how it works, as per your example. Though they wouldn’t have sent the ticket per-se to Arval, more a request to notify who the driver was in order to issue a ticket.

I'm curious as to how this works with regard to the 28 days period that you must notify them within. The layers of bureaucracy involved must hugely eat into this by the time the request reaches the actual keeper of the vehicle.

 

[Cardo]

I'm curious as to how this works with regard to the 28 days period that you must notify them within. The layers of bureaucracy involved must hugely eat into this by the time the request reaches the actual keeper of the vehicle.

The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) needs to be sent within two weeks of the incident. This is covered by sending the NIP to the registered keeper. However long it takes to establish who the actual driver is after that doesn’t matter (taking into consideration any 6 month statutory time limits for commencement of prosecutions).

 

[ajmorr.is]

The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) needs to be sent within two weeks of the incident. This is covered by sending the NIP to the registered keeper. However long it takes to establish who the actual driver is after that doesn’t matter (taking into consideration any 6 month statutory time limits for commencement of prosecutions).

The 14 day period is different. If you get an caught speeding then you must respond within 28 days notifying who the driver was; Speeding penalties