Here goes

If you have a young son or daughter (1-3 years for example) then register your car in their name. If you get flashed by a gatso the speeding letter will be addresed to your child. You can then write back saying "I'm sorry, my child is only 1 and can not help you in this matter".

The police will then need to find out who was driving the car at the time, so they will ask the rigistered owner (you child) "Who was driving the car?" - to which your child will presumably reply "Bob the Builder!" or "Tinkywinky!"

Hey presto....It will be impossible to determine from the owner who they gave permision to, to drive the car at the time.

Any legal boffins out there who can shed any light on this

 

That is dodgy- its clear case of fraud. Nice idea but if your going to do that you may as well register it in some fake name or leave it regd to the previous owner. They will get you for sure!

Don't bother.

 

How is it fraud

I don't think there is a legal age to own a car. Drive it, insure it - yes, but not to physically own it. So if the child owns it, their name should go on the log book

 

Wouldnt that make the car impossible to tax ?.

 

Why

They send the reminder for your tax to your child. You take it, MOT and insurance to the post office. Insurance certificate does not need to be in your childs name (or even have their name on it). MOT - no problem, and simply pay for the tax by cheque or cash.

Tadaaaa

problem solved


I'm not condoning this type of action you understand, but it would be intersting to see if it would work in theory

 

If you are doing it to avoid the law and they prove it (which I'm betting they could) then its probably perverting the course of justice or similar rather than fraud.

[Edited by Fluffer - 3/27/2003 10:37:28 AM]

 

When you insure the car you would have to do so as not the owner of it. This would make your policy higher I think.

IMHO

 

Fluffer,
But who is perverting the course of justice.......who is the owner of the car??.

Besides to pervert the course of justice, you have to do something physical to stand in the way of the legal system (such as give a false name or keep changing your account of an event). In this case everything is above board, you've not lied about identity or ownership, the car does belong to your child and you have the log book to prove it.

[Edited by Felix. - 3/27/2003 10:45:15 AM]

Badger,
As far as I know, you do not have to be the owner of the car to be the main named person on the policy. Therefore it should be like any other premium for that person

[Edited by Felix. - 3/27/2003 10:48:55 AM]

 

your doing it to avoid a penalty therefore its perverting the course of justice. Of course I'm no expert but try posting on the FiveO forum and see what they have to say. Alternatively give it a try!

 

So long as you say that you bought the car for your child as a gift or investment (or to say 'What a good boy for eating your breakfast - here, have a Subaru!') - then your not doing it to avoid a penalty

 

I wonder if a court would buy that- try it and let us know the outcome. Good luck!

 

LOL at the idea of the kid saying "Bob the Builder", or "Tinkywinky".
Once, when I accidentally knocked over a stack of baked beans in a supermarket, no-one saw. Unfortunately, a member of staff came round the corner and asked us "Who did that?", to which my two and a half year old proudly replied "My daddy did that!"
Spongebob

 

LOL, interesting thread

 

LOL at SBSP

 

haah lol and spongeb's nipperrooni !!!

just imagine my son saying that in a few months

kids do make me laugh...

it when then get to about 15 that they start severely pi55ing me off...

haha

BB

 

What was that-- life begins when the kids have left home and the pet dog dies!?

 

Jas - there is no difference in insurance policy amount if you are not the registered owner of the car. For some reason the scoob ended up being in my name on the V5 and the insurance policy was in Rich's name.

 

...and "the Registered Keeper is not necessarily the Owner"...

 

Hmmmmm.

<strokes beard in an inquisitive manner>

 

If I was a creative lawyer for the prosecution, I'd try and do your for TWOCing. After all, how is it possible for a 6 month old child to give permission to drive the car?

 

For TWOC though you need the owner to state that they did not give consent for some one to drive it. Hence you can't TWOC a car with no known owner or for a son to TWOC his dads car without dad making a complaint.

 

Re-read mutant matt's post.

 

You can have a "technical TWOC" - which counts.

 

MooseRacer - re-read it, I can't see what your point is though

Burr - For technical TWOC, you still need someone to make the complaint that "No-one had any permission to drive my car without my concent". Besides technical TWOC is more of the lines that the person caught driving had reasonable belief that they had permission to drive it. e.g. boyfriend drives girlfriend's car with her concent. One day (when he's driving it) she finds out he's been playing around, so she phones the old bill saying that 'he is now driving the car without my concent'

 

not a bad idea...just have to get me one of those..kids?!

ok, so its not illegal for child to own the vehicle; if your insurance knows you are not the owner - then thats covered.
When the law contact the owner for details of the driver....erm
3yr old can't reply to letter. At this stage - YOU as the guardian/parent of the owner would have to reply to the correspondence...right? Sure you could say the child will not divulge who was driving...but I reckon it will always come back to the parent/guardian to answer on behalf of the minor...
might get away with it....

wait to be corrected?

 

Children are not legally responsible for their actions until a certain age. The parents are.

That could be complete *****, but I think it's about right.

 

Woz - If the parents deny all knowledge of who was driving then it will always come back to the registered keeper as being responsible (use, cause, permit).

Chiark - True, until 10 they have no criminal responsibility, therefore when it does come back to the registered keeper (use, cause, permit) - nothing can be done.

 

OK, say its your granny then!

 

But, the registered keeper is not necc. the owner. Once it comes back that a 3 yr old is the registerd owner, they will make attempts to prove the actual ownership of the car to someone else - ie you

 

I thought if kids don't have criminal responsibility then it falls to the parents automatically? Which rather knackers the argument...