DVLA admits you don't own vehicle

[pitano1]

the road traffic `act`

is another bloody brilliant scam worked on the unsuspecting/trusting public.
by the plantation owners
what does it say on their poxy document.?

REGISTERED KEEPER.

if you go to any zoo,you will see the keepers doing their job.
clearing up shit..right?

anyone who is legally entitled,can drive the thing,but if they cause
shit to happen `guess who gets to clean up. `no prizes`.

as for ownership,it works much the same as anything else the uneducated
think`they own.

you have legal title of use.
the ptb,have equitable title,in other words,they own it in equity

they also hold its birth certificate.`known as the M.I.N,or manufacturers
identification number.

scam...scam..fucking scam.

in fact,can ANYONE point to something within the system,that is not riddled
with outright corruption.

[diasan]

However, what happens in the following situation:

I buy a car. I let you keep it and use it. (Hence you would be the registered keeper from DVLA's perspective?)
I sell the car to my Brother. He still lets to keep it and use it. (Hence no need to change the registered keeper?)

Would DVLA claim that they need to be informed of the above sale?

If you buy a car and let me keep and use it, when you come to selling it to your brother, how are you going to prove it's yours to sell to your brother if I have the car and the DVLA recognise me a registered keeper?

Given the situation I pose, I suggest that is beside the point.
Assume for purposes of discussion that I am able to satisfy my brother as to my ownership of the car.

Are you (or is anyone else) able to answer the question I posed about the DVLA perspective on this situation?
If not, then it is rather pointless to continue this subthread of this topic.

[woodman]

I really cannot see the point you're trying to make.

The situation you pose, (that you and your brother would buy a car that you have no intention to ever make use of yourselves and are willing to let someone else use and even register it with dvla) is not really a believable situation.

The answer to your question is quite an obvious one............NO, the DVLA would not make any claim to be informed as the keeper (the one who registered the vehicle) has not changed and the DVLA could not possibly be aware that the alleged owner has sold it.

How would you be able to show your brother that you actually owned the property?

[diasan]

I really cannot see the point you're trying to make.

I shall return to that below.

The situation you pose, (that you and your brother would buy a car that you have no intention to ever make use of yourselves and are willing to let someone else use and even register it with dvla) is not really a believable situation.

I suggest it is not too different from the situation with drivers of company cars. The company owns the car, the driver is the keeper.
Now, for various reasons (i.e tax efficiency, accountancy [CAPEX vs OPEX]) companies could structure the ownership of the cars differently, e.g. a holding company could own the car and lease it to the company for use by the employees. If the asserts of the holding company were moved (for whatever reason - including it being bought out by another company), that could include the ownership of the car changing.

By posing the situation as a change of ownership between myself and my brother, with you as the 'keeper' one simply reduces the situation to its essentials. i.e. removes complexities which could cloud the underlying issues.

Hence I suggest that the situation I pose is not unreasonable.

The answer to your question is quite an obvious one............NO, the DVLA would not make any claim to be informed as the keeper (the one who registered the vehicle) has not changed and the DVLA could not possibly be aware that the alleged owner has sold it.

Thank you.

That was what I was expecting (as you state it is - or should be obvious), especially given that DVLA claim to only be interested in keepers not owners.
So given that, how does a document purporting to address the 'keepership' of a car imply anything about the 'ownership'?

Which is rather the point I was trying to make. I understood the suggestion from the start of this thread to be that the document displayed could imply that DVLA are taking a position (stated or implied) upon the 'ownership' of a car. i.e. "DVLA admits you don't own vehicle".

I would suggest that a document indicating it provides "no proof of ownership", does not provide "proof of no ownership". They are completely different concepts.

How would you be able to show your brother that you actually owned the property?

Again, I suggest this is irrelevant. But to give examples it could include any one or more of:
a) The receipt / bill of sale for when I acquired the car.
b) A contract/agreement between you and me for use of the vehicle
c) Simple trust between my Brother and I (especially if the machine is of low value)

Note that I did not (that I recall) state or imply that your use of the car was for free, simply that you could use it whereas I would own it.

Hopefully that makes my reasoning clear?

I was taking a position that the document does not amount to "DVLA admits you don't own vehicle', and trying to show logic which leads to that conclusion.

Likewise.

[woodman]

I suggest it is not too different from the situation with drivers of company cars. The company owns the car, the driver is the keeper.

By posing the situation as a change of ownership between myself and my brother, with you as the 'keeper' one simply reduces the situation to its essentials. i.e. removes complexities which could cloud the underlying issues.

Hence I suggest that the situation I pose is not unreasonable.

Ah yes I see what you're getting at.

That was what I was expecting (as you state it is - or should be obvious), especially given that DVLA claim to only be interested in keepers not owners.
So given that, how does a document purporting to address the 'keepership' of a car imply anything about the 'ownership'?

Which is rather the point I was trying to make. I understood the suggestion from the start of this thread to be that the document displayed could imply that DVLA are taking a position (stated or implied) upon the 'ownership' of a car. i.e. "DVLA admits you don't own vehicle".

Yes, my post title was a bit tongue in cheek and yet probably was an implication on my part, that DVLA may be taking such a position.

I would suggest that a document indicating it provides "no proof of ownership", does not provide "proof of no ownership". They are completely different concepts.

I'd totally agree. However,in saying that, I would be of the opinion that the majority of car owners in the UK, DO believe that their V5 is proof of ownership (even though it isn't) and that's the reason why I posted my comments in the way I did. To kind of raise awareness of this to newcomers and such to the forum.

[Prajna]

We had a traffic cop tell us yesterday that the DVLA is lawless and make stuff up as they go along. That from a traffic cop. He hates 'em.

[Freeman Stephen]

Ive got a recorded call with the dvla somewhere where im being told not to quote the law at them. Had it over a year i think and i keep meaning to get round to cleaning it up and posting it. (my audio level is ten times the audio level of the opposite end of the phone and its hard on the ears because of this). Ps look at your phone while on a phone call and i bet you have a recording facility you didn't know about.