woodman wrote:diasan wrote: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?
woodman wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.diasan wrote: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'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.diasan wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest