What to do - received fine for taxed but not insured from DVLA

[kipperman]

So, a brief history. Brand new taxed van delivered to converters where it was insured under converters trade policy in November 2024
Received warning letter Feb 2025 from DVLA saying taxed not insured ( because whilst insured under trade policy doesn't appear on MIB database). I wasn't aware that was an offence, but hey ho.
Only option therefore was to SORN the van, which I did.
Fast forward to April and due to pick up van April 11th. Arranged for my own insurance to start April 11th, and thought that I would get ahead of the game and tax from the 7th (BIG MISTAKE).
Get letter and fine of £50 from DVLA as not insured on the 10th April, but was taxed.
I appealed - and they have written back saying they will only accept a letter from the underwriters specifically using the registration number and saying that the van was insured.
I've spoken to the converters broker, and apparently the motor trader policy can't provide this indemnity letter.

I've paid upfront the £50 ( although having used the DVLA "chat" facility, this would be refunded after a successful appeal)

The question therefore is : Do I simply put this down to bad luck and swallow the £50, or do I dig my heels in on the basis as why should the b&*$&ds get away with this? I can prove 1) that the converters policy covered the van and 2) that the van was with the converters on the 10th April but that seems to cut no mustard with the DVLA.

If anyone with more experience or knowledge than me can chip in, would be much appreciated.

 

[Dellmassive]

. Wow what's a palava..

Id just put this down to experience and write off the 50 quid.

You've already asked the other insurance company for a letter from them while it was under the trade policy and they refused at that point so.......

Give up a move on?

 

[Sasquatch]

This is the danger with trade policies. The policy covers them for their use of the vehicle only. The actual vehicle itself remains otherwise uninsured the moment they park it up and walk away from it.

I'd pay and remember this day moving forward.

 

[dubber36]

How come you were able to tax it on the 7th if it wasn't so say insured? Unless things have changed, I thought a vehicle had to be insured and have an MOT before it could be taxed. It must have shown up as being insured to allow you to tax it

 

[Alster]

Good point @dubber36 !!

 

[Sasquatch]

How come you were able to tax it on the 7th if it wasn't so say insured? Unless things have changed, I thought a vehicle had to be insured and have an MOT before it could be taxed. It must have shown up as being insured to allow you to tax it

Most dealers/trade sellers provide 7 days free insurance just so they can swiftly get the damn things taxed andnout the door without fannying about. A delay of a single day may be enough to push it into next month and hit their figures.

 

[DaveD]

I think I'd stump up the £50 and move on.
But this is an interesting post and raises questions. Initially it seems reasonable to rely on the Trader's policy of the converter but I think it leaves you vulnerable in a number of areas.
Firstly, if the policy document / trader's policy certificate that you've seen is paid for monthly, and the trader doesn't maintain the payments, the policy may well be invalidated.
Secondly, if the policy is conditional, for example, on a fire suppression system being in working order or a security alarm being in working order, (or other such conditions) then any failure of the trader to adhere to these conditions could render the policy non valid. In the event of a fire or theft at the trader's premises it's not far fetched to imagine an insurer looking for a way out of paying out what could potentially run to a million quid or more.
I think I'd always need such a high value vehicle to be covered under my own policy.

 

[dubber36]

Most dealers/trade sellers provide 7 days free insurance just so they can swiftly get the damn things taxed andnout the door without fannying about. A delay of a single day may be enough to push it into next month and hit their figures.

They do, however the 7 days insurance covers the new keeper to drive it as well as tax it. In this case he was not insured to drive it on anyone's policy at the time it was taxed. So to my simple mind, the DVLA shouldn't have allowed it to be taxed.

 

[Sasquatch]

They do, however the 7 days insurance covers the new keeper to drive it as well as tax it. In this case he was not insured to drive it on anyone's policy at the time it was taxed. So to my simple mind, the DVLA shouldn't have allowed it to be taxed.

The 7 days insurance cover is sufficient to tax it. That's the whole point of the exercise.

These policies are entirely separate from the dealers own cover, and are essentially mini-policies allocated to the customer.

Its fully fledged insurance, almost always fully comprehensive, and complaint with the requirements of c.52, part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the only difference from a conventional policy being the 7 day duration of the cover.

This being the case, if it was the case (and it almost certainly was these days - even Dacia do it) the OP was fully covered to drive the vehicle for those 7 days on hisnkwn policy, he was covered, and everything was satisfactory in that regard else it would not have been able to be taxed. I've stopped enough new cars over the years to understand how valid and normal these policies are in every way, other than their duration.

The problem arises here when that policy expires after 7 says but the vehicle is taxed but not specifically insured. And that's where our herocis now at.

A trade policy not appear on the MIB database because it covers a driver(s) use or that vehicle. It does not cover the vehicle, and trade insurance cannot be used to tax a vehicle as it only covers the driver. The moment a trader turns off then ignition and walks away their insurance cover walks away with them.

Domestic policy owners cannot do this as they way they are usually written requires a car to already be insured before you can drive it with 3rd party cover on your own insurance. Trade drivers can do this, they can drive an otherwise uninsured vehicle on their own cover. That's the main difference between domestic and trade policies - the former is usually assigned to a vehicle, the latter is usually assigned to a driver.

There is no legal defence to having an uninsured vehicle that is not SORN. Forgetting, moving house, thinking the wife had done it, even being a victim and buying a non-existant fraudulent policy, these are mitigation only - theyre is no legal defence. Its what is called an "absolute offence" for that reason.

That being the case, unless the OP can prove the vehicle itself was specifically insured at that time there is no way around the £50 penalty. He's tried, and sadly failed.
 

 

[Qnapper]

Sometimes it´s not worth the stress (it kills folk), so forget it move on and most important ENJOY the van. Life is to short........ and you only get one go at it.

 

[Kind of Blue]

Reading this, it seams unfortunate but some assumptions may have been made. Traders insurance was it assumed that the vehicle was insured or was some form of contract made that specifically covered the vehicle. DVLA policies need looking at because normally they will not tax or it is assumed will not tax a vehicle without insurance. As stated above things are waved or speeded up when buying a vehicle from a dealer as they insure the vehicle for a few days only. The DVLA Taxed the vehicle making an Assumption, they taxed the vehicle not knowing it was insured or not, They Taxed the vehicle knowing it was not insured. the new owner took a chance in insuring from a day late. Seems a combination of errors and actions. DVLA appears to me to be possibly also at fault. The lesson for us is to make sure a vehicle that we own is fully insured there are all sorts of reasons why the vehicle may not have been covered by the fitters a mine field that would take plenty of clearing before a satisfactory answer comes out.

 

[Sasquatch]

TBH I'm quite surprised the OP bought a new van for many ££££'s and didn't insure the bejeus out of it before even accepting the keys from the salesman.

Edit - as I suspected. This is how is was taxed...

A 5-day complimentary Volkswagen Drive Away Insurance is offered with new and Approved Used Volkswagen vehicles purchased from a Volkswagen retailer.

So at the time it was taxed it was fully and properly insured with a comprehensive insurance policy in the OP's name.

 

[kipperman]

Thanks all- many valid points which I will answer later when I have more time. But yes aware of the absolute nature of the offence and since the good Mrs Kipperman is urging option A and that £50 in the grand scheme of things isn’t too much I will let it go. Just that tiny bit of me as licensed stubborn Scot remains..

 

[Kind of Blue]

TBH I'm quite surprised the OP bought a new van for many ££££'s and didn't insure the bejeus out of it before even accepting the keys from the salesman.

I agree with that, I do not believe that we would have done that certainly my ever efficient wife would not but that is being cleaver after an act and not helpful. I think that one cannot assume that the people even a trusted garage is going to cover our vehicle. Perhaps premiums have not been payed through an error or deliberate act to save money after all vehicle is not going any where. Perhaps a garage or other insurance is only covering fire or damage on their property perhaps for a multitude or technical and Assumption all round. I agree with the post above about stress being a killer and to move on, the pain will go eventually. I guess if someone took proper legal advice and did not suffer from the stresses and on that advice they could possibly assume other parties where guilty, DVLC the fitters, or their insurers, then they could pursue this matter through the courts but that would need far more educated council than I could stand by and all things are a risk. Certainly this situation needs to be seen and understood as a warning to all of us because £50 could be spent in a night out and forgotten but what if the vehicle was written off or worse, been involved in a serious accident with death and injury and no insurance, then that £50 is peanuts and a good lesson on the cheap. Hard to swallow but a lesson for all.

 

[Kind of Blue]

I agree with that, I do not believe that we would have done that certainly my ever efficient wife would not but that is being cleaver after an act and not helpful. I think that one cannot assume that the people even a trusted garage is going to cover our vehicle. Perhaps premiums have not been payed through an error or deliberate act to save money after all vehicle is not going any where. Perhaps a garage or other insurance is only covering fire or damage on their property perhaps for a multitude or technical and Assumption all round. I agree with the post above about stress being a killer and to move on, the pain will go eventually. I guess if someone took proper legal advice and did not suffer from the stresses and on that advice they could possibly assume other parties where guilty, DVLC the fitters, or their insurers, then they could pursue this matter through the courts but that would need far more educated council than I could stand by and all things are a risk. Certainly this situation needs to be seen and understood as a warning to all of us because £50 could be spent in a night out and forgotten but what if the vehicle was written off or worse, been involved in a serious accident with death and injury and no insurance, then that £50 is peanuts and a good lesson on the cheap. Hard to swallow but a lesson for all.

I think that this story or history would be good coverage in a national news paper. Not to scorn any party but as a lesson to the wider public that insurance is really their own responsibility at the end of the day no matter what. Guardian , Times or something. If the OP is a member of The AA or I do not know about the RAC their legal departments might take a view. Certainly they could see any weakness in current practises regarding tax and insurance because my guess is that the OP will not be the only one.

 

[Sasquatch]

Thanks all- many valid points which I will answer later when I have more time. But yes aware of the absolute nature of the offence and since the good Mrs Kipperman is urging option A and that £50 in the grand scheme of things isn’t too much I will let it go. Just that tiny bit of me as licensed stubborn Scot remains..

The good news is, as painful and annoying as it may be, it isn't a conviction and you've not been charged and found guilty of driving with no insurance, so there's noithing to declare to insurers further down the line.

I think that one cannot assume that the people even a trusted garage is going to cover our vehicle.

I trust no one with my van. I choose my garages on the basis or reputation and integrity, not cost. Even then I give my best sasquatch growl when handing over the keys (look on youtube for sasquatch noises, its quite scary!) and make it clear that incurring my displeasure is a scenario to be firmly avoided.

 

[Kind of Blue]

The good news is, as painful and annoying as it may be, it isn't a conviction and you've not been charged and found guilty of driving with no insurance, so there's noithing to declare to insurers further down the line.


I trust no one with my van. I choose my garages on the basis or reputation and integrity, not cost. Even then I give my best sasquatch growl when handing over the keys (look on youtube for sasquatch noises, its quite scary!) and make it clear that incurring my displeasure is a scenario to be firmly avoided.

My knees are a knocking, cant hold my glass of water still and I am not looking for a sex slave............lookalike hairy gimp suit or not

 

[Drive Wayne]

The good news is, as painful and annoying as it may be, it isn't a conviction and you've not been charged and found guilty of driving with no insurance, so there's noithing to declare to insurers further down the line.


I trust no one with my van. I choose my garages on the basis or reputation and integrity, not cost. Even then I give my best sasquatch growl when handing over the keys (look on youtube for sasquatch noises, its quite scary!) and make it clear that incurring my displeasure is a scenario to be firmly avoided.

Remind me not to sell you a new bass guitar!

 

[kipperman]

Just to address a few points.

1) Was it wise to trust that the converters insurance would cover the van? I had a considerable amount of tooing and froing with the converter ( he is no fly by night affair) to reassure me that all fronts were covered - theft and fire being the main ones. He does a considerable amount of work on T6's as well as Crafter?MAN TGE and was quite assuring that his other clients likewise relied on this insurance. I do however accept ( and this was a source of angst) that I would have been a third party in case of any issue. Fortunately no such issue did occur but with the benefit of hindsight I might consider otherwise.
2) I taxed the van online and all went through without any problem - so in this situation not having an individual insurance policy made no difference.
3) Not sure where this 7 day insurance comes in - certainly not aware of this being provided by MAN.

#mild rant. This is just one of these situations where as a member of Joe Public you act in what you regard as "doing the right thing" only to be tripped up by a law that is designed to deter those avoiding insuring their vehicles but ends up catching those that had no intent to avoid insurance.

I will regard that £50 as well spent if anyone reading this manages to avoid being caught in the same manner.
#rant over

Good news though - I got the £50 payout from the Nationwide on the same day I paid the penalty. So Even Stevens.