minicabelemet wrote:

Thanks BN. I will be on the blower tomorrow morning to sort it out. I have already found some insurers that are willing to insure us even though we(me and my wife) are not the registered keepers. I will get in touch as well with Esure (I got 8 years no claim bonus, so they might be interested). But I will definitelly not sign on the dotted line for a contract stating that " I agree to return the vehicke to you at the end of the agreed loan period or on demand in a clean and serviceable condition". This is one of the 6 condition on the Car Loan Form from Sytner Group.

Winger wrote:

Well, perhaps if you don't get it, you shouldn't go ahead!

See the post further up......but to spell it out (as you have described):

1. You give the dealer £39,000
2. They register the vehicle in their name
3. You sign a form which confirms that the car is on loan to you
4. They insist that you insure the vehicle before you drive of in it, but they are the registered keep; your insurance will note that they are the registered keeper, but you are the principal driver
5. The car gets stolen; the insurance company pays the registered keeper - who, in the absence of anything that confirms the contrary, they reasonably assume is the legal owner.
6. You are left with no car and a £39,000 hole in your pocket - unless you have covered the fact that, notwithstanding 3. above, you are actually the legal owner, and the insurance beneficiary...then, the circle is squared.

You can get insurance - Norwich Union, for one will cover you - but if I was you I would want the "loan" issue to be fully clarified........

why would the insurance company pay out to the registard keeper as the log book/registard keeper is not proof of ownership the reciept is proof of ownership

shawn

minicabelemet wrote:

Made my mind up. I will not sign any "Loan Car Form". If I pay in full, then is mine. If the dealer accepts it, ok, otherwise the deal is off. I am however willing to accept one point from the form:" I hereby acknowledge that during the the -replace: currency of the loan with: next 90 days-and for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I shall be liable as owner of the above vehicle in respect of any offences or excess charge or local council congestion charge arising."
I think this fair enough. You can't go 100mph and expect LR to pay for the fine???

Just think carefully before you put pen to paper tomorrow .

shawn wrote:

why would the insurance company pay out to the registard keeper as the log book/registard keeper is not proof of ownership the reciept is proof of ownership

shawn

minicabelemet wrote:

I am however willing to accept one point from the form:" I hereby acknowledge that during the the -replace: currency of the loan with: next 90 days-and for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I shall be liable as owner of the above vehicle in respect of any offences or excess charge or local council congestion charge arising."
I think this fair enough. You can't go 100mph and expect LR to pay for the fine???

Winger wrote:

shawn wrote:

why would the insurance company pay out to the registard keeper as the log book/registard keeper is not proof of ownership the reciept is proof of ownership

shawn

A receipt is proof that money has changed hands, but does not necessarily confirm the transfer of title.

None of that is the issue, the problem is the "loan" status of the car. You cannot on the one hand sign a document saying that you are accepting a car "on loan" and then claim that you are the owner.

sorry winger i read the 1st thread incorrectly

shawn