Whose responsibility is it to pay for DD's Car insurance mot etc

[bobs]

DH bought DD a car last year - registered in his name with her as the main driver and him as an additional driver. He paid for insurance but now it is coming up for renewal along with tax and MOT - probably a service in there as well - he is refusing to pay for anything, saying that she should. she is just doing A Levels and has a part time pub job, but with the best will in the world, she cannot afford to pay it all - probably in the region of up to £1000 total She is paying for petrol already.
I guess she would be at fault if found driving w/o an MOT or insurance, but is it legally DH's responsibility to pay, and if it just sits in the drive surely he would still be responsible in some way. I know he could fill in a SORN to say it is not being driven, tho I can't see him bothering with that

But they don't have to be the policyholder do they?

How would s

How would someone without a licence or even a provisional get insurance on a car in their name?

You will find with almost all insurance companies that the registered owner must have the insurance in their name, they don't have to be the main driver, they dot even have to be driving (think driving ban mid-policy) and they don't have to be the registered keeper.

But they do have to have the insurance in their name by law, the CIE is enforced frequently now.

If she's only got a few months before uni then tell her to sack the car off, spend the petrol money on having fun

The policy holder is normally the main driver on insurance policies though. Having just sorted out insurance online, it assumed the policy holder was the main driver and then you could name other drivers. There was no option to have the policy in a different name to the main driver.

Plus the online quote forms ask "who is the registered keeper of the car" and has a drop down menu including the policy holder, a named driver, a spouse, daughter/son etc

I'm assuming those companies who specify the main driver/policy holder must be the same as the registered keeper wouldn't then offer a quote. By many do in my experience. Ive also looked through my terms and conditions to check this since seeing this thread and mine doesnt specify the RK and policy holder must be the same:

I am the RK of my wife's car (Ford employee's family discount) and she has no problems insuring it in her name. Even went the first year through Ford's own insurance.

The person who has the insurable interest in the car must have the insurance in their name, excepting married/civil partnership as in those occasions the couple would have equal interest.

I think the issue is not that the registered keeper has to be the policyholder, but that your husband probably shouldn't be the named driver on the insurance policy when your dd is in fact the main or only driver of the car. I believe this could invalidate the insurance.

Well there's more to it than meets the eye, but if DP isn't going to pay for tax and insurance, and DC can't pay for it, and the Good Fairy isn't going to pay for it, then it won't be taxed and insured, so nobody can legally drive it. If it isn't SORNd and kept off the road then the registered keeper will be fined.

Seems to me that DD will just have to give up and take the bus until such time as she, or someone else, is willing and able to pay to run a car.

You can't transfer a car to someone else with the consent and signature of the old and new keeper.

alarkaspree is also corect but that's a separate issue IMO.

sorry

without the consent and signature...

of course

parental relationship issues aside, funding a car for a child is not a obligation as far as I know... how old is the dd btw?

unless there was a prior agreement, but even then it depends on individual circs.

also some very bizarre suggestions here regarding selling the car behind the owners back - how odd to find this in legal section (checks that it is NOT an AIBU)

Just thought I'd update this for anyone interested...DH paid for the insurance and MOT in the end with both him & myself as additional drivers - brought the price down a bit. I paid for MOT and service - went ballistic when I realised it needed a new steering rod - no wonder it kept wandering all over the road - and various other stuff. Can't help feeling that he basically went out and found her the cheapest car he could find and s*d the safety factor. Although she mentioned the brakes and steering weren't good when she first got it he didn't seem that bothered - I took her straight away to sort the brakes which the garage did at cost. It seems that cars only have to each the minimum standards to pass. Anyway DD went halves with what I paid (£400) out of her earnings from a part time job and has paid most of it back. Now she has finished school (she's 18 btw) she is also paying for petrol.

For your interest, DH is the registered keeper, and a named driver on the policy, with DD as the named driver. Be warned that if you try to insure a car for a teenager and think the insurance will be cheaper if you say a parent is the main driver, then think again...it goes way way up!!!

No, funding a car for a child is not an obligation, but then if we didn't there'd be no teenagers driving on the roads ......now there's a thought!!!