Reply to: Leasing an EV - Insurance Query (and boom!)

[b0redom]

Yeah I wouldn’t have considered new as the car would be the best part of 100k, but depreciation means that after 4 years, it’s not far off the price of an ICE Galaxy, and if you take into account paying pretax it’s actually cheaper.

things to note:

If you lease an EV (or seemingly any car) you can claim 1/2 the VAT back. Unless you’re a driving instructor, taxi driver or can prove that there is zero personal use at all, you can’t claim the VAT back at all (in the U.K. before MB chimes in to gloat that he can as he lives in a 3rd world country )

If you buy new you can offset the whole cost against profits in year one.

if you buy used, you can only claim a small portion of the tax against profits.

[fiisch]

I bought it because I needed a big car to replace a galaxy. I’ve got 3 kids, the youngest of whom is autistic and it’s likely to suffer at least some damage as part of a meltdown.

You can no longer buy/lease new model Xs, and there aren’t very many alternatives, certainly at a reasonable cost. I still have retained funds in my company, so I figured why not?

I could have bought an ICE car, but that would have meant pulling funds from the company, and given close to 0 BIK and 0 VED vs the supertax Id have almost certainly been hit with on an ICE car the numbers added up.

Thanks - that's interesting. Hadn't realised used was an option, you've sent me down a bit of an Autotrader wormhole...

[fiisch]

I bought it because I needed a big car to replace a galaxy. I’ve got 3 kids, the youngest of whom is autistic and it’s likely to suffer at least some damage as part of a meltdown.

You can no longer buy/lease new model Xs, and there aren’t very many alternatives, certainly at a reasonable cost. I still have retained funds in my company, so I figured why not?

I could have bought an ICE car, but that would have meant pulling funds from the company, and given close to 0 BIK and 0 VED vs the supertax Id have almost certainly been hit with on an ICE car the numbers added up.

Thanks - that's useful. I hadn't realised used was an option, you've sent me down a bit of an Autotrader wormhole

[DoctorStrangelove]

I think the little red van was before the V5.

Apparently that appeared in 1974, replacing the previous document.

It also never occurred to me to tell my insurance company about the accident I had in said little red van when a concrete mixer truck reversed into me on a road in Morriston.

That was before the introduction of under run bars on the rear of trucks.

I'll never forget that rear of that thing ending up a foot in front of the windscreen.

Or the ankle deep mud on the building site.

[vetran]

I wonder how that worked on my little red works Escort 1100 back in the day. After half a century I don't suppose it matters overmuch.

When I had a company car the V5 was in the Director who was the fleet manager name. (Related to the owners).

If they put the V5 in employees names they would have 16 keepers a year with our staff turnover.

The Fleet manager got the speeding tickets then charged you a £30 handling fee and passed it on to the relevant driver.

This was before the V5 had a dedicated owner field.

[DoctorStrangelove]

I wonder how that worked on my little red works Escort 1100 back in the day. After half a century I don't suppose it matters overmuch.

[BolshieBastard]

Actually, I'll trump the insurance industry with the Police:
https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id...b-0022483f5223

The police are wrong and not for the first time. End of the day, it doesnt matter who the 'day to day' driver is so long as they are either the policy holder OR a named driver on the policy documents.

[b0redom]

I bought it because I needed a big car to replace a galaxy. I’ve got 3 kids, the youngest of whom is autistic and it’s likely to suffer at least some damage as part of a meltdown.

You can no longer buy/lease new model Xs, and there aren’t very many alternatives, certainly at a reasonable cost. I still have retained funds in my company, so I figured why not?

I could have bought an ICE car, but that would have meant pulling funds from the company, and given close to 0 BIK and 0 VED vs the supertax Id have almost certainly been hit with on an ICE car the numbers added up.

[fiisch]

TBH it’s not worth engaging with MB. He’s operating in a different tax regime and for some reason thinks ICE cars are better for everyone regardless of their circumstances.

OP. I just bought an EV rather than leasing, but I’ve put myself as the registered keeper and have personally insured it. I used one of the price comparison sites, and it gave me the option to say that my company owned the vehicle, but I wanted to insure it personally. This cost slightly less that owning and insuring it personally, which surprised me tbh. It also means that I preserve my NCD without having to faff about with company to personal and back transfers.

Why did you decide to buy rather than lease out of interest?

MB: I'm with you on the buy lightly used outright and ICE vs EV in normal circumstances, except that:

1. The tax advantages of obtaining an EV via the Ltd Co are added for me as doing so means I'll pay less dividend tax, in addition to the other efficiencies.

2. There's method in my madness, with the long-term aim of freeing up some cash to buy an ICE car for weekend toy.

This is not an EV vs ICE thread, but I feel I need to qualify - I've been a petrolhead since before I can walk, and was anti-EV, up until I bought a cheap one last year as a runaround. IF you don't need to charge away from home, for 95% of the miles I am hard-pushed to argue the case for ICE, as much as I'd want to.

[b0redom]

TBH it’s not worth engaging with MB. He’s operating in a different tax regime and for some reason thinks ICE cars are better for everyone regardless of their circumstances.

OP. I just bought an EV rather than leasing, but I’ve put myself as the registered keeper and have personally insured it. I used one of the price comparison sites, and it gave me the option to say that my company owned the vehicle, but I wanted to insure it personally. This cost slightly less that owning and insuring it personally, which surprised me tbh. It also means that I preserve my NCD without having to faff about with company to personal and back transfers.

[fatJock]

No I mean the economic comparison on a like for like basis

it seems to me the lease payments are same as loan payments and at the end of the lease you don't own the car

Milan.

Yeah but leasing and purchasing aren't like for like are they and that's not what you said initially. I pay x for 3 years to lease, I'd be paying more than x over 3 years (or paying for a longer term) to purchase so cashflow wise there is a variance and I get it, by leasing I'm paying out and not owning the car but equally I'm not owning the problems when it gets older.

One man band or large company is irrelevant - the numbers can work provided your approach to vehicle use is leasing. Like I said, its personal preference - lease or purchase. For what it's worth - I'm going to buy a runaround next time, personally funded because I just don't do the mileage now.

[WTFH]

Actually, I'll trump the insurance industry with the Police:
https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id...b-0022483f5223

the registration document should show the registered keeper, i.e. the day to day user (this may be an employee who has it as a permanent perk with his/her job).

[WTFH]

This dosent sound right.
If its a company lease. Registered keeper will be the company.

Not according to various websites, including WBAC:
https://www.webuyanycar.com/guides/c...eper-vs-owner/

Who is the registered keeper of a car?

The registered keeper of a car in the UK is defined as ‘the person who is responsible for the vehicle and has the right to use it’. ...



What’s the difference between the registered keeper and the owner?

While it’s common for the registered keeper and the owner of a car to be the same person, this isn’t always the case. Company car schemes are a good example: the employee is the registered keeper of the car but the owner - and therefore the one with most of the legal obligations, is the employer who organises the company car scheme. This means that while the employee is free to drive the vehicle (and must maintain its insurance compliance), the employer is the one with the legal rights and responsibilities.

[courtg9000]

I realise that this thread has gone the way of many, full of people who love SLOW ICE cars, but back to your insurance question.
The owner would be the leasing company, registered keeper should be you, I believe, not the leasing company and not your company. You then insure it on your personal insurance, not on a company policy, and you keep your NCD, etc.
I would thought this would be particularly true if your company address is different to your home address.
Pay the insurance privately out of your own pocket, then the insurance address and your driving licence address are the same.

This dosent sound right.
If its a company lease. Registered keeper will be the company. The company then has to get insurance for its employee.

[milanbenes]

lol

Milan.