Car tax - is it necessary to back date it?

6

60watt

Registered User
Messages
45
Hi,

My father stopped driving in January this year, because he is elderly and has bad hip problems. His car tax, NCT and Insurance expired in March.
He will never drive again and wants to gift his car to me his son. The car is 15 yrs old and valued at €1500.
I now need to service, NCT, insure and Tax this car for my own personal use.
Is there back tax now due?
We never thought to register the car off road back in March because of more urgent matters relating to Dad's health.

Thanks
 
You have to pay the back tax.

There is a procedure for taking the car off the road for a set period but it has to be done in advance.

See here:

Vehicle off the road​

If your vehicle is temporarily off the road, you do not have to pay motor tax for that period. You must declare in advance that your vehicle will be off the road and not in use for a period of between 3 and 12 months.
To do this, you must:

The declaration of non-use must be made in the same month that your current motor tax disc expires. If arrears in motor tax are due, these must be paid in full and you must also pay a minimum of 3 months motor tax before a declaration of non-use can be made.
Click to expand...
 
60watt said:
The car is 15 yrs old and valued at €1500.
Click to expand...

Check out how much the insurance will cost you before paying anything at all. AFAIK some companies don't want 15 year old cars so even if they do quote it could be very expensive
 
Sue Ellen said:
Check out how much the insurance will cost you before paying anything at all. AFAIK some companies don't want 15 year old cars so even if they do quote it could be very expensive
Click to expand...
This keeps getting quoted here but in my experience is nonsense.
 
For me it certainly was the case. I tried to say ; “but the car is nct’ed and it’s not worth much why is my premium so much?”. The reason explained to me , simply is because older cars are not as safe as new cars. It’s not the cost of repairing cars that worries insurance it’s the cost of repairing humans.
 
Harfang said:
For me it certainly was the case. I tried to say ; “but the car is nct’ed and it’s not worth much why is my premium so much?”. The reason explained to me , simply is because older cars are not as safe as new cars. It’s not the cost of repairing cars that worries insurance it’s the cost of repairing humans.
Click to expand...
How much more expensive? What type of car? There are loads of pre-2007 cars still on Irish roads. I'd wager that most are not costing their owners significantly higher insurance premiums or they'd have traded up long ago.
 
2005 SUV. I’m 50. This was 2 years ago and I was paying over 1200 euro. Since sold the car and paying less than 500 euro now on a car worth 6 times the value but it’s so much newer. It’s a 2015. The axa guy , in their office, explained why older cars cost more to cover. It makes sense. It’s undeniable. Newer cars are safer and while some insurance companies will keep on insuring an old car for existing customers if you try and change car or move company and it’s for a car over 15 yrs old you’ll find it hard.
 
T McGibney said:
How much more expensive? What type of car? There are loads of pre-2007 cars still on Irish roads. I'd wager that most are not costing their owners significantly higher insurance premiums or they'd have traded up long ago.
Click to expand...
Quite a lot of these are and have already been insured (possibly with the same insurer) for quite some time.

It is a different story if you go out tomorrow and buy a car that is already 15 years old and try to take out a new policy on it.
 
Harfang said:
The axa guy , in their office, explained why older cars cost more to cover. It makes sense. It’s undeniable. Newer cars are safer
Click to expand...
A 2007 car with an up-to-date NCT is not hugely more hazardous on the road than a 2022 car.


Owning an old car is certainly of a proxy for the characteristics of the driver who is (probably, and on average) more dangerous.
 
rustbucket said:
Quite a lot of these are and have already been insured (possibly with the same insurer) for quite some time.
Click to expand...
I had that with what was a 12 year old Accord a few years back, existing insurers happily requoted every year but some of the others would no longer quote online and phone quotes were 'please go elsewhere' kind of money.
 
peteb said:
on a limited mileage policy or a product for age of classic car? As opposed to old junkers.
Click to expand...
I don't actually have a 1970 Porsche 917K. If I did I'd sell it and use the money to buy a house for €5 million, put €2 million into a pension and put the other €5-€8 million in the bank.
 
Harfang said:
2005 SUV. I’m 50. This was 2 years ago and I was paying over 1200 euro. Since sold the car and paying less than 500 euro now on a car worth 6 times the value but it’s so much newer. It’s a 2015. The axa guy , in their office, explained why older cars cost more to cover. It makes sense. It’s undeniable. Newer cars are safer and while some insurance companies will keep on insuring an old car for existing customers if you try and change car or move company and it’s for a car over 15 yrs old you’ll find it hard.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough I know of a few youngsters in their early 20s driving early-2000s cars handed to them by parents/grandparents as an alternative to the scrapyard. I haven't heard of insurance being an issue.
NoRegretsCoyote said:
A 2007 car with an up-to-date NCT is not hugely more hazardous on the road than a 2022 car.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The quantum leap in car safety was sometime in the mid-90s.
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Owning an old car is certainly of a proxy for the characteristics of the driver who is (probably, and on average) more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Hardly. It's most often a proxy for someone who rarely needs to drive far from base.
 
Horatio said:
What? I don't get that at all.
Click to expand...
The most reckless drivers I see are men in their 20s driving Mercedes and BMWs from the mid-2000s.


Insurers are not allowed to discriminate by age so they compensate by discriminating by age and type of car.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The most reckless drivers I see are men in their 20s driving Mercedes and BMWs from the mid-2000s.


Insurers are not allowed to discriminate by age so they compensate by discriminating by age and type of car.
Click to expand...
I share that observation.

I wonder if that second part is correct & legally allowed...profiling of Policy Holders & charging higher premium based solely on the car they drive such that a Driver in his mid forties with 10 years no claims bonus (vs. men in their 20s) is penalised because he drives a Mercedes or BMW from the mid-2000s.
 
Horatio said:
I wonder if that second part is correct & legally allowed...profiling of Policy Holders & charging higher premium based solely on the car they drive such that a Driver in his mid forties with 10 years no claims bonus (vs. men in their 20s) is penalised because he drives a Mercedes or BMW from the mid-2000s.
Click to expand...
I'm not an actuary. I do know that factors like sex and age are statistically significant risk criteria when you control for other factors.


When you remove these risk factors from your model (as the law obliges) two things happen:
1) your model generally loses overall explanatory power
2) risk factors that correlate with sex and age become more significant in your model

I suspect that (even unintentionally) the age of your car is doing proxy work for things like your age which they can't discriminate on the basis of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top