Slightly Peculiar S172 to Respond to
Discussion
Bit of background, I’m the executor for my late sister in law and have a letter from South Yorks Plod for failure to comply with a section 172.
I didn’t receive any prior letters but I’m aware a previous letter (the actual S172) was received by her partner but clearly not actioned as the follow up is on my desk. I only received the follow up as I have mail redirection in place after her death.
Sister was hospitalised since late July and unable to drive and from/August was not medically conscious.
After I explained probate would freeze all money and assets for at least four months after death, her partner chose to sell the car as a way to raise funds as he does not work and has no income outside of benefits, hence him flogging it - Car in question was £500 of Vauxhall Vectra.
At this point, a normal person would perhaps change the ownership online, or at least after a ‘I’ve driven it home, now - do the swap mate’ type of agreement. Sadly, he did not do this.
Even more sadly, the person he sold it to proceeded to speed past a 30mph camera at 48mph, hence the letters.
As an aside, the person he sold it to panicked and then torched the Vectra - So it is no longer being driven around by the new (unregistered) keeper.
I’ve written back to SYP explaining I’m the executor, I can’t satisfy the S172 and have passed the details of the partner on the letter for them to follow up. DVLA have been notified of death already so there’s no license to apply 6pts to anyway.
Question I have is, what is likely to happen next?
- Penalty cancelled as RK deceased?
- SYP decide it was a TWOC / Dodgy sale and do something with the partner?
I’ve no skin in the game except wanting to reduce the amount of non-executor s
t like this I’m dealing with.
My job is to sort the estate of my sister, not mop up and wipe the arse of other grown men that can’t do things properly…
I didn’t receive any prior letters but I’m aware a previous letter (the actual S172) was received by her partner but clearly not actioned as the follow up is on my desk. I only received the follow up as I have mail redirection in place after her death.
Sister was hospitalised since late July and unable to drive and from/August was not medically conscious.
After I explained probate would freeze all money and assets for at least four months after death, her partner chose to sell the car as a way to raise funds as he does not work and has no income outside of benefits, hence him flogging it - Car in question was £500 of Vauxhall Vectra.
At this point, a normal person would perhaps change the ownership online, or at least after a ‘I’ve driven it home, now - do the swap mate’ type of agreement. Sadly, he did not do this.
Even more sadly, the person he sold it to proceeded to speed past a 30mph camera at 48mph, hence the letters.
As an aside, the person he sold it to panicked and then torched the Vectra - So it is no longer being driven around by the new (unregistered) keeper.
I’ve written back to SYP explaining I’m the executor, I can’t satisfy the S172 and have passed the details of the partner on the letter for them to follow up. DVLA have been notified of death already so there’s no license to apply 6pts to anyway.
Question I have is, what is likely to happen next?
- Penalty cancelled as RK deceased?
- SYP decide it was a TWOC / Dodgy sale and do something with the partner?
I’ve no skin in the game except wanting to reduce the amount of non-executor s
t like this I’m dealing with. My job is to sort the estate of my sister, not mop up and wipe the arse of other grown men that can’t do things properly…
Edited by Vanity Projects on Saturday 12th October 16:31
Why would the person he sold it to "panic"?
Since the V5 hasn't been swapped over (to either your Sister in law's partner or to the next owner) how would the latest owner know that he'd triggered speed cameras and then panic, and set the car on fire?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious!
Since the V5 hasn't been swapped over (to either your Sister in law's partner or to the next owner) how would the latest owner know that he'd triggered speed cameras and then panic, and set the car on fire?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious!
Sorry for your loss.
Who was/is the registered keeper. You said previous 172 was received by her partner; ergo he is the registered keeper.
Now you've said you received it by redirect.....so in her name?
Was it his car to sell, left in will or your job to dispose of as executor (then is it on you, no idea)?
If it was her car then I suspect it could get messy
Who was/is the registered keeper. You said previous 172 was received by her partner; ergo he is the registered keeper.
Now you've said you received it by redirect.....so in her name?
Was it his car to sell, left in will or your job to dispose of as executor (then is it on you, no idea)?
If it was her car then I suspect it could get messy
TheDrownedApe said:
Sorry for your loss.
Who was/is the registered keeper. You said previous 172 was received by her partner; ergo he is the registered keeper.
Now you've said you received it by redirect.....so in her name?
Was it his car to sell, left in will or your job to dispose of as executor (then is it on you, no idea)?
If it was her car then I suspect it could get messy
For clarity - I think the fella he sold it to was acutely aware he’d blasted past a speed camera and got shot of the car via a rag in fuel tank (or however the youth do it).Who was/is the registered keeper. You said previous 172 was received by her partner; ergo he is the registered keeper.
Now you've said you received it by redirect.....so in her name?
Was it his car to sell, left in will or your job to dispose of as executor (then is it on you, no idea)?
If it was her car then I suspect it could get messy
As for the RK, it was in the name of the sister in law. However, as she was incapacitated, he was opening her mail to manage affairs - All banks in her name, etc and no. Powers of attorney, etc.
So the NIP was addressed to her as the RK. Of course, being the RK doesn’t infer ownership so that’s a bit grey but if pushed I’d say it was her car as she paid all the bills in the house, and the purchase and service costs of the car, he drove an ‘03 Audi A4 as his car.
Super Sonic said:
How do you know the new owner torched the car?
This was based on a rambling text message I got from the partner. Presumably South Yorkshire Police had found it as a smoldering heap and been in touch at their address as the RK somehow? Then subsequently the NIP arrived from the cameras team and he’s sat on his hands instead of fixing it.
To be fair the partner spouts incredible amounts of horse turd at the best of times and the fate of the Vectra is of no concern.
I’m more interested in making sure I don’t have more SYP letters through my door - I’m knee deep in estate management and my day job/life and cba with the general drama that surrounds the partner.
Freddie Fitch said:
Countdown said:
Is there any reason why you can't tell them the truth?
I suspect that might be difficult as he doesn't know the truth. Just an awful lot of hearsay. 1. It was my sister-in-law's car
2. My brother in law told me he sold it (but forgot to inform DVLA)
3. Apparently whoever bought it broke the speed limit, panicked and torched the car
If he keeps on getting letters from SYP he can ignore them. HE'S not going to be the one who gets penalised for not declaring who the "driver" was
Of course the Police might wonder if the BIL had been driving without insurance and then concocted the story about selling the car, not telling DVLA and the new driver having torched it after having been flashed by a speed camera but that's between SYP and the BIL. It's not something that the OP or his SIL (RIP) needs to worry about.
Edited by Countdown on Saturday 12th October 18:40
Vanity Projects said:
Bit of background, I’m the executor for my late sister in law and have a letter from South Yorks Plod for failure to comply with a section 172.
I didn’t receive any prior letters but I’m aware a previous letter (the actual S172) was received by her partner but clearly not actioned as the follow up is on my desk. I only received the follow up as I have mail redirection in place after her death.
Sister was hospitalised since late July and unable to drive and from/August was not medically conscious.
After I explained probate would freeze all money and assets for at least four months after death, her partner chose to sell the car as a way to raise funds as he does not work and has no income outside of benefits, hence him flogging it - Car in question was £500 of Vauxhall Vectra.
At this point, a normal person would perhaps change the ownership online, or at least after a ‘I’ve driven it home, now - do the swap mate’ type of agreement. Sadly, he did not do this.
Even more sadly, the person he sold it to proceeded to speed past a 30mph camera at 48mph, hence the letters.
As an aside, the person he sold it to panicked and then torched the Vectra - So it is no longer being driven around by the new (unregistered) keeper.
I’ve written back to SYP explaining I’m the executor, I can’t satisfy the S172 and have passed the details of the partner on the letter for them to follow up. DVLA have been notified of death already so there’s no license to apply 6pts to anyway.
Question I have is, what is likely to happen next?
- Penalty cancelled as RK deceased?
- SYP decide it was a TWOC / Dodgy sale and do something with the partner?
I’ve no skin in the game except wanting to reduce the amount of non-executor st like this I’m dealing with.
My job is to sort the estate of my sister, not mop up and wipe the arse of other grown men that can’t do things properly…
The liability for furnishing details falls on the RK, so plod will have difficulty in prosecuting someone who is deceased.I didn’t receive any prior letters but I’m aware a previous letter (the actual S172) was received by her partner but clearly not actioned as the follow up is on my desk. I only received the follow up as I have mail redirection in place after her death.
Sister was hospitalised since late July and unable to drive and from/August was not medically conscious.
After I explained probate would freeze all money and assets for at least four months after death, her partner chose to sell the car as a way to raise funds as he does not work and has no income outside of benefits, hence him flogging it - Car in question was £500 of Vauxhall Vectra.
At this point, a normal person would perhaps change the ownership online, or at least after a ‘I’ve driven it home, now - do the swap mate’ type of agreement. Sadly, he did not do this.
Even more sadly, the person he sold it to proceeded to speed past a 30mph camera at 48mph, hence the letters.
As an aside, the person he sold it to panicked and then torched the Vectra - So it is no longer being driven around by the new (unregistered) keeper.
I’ve written back to SYP explaining I’m the executor, I can’t satisfy the S172 and have passed the details of the partner on the letter for them to follow up. DVLA have been notified of death already so there’s no license to apply 6pts to anyway.
Question I have is, what is likely to happen next?
- Penalty cancelled as RK deceased?
- SYP decide it was a TWOC / Dodgy sale and do something with the partner?
I’ve no skin in the game except wanting to reduce the amount of non-executor s
t like this I’m dealing with. My job is to sort the estate of my sister, not mop up and wipe the arse of other grown men that can’t do things properly…
Edited by Vanity Projects on Saturday 12th October 16:31
You're wrong to label this as non-executor s
t though, if you are the sole executor.Because it is then your responsibility to either sell the asset or transfer it and deal with the resulting administrative steps, nobody else's.
What specific steps, if any, did you actually take in that respect? Leaving it to him was a rookie mistake..
Also, did your sister-in-law leave a will? If so, did it mention the car or was it merely part of the remainder of her estate?
In which case what does the will say about that?
Hopefully plod will accept that you have done all you can to assist and will put it in the too difficult pile and NFA it.
Should they decide they want to go after the partner for something, thathe'll have to deal with it, not you.
Red Devil said:
The liability for furnishing details falls on the RK, so plod will have difficulty in prosecuting someone who is deceased.
You're wrong to label this as non-executor st though, if you are the sole executor.
Because it is then your responsibility to either sell the asset or transfer it and deal with the resulting administrative steps, nobody else's.
What specific steps, if any, did you actually take in that respect? Leaving it to him was a rookie mistake..
Also, did your sister-in-law leave a will? If so, did it mention the car or was it merely part of the remainder of her estate?
In which case what does the will say about that?
Hopefully plod will accept that you have done all you can to assist and will put it in the too difficult pile and NFA it.
Should they decide they want to go after the partner for something, thathe'll have to deal with it, not you.
Car was sold before her death, NIP and letters arrived afterwards.You're wrong to label this as non-executor s
t though, if you are the sole executor.Because it is then your responsibility to either sell the asset or transfer it and deal with the resulting administrative steps, nobody else's.
What specific steps, if any, did you actually take in that respect? Leaving it to him was a rookie mistake..
Also, did your sister-in-law leave a will? If so, did it mention the car or was it merely part of the remainder of her estate?
In which case what does the will say about that?
Hopefully plod will accept that you have done all you can to assist and will put it in the too difficult pile and NFA it.
Should they decide they want to go after the partner for something, thathe'll have to deal with it, not you.
There was no power of attorney so he sold the car of his own volition prior to her death.
I’ve told the police as much as I know in the letter, my question was whether plod will just give up as too hard, or whether they’ll actively do anything with the partner for being a twonk.
If they choose to pursue the partner, he’ll no doubt end up texting me in a panic. For my own reasons, I have no interest in that.
If all the police are interested in is the speeding offence then I would guess that hearing that the registered owner is deceased might draw a line under further enquiries.
If the torching of the car is heading somewhere else or if there was more to the story then the next step for the police will be the partner. Torching the car for activating a speed camera is a bit extreme I would have thought?
Either way, by telling the police everything you know as a fact you will have fulfilled your obligations as far as the S172 goes.
The Executor stuff is possibly a bit more complicated and beyond my Man in a Pub knowledge.
If the torching of the car is heading somewhere else or if there was more to the story then the next step for the police will be the partner. Torching the car for activating a speed camera is a bit extreme I would have thought?
Either way, by telling the police everything you know as a fact you will have fulfilled your obligations as far as the S172 goes.
The Executor stuff is possibly a bit more complicated and beyond my Man in a Pub knowledge.
Edited by PV7998 on Saturday 12th October 20:38
PV7998 said:
If all the police are interested in is the speeding offence then I would guess that hearing that the registered owner is deceased might draw a line under further enquiries.
If the torching of the car is heading somewhere else or if there was more to the story then the next step for the police will be the partner. Torching the car for activating a speed camera is a bit extreme I would have thought?
Either way, by telling the police everything you know as a fact you will have fulfilled your obligations as far as the S172 goes.
The Executor stuff is possibly a bit more complicated and beyond my Man in a Pub knowledge.
He has no obligations to fulfill, the S172 is not addressed to him. Just return with a covering letter stating that the registered keeper is now deceased, job done If the torching of the car is heading somewhere else or if there was more to the story then the next step for the police will be the partner. Torching the car for activating a speed camera is a bit extreme I would have thought?
Either way, by telling the police everything you know as a fact you will have fulfilled your obligations as far as the S172 goes.
The Executor stuff is possibly a bit more complicated and beyond my Man in a Pub knowledge.
Edited by PV7998 on Saturday 12th October 20:38
It's the executor's job to deal with the legal affairs of the deceased.
As the car was sold and not part of your sister's estate at death it is outside your remit.
Your explanatory letter stating your role as your sister's executor and the car was sold prior to her death, and not by you, will suffice.
If Plod do wish to take it further they'll be knocking on her partner's door.
As the car was sold and not part of your sister's estate at death it is outside your remit.
Your explanatory letter stating your role as your sister's executor and the car was sold prior to her death, and not by you, will suffice.
If Plod do wish to take it further they'll be knocking on her partner's door.
Edited by konark on Sunday 13th October 05:16
So who is responsible for the deceased's legal affairs? It's obviously the executor.
Estates can sue, and be sued, for money owing, In civil law. If any criminal cases against the deceased are pending it falls to the executor , as personal representative of the deceased, to inform the authorities as failure to act may be detrimental to the estate.
Estates can sue, and be sued, for money owing, In civil law. If any criminal cases against the deceased are pending it falls to the executor , as personal representative of the deceased, to inform the authorities as failure to act may be detrimental to the estate.
Edited by konark on Monday 14th October 06:23
Sorry for all the agro OP
Entirely different, however when my mum died, I simply replied to various letters about subscriptions etc, with a copy of the death certificate and a polite letter saying anything else you need, just ask.
I would do the same.
Nothing to do with you, wait to be informed of what you have to do, after you've explained they're deceased!
I certainly wouldn't be making work for yourself.
Entirely different, however when my mum died, I simply replied to various letters about subscriptions etc, with a copy of the death certificate and a polite letter saying anything else you need, just ask.
I would do the same.
Nothing to do with you, wait to be informed of what you have to do, after you've explained they're deceased!
I certainly wouldn't be making work for yourself.
Alickadoo said:
Vanity Projects said:
Bit of background, I’m the executor for my late sister in law and have a letter from South Yorks Plod for failure to comply with a section 172.
Why did you accept the office of executor? That is down to the deceased's partner.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff