Vehicle with no insurance |
Vehicle with no insurance |
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 21:59
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,254 Joined: 19 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,753 |
Is it legal to drive a car with no insurance which belongs to someone else, with the owners permission from private land to private land using public roads if the driver holds any vehicle insurance?
I know it cant be parked on public road regardless of the drivers insurance. This hasn't happened yet but I might have to pick a car up which isn't insured in the next week or so and I have been told the vehicle must have its own insurance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 21:59
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 20:27
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Why not just buy one of these day policies you can buy online? I've done it before in these sorts of situations. Having once had to argue with the police at the side of the road that the licence I had given them was valid despite the lovely people at the DVLA updating the PNC wrong, I would rather not have to argue the toss over anything that could leave me walking home for the sake of a few pennies.
I have DOV cover which covers vehicles insured or not but I wouldn't use it for an uninsured vehicle in case of another "the computer must be right" scenario. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 20:53
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Recent situation I had, to get an uninsured newly purchased car home, spoke to my insurers..... £28 quid for a week, didn't need a week though was useful as it turned out but would have been the same for a day.
Online by the hour would have been cheaper for the time really needed but way more for the day. Sanctimonious but better a few quid then 6 points and the fine, not to mention walking home. Would it have happened, who knows ? |
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 00:31
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
A week's insurance does have the advantage that you have time for the inevitable visits to the motor factors or to return the car
|
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 11:16
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 939 Joined: 24 Sep 2014 Member No.: 73,212 |
. . . . . So, to clarify a very confusing situation... A vehicle ALWAYS needs its own insurance cover DOV cover permits a driver not named on the vehicle insurance to drive the vehicle. Yes - so long as the terms specified in the drivers policy are adhered to. Continuous Insurance applies to any vehicle unless it is SORNed Hope that hasn't confused you even more! It has! However, the debate is whether a vehicle always requires insurance specific to the vehicle under CIE as DOC cover is never specific. It seems some say yes whilst others do not agree but I think CIE does require a policy to specifically cover a vehicle i.e. the registration number must be on the certificate/policy. (I know there are various company policies etc but we are referring to the man in street average motorist in this sense) My interest is because a brother has several vehicles and recently broke down in one of them. He asked me to use another of his vehicles to tow him in the broken down car to a garage. I have DOC cover so agreed. It later transpired that although he thought he had the tow vehicle insured it had expired so my DOC cover was all that existed. We weren't stopped and he now has multi-car breakdown cover! |
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 11:24
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,400 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . .
It has! However, the debate is whether a vehicle always requires insurance specific to the vehicle under CIE as DOC cover is never specific. Yes, unless it is SORNed. Once a vehicle is delared SORN, it does not need insurance under the Continuous Insurance Requirement. If it is driven on the road without insurance cover, that is nothing to do with the Continuous Insurance Requirement. It seems some say yes whilst others do not agree but I think CIE does require a policy to specifically cover a vehicle i.e. the registration number must be on the certificate/policy. (I know there are various company policies etc but we are referring to the man in street average motorist in this sense) My interest is because a brother has several vehicles and recently broke down in one of them. He asked me to use another of his vehicles to tow him in the broken down car to a garage. I have DOC cover so agreed. It later transpired that although he thought he had the tow vehicle insured it had expired so my DOC cover was all that existed. We weren't stopped and he now has multi-car breakdown cover! If your DOV on your policy did not require the other vehicle to have its own insurance, then no problem (until you stopped and got out and attached a tow rope, which meant you were not driving it and it was on the road without insurance cover!). |
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 11:47
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,316 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 22,300 |
It has! However, the debate is whether a vehicle always requires insurance specific to the vehicle under CIE as DOC cover is never specific. They are two different matters. Unless exempt, a person using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is required to have insurance - s.143 & 144, Road Traffic Act 1988. Unless exempt, the registered keeper of a registered motor vehicle commits an offence if the vehicle does not comply with the insurance requirement - s.144A &144B of the same act. |
|
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 23:59
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
It has! However, the debate is whether a vehicle always requires insurance specific to the vehicle under CIE as DOC cover is never specific. They are two different matters. Unless exempt, a person using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is required to have insurance - s.143 & 144, Road Traffic Act 1988. Unless exempt, the registered keeper of a registered motor vehicle commits an offence if the vehicle does not comply with the insurance requirement - s.144A &144B of the same act. Yes, which is why I said that, at least, the OP was in the clear. The RK will violate the CIR if the vehicle is neither SORNed nor insured in a manner specified in the CIR*. But the OP only needs to have insurance when driving the vehicle, and it appears that he/she does/will do. The RK's violation of the CIR has nothing to do with the vehicle's use or non-use on the road--that was the old regime. *One other exception, I suppose, to the CIR is that it applies only to vehicles "registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994". IIRC, an "exported" vehicle is considered no longer registered under VERA 1994 (as would a foreign vehicle), and even if the vehicle is imported or re-imported into the UK, such vehicles are not automatically registered under VERA 1994, so would not be caught be the CIR. Of course, there are certain conditions under which vehicles are required to be registered under VERA 1994, but that is a different matter. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 08:07
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 11 May 2011 Member No.: 46,569 |
Recent situation I had, to get an uninsured newly purchased car home, spoke to my insurers..... £28 quid for a week, didn't need a week though was useful as it turned out but would have been the same for a day. Online by the hour would have been cheaper for the time really needed but way more for the day. Sanctimonious but better a few quid then 6 points and the fine, not to mention walking home. Would it have happened, who knows ? I had exactly the same problem a while back. No insurance cover plus the fact that a couple of tyres looked illegal to me. I agreed with the seller that if he drove the car to my address I would then complete the purchase with cash. He did so and I took him back in another car. The car went on my drive and was sorned on line. The wheels were removed and taken to the local tyre shop. Coachdriver. |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 15:16
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 939 Joined: 24 Sep 2014 Member No.: 73,212 |
If your DOV on your policy did not require the other vehicle to have its own insurance, then no problem (until you stopped and got out and attached a tow rope, which meant you were not driving it and it was on the road without insurance cover!). I was aware of that little gem. My DOV does not require the other vehicle to have insurance although, in this case, I thought it had. The towing eye was already installed on the broken down car as he was pulled off the main road by a helpful motorist. The tow car I drove had a tow ball and, fortuitously, he attached the towrope whilst I remained the car. His good luck ran out a few days later when ANPR caught him. |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 19:15
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
. . . . My interest is because a brother has several vehicles and recently broke down in one of them. He asked me to use another of his vehicles to tow him in the broken down car to a garage. I have DOC cover so agreed. It later transpired that although he thought he had the tow vehicle insured it had expired so my DOC cover was all that existed. We weren't stopped and he now has multi-car breakdown cover! If your DOV on your policy did not require the other vehicle to have its own insurance, then no problem (until you stopped and got out and attached a tow rope, which meant you were not driving it and it was on the road without insurance cover!). Which offence are you talking about? Presumably, the brother had already committed the CIR offence before the vehicles were "driven" anywhere. Baroudeur only needed DOV insurance whilst using the tow vehicle on a road or other public place, which he had. There is s143, and his "use" of a vehicle would cover parking that vehicle on a road or other public place--but so would his DOV cover. It would continue for a reasonable time to cover the permitted use, like any other provision of a consumer insurance policy. For how long would be a matter for the courts... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 20:02
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,316 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 22,300 |
There is s143, and his "use" of a vehicle would cover parking that vehicle on a road or other public place--but so would his DOV cover. It would continue for a reasonable time to cover the permitted use, like any other provision of a consumer insurance policy. For how long would be a matter for the courts... --Churchmouse It can depend on the particular insurance policy, most cover the policyholder and named drivers for the 'use' of their own car, but cover the policyholder for only 'driving' other vehicles. |
|
|
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 20:31
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Which offence are you talking about? Presumably, the brother had already committed the CIR offence before the vehicles were "driven" anywhere. Baroudeur only needed DOV insurance whilst using the tow vehicle on a road or other public place, which he had. There is s143, and his "use" of a vehicle would cover parking that vehicle on a road or other public place--but so would his DOV cover. It would continue for a reasonable time to cover the permitted use, like any other provision of a consumer insurance policy. For how long would be a matter for the courts... --Churchmouse Why would it cover parking that is not in the course of driving, such as at a service station? The cover is an addition to the "minimum" a fully comp policy provides. If the insurer intends for the cover to be for a journey, e.g. not publicly accessible land to NPAL, rather than a trip, such as going to the shop, I don't see why that would be seen as an unfair term. Something like a time limit, say, one hour, would be as it could encourage unsafe driving to beat the clock. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 10:48
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Which offence are you talking about? Presumably, the brother had already committed the CIR offence before the vehicles were "driven" anywhere. Baroudeur only needed DOV insurance whilst using the tow vehicle on a road or other public place, which he had. There is s143, and his "use" of a vehicle would cover parking that vehicle on a road or other public place--but so would his DOV cover. It would continue for a reasonable time to cover the permitted use, like any other provision of a consumer insurance policy. For how long would be a matter for the courts... --Churchmouse Why would it cover parking that is not in the course of driving, such as at a service station? The cover is an addition to the "minimum" a fully comp policy provides. If the insurer intends for the cover to be for a journey, e.g. not publicly accessible land to NPAL, rather than a trip, such as going to the shop, I don't see why that would be seen as an unfair term. Something like a time limit, say, one hour, would be as it could encourage unsafe driving to beat the clock. Because if the criminal definition of "use" covers parking up, and the insurance definition of "use" does not, then policyholders are going to be unintentionally committing serious RTA offenses left and right. The whole point of DOV is to allow policyholders to legally use vehicles not owned by them, and this nonsensical "step out of the car and the insurance vanishes" idea is wholly incompatible with it. My own policies' DOV wording doesn't elaborate on what "driving" means, but neither do these policies define what "driving" the insured vehicle means! But it's not just (or really?) the policyholder's legal potential problems that are at stake here. I cannot say for sure, since I am not aware of this issue ever coming up, but I would expect that the financial ombudsman would simply overrule any insurer that tried to dodge liability on the basis that a policyholder was uninsured in relation to a parked vehicle, because that vehicle was no longer being "driven". If an insurer can avoid liability to its policyholder, then it would also be able to avoid liability to third parties, and that would damage the UK third party liability system itself. Who would pick up the third party's injury/damages tab if the policyholder was skint? The government? Not gonna happen... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 11:13
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,400 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . . Because if the criminal definition of "use" covers parking up, and the insurance definition of "use" does not, then policyholders are going to be unintentionally committing serious RTA offenses left and right. The whole point of DOV is to allow policyholders to legally use vehicles not owned by them, and this nonsensical "step out of the car and the insurance vanishes" idea is wholly incompatible with it. My own policies' DOV wording doesn't elaborate on what "driving" means, but neither do these policies define what "driving" the insured vehicle means! But it's not just (or really?) the policyholder's legal potential problems that are at stake here. I cannot say for sure, since I am not aware of this issue ever coming up, but I would expect that the financial ombudsman would simply overrule any insurer that tried to dodge liability on the basis that a policyholder was uninsured in relation to a parked vehicle, because that vehicle was no longer being "driven". If an insurer can avoid liability to its policyholder, then it would also be able to avoid liability to third parties, and that would damage the UK third party liability system itself. Who would pick up the third party's injury/damages tab if the policyholder was skint? The government? Not gonna happen... --Churchmouse My policy includes Drive Other Vehicles, not Use Other Vehicles. I would suggest that you view it the same as using a handheld phone; when would that be OK? That's when you aren't driving the vehicle, and when your DOV cover isn't in force. Such as when you stop the vehicle and get out. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 11:19
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I don't think anyone other than you is suggesting that cover stops as soon as you are physically out of the car.
However, there is clearly also a point where you are using the car but you are no longer driving it. For instance, if you go out for a night out on the tiles, drive the car into town, then collect it the next morning, it seems unlikely you are continuously driving the car, even though you are continuously using it. But if you stop at a corner shop to get some pork scratchings and a packet of fags then an insurance company would surely see that as continuous driving, even if it didn't count as driving for a road traffic offence. I suspect the line is drawn broadly along a "don't take the piss" angle. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 11:37
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I'm trying to work out why DOV cover would apply to parked vehicles ?
TBH I cannot see how an insurance company would be avoiding liability by excluding parking on DOV insurance. It is cover that is designed to let someone drive another vehicle if needed but is not designed to provide anything more then legal minimum. Only in the unlikely event that something happened which was the fault of the driver or owner after parking and that damaged other people or property that it would become an issue. Not an issue then as presumably the normal insurance would cover unless it was an act by the driver (not applying handbrake) which would come under driving anyway. Possible conflict between DOV insurance and "normal" depending on what happened. If the vehicle is uninsured, cannot see how the DOV would or should apply to any parking unless situation occurred (such as handbrake) that relates to driving. It is not designed to provide continuous insurance or replace a proper policy. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 12:13
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,316 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 22,300 |
Because if the criminal definition of "use" covers parking up, and the insurance definition of "use" does not, then policyholders are going to be unintentionally committing serious RTA offenses left and right. The whole point of DOV is to allow policyholders to legally use vehicles not owned by them, and this nonsensical "step out of the car and the insurance vanishes" idea is wholly incompatible with it. The insurance cover for 'use' will include the policy holder parking up. It is the wording of the policy that is important, most insurance policies only cover the extension for other vehicles when 'driving' them - not using them. This post has been edited by localdriver: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 12:14 |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 13:28
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'm trying to work out why DOV cover would apply to parked vehicles ? TBH I cannot see how an insurance company would be avoiding liability by excluding parking on DOV insurance. It is cover that is designed to let someone drive another vehicle if needed but is not designed to provide anything more then legal minimum. Only in the unlikely event that something happened which was the fault of the driver or owner after parking and that damaged other people or property that it would become an issue. Not an issue then as presumably the normal insurance would cover unless it was an act by the driver (not applying handbrake) which would come under driving anyway. Possible conflict between DOV insurance and "normal" depending on what happened. If the vehicle is uninsured, cannot see how the DOV would or should apply to any parking unless situation occurred (such as handbrake) that relates to driving. It is not designed to provide continuous insurance or replace a proper policy. By this logic if I use DOV cover to drive to a shop, park up, and then an incident occurs (say someone drives into the car and pushes it into the next one along), the DOV cover doesn't apply and the vehicle is uninsured. I'm sorry I don't buy this at all, I suspect the courts would say that in order to comply with the RTA the policy must provide the minimum legal cover until the journey is completed, so if I pop to the shop using DOV cover, the policy must cover the vehicle while it is parked outside the shop and until I return to wherever I'm returning to after going to the shop. You'd otherwise end up with all sorts of absurd situations, for example where you're filling up the car at a petrol station or queuing to pay, you'd be "using" the car with no insurance. A DOV policy that ceases to operate the moment you take the keys out of the ignition simply wouldn't be a valid policy for the purposes of the RTA. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 13:53
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
.........By this logic if I use DOV cover to drive to a shop, park up, and then an incident occurs (say someone drives into the car and pushes it into the next one along), the DOV cover doesn't apply and the vehicle is uninsured. I'm sorry I don't buy this at all, I suspect the courts would say that in order to comply with the RTA the policy must provide the minimum legal cover until the journey is completed, so if I pop to the shop using DOV cover, the policy must cover the vehicle while it is parked outside the shop and until I return to wherever I'm returning to after going to the shop. You'd otherwise end up with all sorts of absurd situations, for example where you're filling up the car at a petrol station or queuing to pay, you'd be "using" the car with no insurance. A DOV policy that ceases to operate the moment you take the keys out of the ignition simply wouldn't be a valid policy for the purposes of the RTA. I don't know and am only kicking around ideas but if parking is included, when does the DOV cover stop? Parked while shopping would certainly be under Use and may well be something that policy dictates, ie covered DOV while using in line with RTA But where does it end? Driver parks and vehicle not moved for 4 months, is it still covered? Is it only covered if driver intends to use it again at the end of the 4 months? Driver goes to airport, parks up, intends to use vehicle to drive home, is it covered for what could be an extended period ? There is a whole can of worms anyway, whichever way it is looked at but I still think that insurance companies would only be providing minimum cover for the DOV driver but this does not extend to situations where vehicle cover should provide what is needed, ie when parked. ]If the vehicle has not got its own insurance, that is the owner's problem, not the driver if DOV doesn't cover when parked. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 13:56 |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 15:28
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The insurer is already providing the minimum cover when you are driving the vehicle. The petrol station scenario is obviously different, you are driving to xxx and stopping at a petrol station on the way.
Contrast that with driving to the shops, going shopping, and driving home again. In plain English there is a break in driving, you are not driving the vehicle and also telling your wife to hurry the fop up at the same time. I think this fits with most people's expectation of DOV cover. You are covered for journeys, but not to use a car as if you own it. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 15:29 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 18:06 |