PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Vehicle with no insurance
nimh999
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 66)
Advertisement
post Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 21:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 18:54
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (facade @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
I agree. If the driver neglects to apply the handbrake properly, then this was a part of driving and will be covered by his DOV insurance.

Really? Again it depends on the policy wording but I cannot see how you can drive a car whilst you are in the supermarket.

If you drive and leave your car in an unsafe position I suspect one insurer would pay out and then sue you for the money. Otherwise parking in a blindingly stupid place and having a bus smash into your car would also be covered, because the car was parked whilst the vehicle is still being driven.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 18:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 19:21
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 19:54) *
QUOTE (facade @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
I agree. If the driver neglects to apply the handbrake properly, then this was a part of driving and will be covered by his DOV insurance.

Really? Again it depends on the policy wording but I cannot see how you can drive a car whilst you are in the supermarket.



When did the negligence take place?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 22:35
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:43) *
I must say its always been my expectation that the DOV cover only applied while I was in the driving seat (or arguably if the Police ordered me out on the basis they would create the offence!), I wouldn't expect the car (which doesn't belong to me don't forget, so on the face of it I have no 'interest' in it) to be covered if I parked it. I only use it for driving otherwise uninsured cars when test driving private sale cars, I'm not the one contravening the continuous insurance requirement!

It's not the car that's being insured under DOV cover--it's you, so having an "insurable interest" doesn't come into it.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 22:46
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:43) *
I must say its always been my expectation that the DOV cover only applied while I was in the driving seat (or arguably if the Police ordered me out on the basis they would create the offence!), I wouldn't expect the car (which doesn't belong to me don't forget, so on the face of it I have no 'interest' in it) to be covered if I parked it. I only use it for driving otherwise uninsured cars when test driving private sale cars, I'm not the one contravening the continuous insurance requirement!

It's not the car that's being insured under DOV cover--it's you, so having an "insurable interest" doesn't come into it.

--Churchmouse

Wouldn’t it come into it if it wasn’t being driven at the time of some unfortunate event happening to it?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 03:31
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:43) *
I must say its always been my expectation that the DOV cover only applied while I was in the driving seat (or arguably if the Police ordered me out on the basis they would create the offence!), I wouldn't expect the car (which doesn't belong to me don't forget, so on the face of it I have no 'interest' in it) to be covered if I parked it. I only use it for driving otherwise uninsured cars when test driving private sale cars, I'm not the one contravening the continuous insurance requirement!

It's not the car that's being insured under DOV cover--it's you, so having an "insurable interest" doesn't come into it.

--Churchmouse

So if I have an at fault accident I don't have an insurable interest when I'm being sued? Seriously?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
facade
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 09:24
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 882
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,847



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 04:31) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:43) *
I must say its always been my expectation that the DOV cover only applied while I was in the driving seat (or arguably if the Police ordered me out on the basis they would create the offence!), I wouldn't expect the car (which doesn't belong to me don't forget, so on the face of it I have no 'interest' in it) to be covered if I parked it. I only use it for driving otherwise uninsured cars when test driving private sale cars, I'm not the one contravening the continuous insurance requirement!

It's not the car that's being insured under DOV cover--it's you, so having an "insurable interest" doesn't come into it.

--Churchmouse

So if I have an at fault accident I don't have an insurable interest when I'm being sued? Seriously?


The insurable interest is the car that you were in- it is what you claim for, and payment would be made to you. (so you don't have one)
Any third party damage that is caused by your negligence whilst driving is covered.

As above it is you that is insured (specifically your liability against other people & property, with the exception of the car you are in), which is why the owner of the vehicle can be prosecuted under the continual insurance rule. In more enlightened countries it is only the person who is insured, as the car can't be negligent by itself, and liability requires an element of negligence. (I wonder what will happen with fully autonomous vehicles, presumably they will never be the cause of an accident)

Same with house insurance.
If my house spontaneously combusts and burns down the neighbours as well, my insurance won't pay out to them, unless they can prove negligence on my part caused the fire. It will pay out for mine however, which is why I have it. The bar is set pretty high for negligence on my part to become a deliberate act and void my insurance, in this case stupidity is a defence.

This post has been edited by facade: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 09:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 17:41
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 23:46) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:43) *
I must say its always been my expectation that the DOV cover only applied while I was in the driving seat (or arguably if the Police ordered me out on the basis they would create the offence!), I wouldn't expect the car (which doesn't belong to me don't forget, so on the face of it I have no 'interest' in it) to be covered if I parked it. I only use it for driving otherwise uninsured cars when test driving private sale cars, I'm not the one contravening the continuous insurance requirement!

It's not the car that's being insured under DOV cover--it's you, so having an "insurable interest" doesn't come into it.

--Churchmouse

Wouldn’t it come into it if it wasn’t being driven at the time of some unfortunate event happening to it?

Yes, but I don't think we're discussing damage caused to the vehicle; we are discussing a DOV driver's potential liability to third parties (and that driver's obligations under s.143).

A person's obligation to carry 3rd party liability insurance under s.143 arises if they are considered to be "using" a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. The term "use" is not defined in the RTA 1988, but the courts have held that a vehicle is in use on the road even when it is stationary and unattended (Elliott v Grey [1959] 3 All E.R. 733, followed in Adams v Evans [1971] C.L.Y. 10361). In the case where a vehicle, not owned by the driver but used by the driver with the permission of the vehicle's owner on a DOV policy held by the driver, is parked on a road or other public place, it seems to me that there would be two logical options for the person strictly required under s.143 to have an RTA-compliant policy of insurance in relation to that vehicle in that place: the person who actually placed it in that position, or the owner of the vehicle (assuming they are not the same person). I think most people (if not judges) would choose the driver.

Recall that under s.145, an RTA-compliant insurance policy must be "issued by an authorised insurer", and "...must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [or other public place] in Great Britain." DOV cover ostensibly does this for the driver, assuming the conditions associated with it are met by the driver.

If the liability under s.143 continues after the motor vehicle is parked and left unattended, and the statutorily required level of insurance covers both "use" and "arising out of, the use" of a motor vehicle, a person with a valid DOV policy would likely be covered by that policy for any such third party liabilities. There is no reason to discuss whether the DOV user has an "insurable interest" in the borrowed vehicle, because that person's third party liability obligations do not depend on him having any legal interest in the vehicle: his obligations arise solely from his use of it.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:26
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here