Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: About Motor Insurance (was in Elliottv Loake topic)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
TomP
Brought forward from The Elliott v Loake - YET ANOTHER CPS LETTER 29/08/04!!

QUOTE (Bob_Sprocket)
Hi,

In order to obtain an insurance certificate for a vehicle you need to have an insurable interest in it. ie you need to be the owner, RK or spouse of the owner or lease it. In order to tax a vehicle it must have a certificate of insurance for that vehicle.

The third party only cover for driving other peoples vehicles with permission usually specifically excludes cars owned by people in your own household. This prevents young Jonny insuring a Morris Minor and driving his dads Porche on the third party only cover on the Morris.

Best wishes

Bob



Firstly herewith the relavent RTA
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac...n_7.htm#mdiv143

Bob

1) I repeat a non driver or a blind person is entitled to own and if they want be, can be the registered keeper of a car therefore how can they get insurance to drive that car. It is quite legal for the owner to allow any number of people to drive their car providing they meet with the minimum legal requirements of the 1988 RTA

2) I repeat its the driver that is insured to drive a car, as long as the car is roadworthy, under the legal min insurance of Third Party Only, the insurance company is not interested in value of the car you drive i.e. your insured interests.

3) There is no such thing as an Insurance Certificate for a private motor vehicle but only for a named driver of a specific vehicle within the terms of the 1988 RTA

4) In my 30 years of Driving using most of the major insurance companies I have never come across "excludes cars owned by people in your own household” In fact I quote the relevant statements in both my present TPFT Churchill’s Certificate and Policy document: -

" The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a motor car not owned by the Policyholder and not Hired to the Policyholder under a hire purchase or annual leasing agreement.
Provided that the person driving holds a license to drive such a vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license
"

5) It is quite legal for young Jonny to drive Dad’s Porsche but it is unlikely that Dad would allow this, as young Jonny would be unlikely to pay for any damage to it in the event of an accident, as young Jonny would be only covered for third parties.


I understand up until 1988 the minimum legal insurance was Third Party Person and did not cover damage to any third party’s property. The most interesting part of the 1988 act is “144. —(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.”

Unfortunately like most Government agencies myths are perpetuated that the law backs all the DVLA policies when they are not! Of coures their staff start to think this is the case and perpetuate matter with their publications and advice We all know of course Parliament makes the Laws and the Courts interpretate them!


Tomp
g_attrill
QUOTE (TomP)
144. —(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.

This has been increased several times and is now something like £200,000 - people (eg. rich daddy) was finding that lodging the surety was easier than insuring the vehicles.

Gareth
cjm99
It is currently £500,000
jeffreyarcher
The insurance industry, in which Bob is presumably involved, is renowned for thinking that they make thw law. Unfortunately, since they have so much money, in practical terms they do for most puposes, simply because they can bankrupt anyone who tries to challenge them.
The most recent high profile example, which they eventually lost, was their assertion that an insurance policy ended when the insured vehicle was written off, thus depriving people of, for example, their ability to drive other vehicles on the policy or their ability to cover a replacement vehicle on the original policy, albeit having paid an admin charge to transfer it. (They have sorted this by including it in the T&Cs of policies).

Interesting aside, following the Selby (IIRC) crash, where the bill came to > £52M, companies are now rolling out a maximum payout on TP claims, something like £20M IIRC. I guess there must be a statutory limit somewhere, which historically was never likely to be reached, so they didn't bother. They are now bothering. Time for an amendment to the law!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.