Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Insurance Query
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
bruceygotabonus
I have a query with regards to me possibly not having any insurance.
I just wondered where i stand with it.

I wanted to buy a car so got myself insured on it and went to collect it. When i got there is was not worth buying but i had already taken out the insurance so took to finding another car.

3 days later I found a Fiesta from a local car trader and he said for me to take it out for a bit and see how it was for me. Whilst i was out i got stopped by the Police, they gave me a producer to produce my insurance and V5 for the car i was in.

I took the documents to the police station and after going out the back they came and said that my insurance was invalid because the car i was insured on was not registered to me. I explained i did not buy it and was ok to drive any other vehicle 3rd party and was told that part was ok, my driving of the fiesta was above board BUT as i was not the registered keeper of the original vehicle my insurance is invalid FULL STOP.

Is this correct ?
The Rookie
If you told your insurers you were (would be by the time it was insured) the reg keeper, then they may not continue to insure you under the terms and conditions (though it would seem a bit petty) as you at variance to that, but they may, the Police can't determine that (and you certainly don't need to be the reg keeper to insure a car - or no lease car driver would be insured), only your insurer can.

Give you insurer a ring, explain the situation (this is what you should have done FIRST) and ask if you are insured to drive other cars you are looking at on the 'other vehicle' extension or not, if they say you are, then get a letter from them to confirm it. I presume you have fully comp insurance with 'Drive Other Vehicle' cover (in your policy/cert)? And arn't excluded based on your age?

NOTE most DOV extensions require that car to be insured already for its current keeper, was that the case for this one?

Simon
bruceygotabonus
I am insured TPFT as it was cheaper for me.
It states on the insurance "I am insured to drive with the owners consent any motor vehicle not belonging to him and not hired to him under a hire purchase or lease agreement and provided that the motor car is being used within the limitations below. The cover is restricted to 3rd party liability only"

Limitations to use. The car is insured whilst being used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes. There will be no cover if the car is being used for commuting between home and work, for racing, speed trials or rallies or for any business purpose or for hire or reward. There will be no cover if this car is used in connection with the motor trade.
Logician
On the face of it, those terms mean that you were insured to drive the Fiesta. As Simon says, explain the situation to your insurance company and get them to write a letter confirming you were insured under the policy.

The thing you do not mention is what arrangements were made with the car trader about insurance, did he make it clear to you that you had to rely on your own insurance? I would have thought that most dealers would have a policy that covered buyers taking test drives.
GB69
You say the Fiesta is from a car trader, so he has trade insurance? If so his trade insurance should cover you for the test drive.
Its not upto the Police to say if you are insured or not, its purely down to your own insurance.

bruceygotabonus
Good thinking re the car trader. I will enquire.

Not sure whats going on re the insurance game of late, i have seen on tv someone saying they are delivering a pizza and then getting done because they are not insured for work, i have seen people in the car racing scene having to write "Not for hire or reward" on the truck to stop problems, i think its the world we live in now where we are half scared to death by the authorities.
The Rookie
The reason for the tightening down on insurance is to stop the large numbers of peoplewho were driving around without paying the right amount for their insurance, either fronting or other dubious practices. Blame the scroats who couldn't play fair!

Simon
bruceygotabonus
The car trader had demonstration cover but only if he is in the vehicle, which he wasnt.

I have spoken to my insurers and explained that, like many others people, i had taken put insurance on a car which i chose not to buy, i then chose not to cancel my policy but to find another car, which i have found 7 days later, but i got stopped whilst test driving it. It fell on deaf ears. So i will be done for driving with no insurance even though i took out and paid for insurance and was allowed to drive any other vehicle.

Seems a little unfair. Has anyone got any ideas what to do from here ?
Logician
I would put in a complaint to your insurers that they accepted a premium but now say they did not provide the agreed cover, and threaten to complain to the Financial Ombudsman. That might change their minds or at any rate provide a reply that might be helpful.

What conversation did you have with the trader about insurance? Did he ask you if your insurance covered the demonstration?

I am thinking that one option would be to plead guilty but put forward a 'special reasons' argument that your licence should not be endorsed because you were misled by the trader or your insurance company (or both) that you were covered by insurance when you were not.
bruceygotabonus
I was certainly not mislead by the trader, he let me use the vehicle in good faith, you are only insured for demonstration if they are with you.

The insurance company were most unhelpful, they stated that the reason it need to be in my name is to stop people scamming them, i did explain that i got insured on day 1, visited the vehicle on day 4 and decided not to buy, followed by test driving (and subsequently agreeing to buy) on day 7. Its not like i have had the wrong policy for some years....its a week.

It looks like it will have to go to court so are there any mitigating circumstances i can use for them NOT to issue 9 points or whatever for no insurance ?

This is definately a far fetched case here, if one breaks the law purposely they deserve all they get, but i remember a case once where a learner motor cyclist had all his docs in order but his back L plate had shook free and snapped off unbeknown to him and he was prosceuted for driving otherwise than in accordance with his licence and got 6 points, totally unfair, he would have got the same for driving a 44 ton truck !!


Well lets hope common sense can prevail here but like i say the police are not budging so it looks like its going to court.

Can anyone help further ? This does seem over the top.
Logician
So did the trader make it clear to you that you would not be covered by his insurance and would have to rely on your own cover? Did he ask you if you had DOV cover?
Did you tell the insurance company that the vehicle you were intending to buy was registered in your name?
iwt
Hi.
You could ask the insurers to explain how the status of the other car (which you didn't buy) is relevant to your drive-other-vehicles coverage... Does the policy document say anything on the matter? Had they formally cancelled (and notified you) the policy?
Common sense does not, I'm afraid, prevail. So...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/cons.../complaints.htm
They will not formally get involved for 8 weeks, but can informally "contact the business" beforehand.
Y'never know, a call from the ombudsman to them could illicit a "I'm sorry, we didn't understand the question, of course you were covered to Road Traffic Act requirements, here let me put that in a letter for you..." reaction. Can but hope.
They don't like Ombudsman complaints...
--
Regards, Iain.
bruceygotabonus
Ok guys, in response to your questions.

The motor trader was not insured as his demonstration was only applicable if HE was in the car, he wasnt so i am not insured that way.

QUOTE
Did you tell the insurance company that the vehicle you were intending to buy was registered in your name

I cannot buy it because i am now going to get banned so whats the point !!

Guys, the bottom line is this and this is what we need to work on.
MY INSURANCE WAS WHOLLY INVALID BECAUSE THE CAR I WAS INSURED ON ORIGINALLY (THE ONE I DID NOT BUY) WAS NOT REGISTERED TO ME THEREFORE THE POLICE CANNOT ACCEPT MY INSURANCE DOCUMENT AND THEREFORE THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS TO GO TO COURT.
Like i say i could understand if i had been pulling a fast one for years or something, i did it right by the book as i thought, i went to buy a car, i didnt, i found another one within 4 days and rung them to change it over. The company is Budget. I would really like to know my options.
Logician
That is not the bottom line, the bottom line is what Budget say. If you can get them to say you were insured on the demonstration car, then job done. The police are in no position to argue against that, whatever they think the situation to be. The court will rely on the police to check the insurance, they know whatever the certificate may say the policy may be invalid. That is why we are asking exactly what passed between you and Budget, and advising you to threaten the Financial Ombudsman if they have not been straight with you.

If you cannot get Budget to say you were insured, you are guilty of the offence. Your only hope then is to plead guilty in court but argue that there are 'special reasons' not to endorse your licence because you were misled by Budget (or by the trader)
ict_guy
I doubt any 3rd party extension on any insurance policy will cover you for 'test driving' a vehicle. Once you mention those words - 'test driving', alarm bells start ringing and they'll find any way out of covering you.
GB69
QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 16 Oct 2010 - 14:33) *
That is not the bottom line, the bottom line is what Budget say. If you can get them to say you were insured on the demonstration car, then job done. The police are in no position to argue against that, whatever they think the situation to be. The court will rely on the police to check the insurance, they know whatever the certificate may say the policy may be invalid. That is why we are asking exactly what passed between you and Budget, and advising you to threaten the Financial Ombudsman if they have not been straight with you.

If you cannot get Budget to say you were insured, you are guilty of the offence. Your only hope then is to plead guilty in court but argue that there are 'special reasons' not to endorse your licence because you were misled by Budget (or by the trader)



Yep I agree with that, its not upto the Police to say if you are insured or not. I think the OP has been too honest with them. Should have just told them you have insurance and it allows DOV. By saying you didn't buy the car, you've dropped yourself in it. I also think the trader is equally responsible for this, he should have made sure you were properly insured to drive the car. Trader should also receive 6 pts for letting you drive without insurance. Its happened to a few mates of mine, where a mate has lent someone there car, they get stopped and found to have no insurance. Driver gets done, along with owner for allowing a non insured driver to drive.


kwaks
Few things,
first, can you answer the question asked at least a couple of times already, did the trader make it clear that his insurance did not cover you on a solo test drive? If he did not then there is a potential defence.


Second thing, the info regarding DOV cover you have quoted (presumably from your policy) differs considerably from the info which Budget display on their website, check that out (website says you have like for like cover on class of use , ie if insured for commuting then would be covered for commuting on the other vehicle, so if have business then would also cover business. Now to me this is a MAJOR mistake on Budgets behalf, as can lead to someone insuring a fiesta for business use then driving a transit!)

Looking again at the web info, I believe they may be falling back on: <LI>This cover will not apply if the Regular Driver no longer has their car or if it has been damaged beyond economical repair. If an incident occurs and the car is written off or stolen they will not be entitled to a third party extension until the insured car has been replaced.

There is always a period when buying a vehicle that it is not registered to you, insurance companies deal with this multiple times per day and usually confirm your insurance when questioned, sounds to me like they fear you are setting them up for a claim so reassure them of the situation.

Worse case scenario, buy the original car.
andy_foster
QUOTE (kwaks @ Sun, 17 Oct 2010 - 17:26) *
Few things,
first, can you answer the question asked at least a couple of times already, did the trader make it clear that his insurance did not cover you on a solo test drive? If he did not then there is a potential defence.


How would that constitute a defence? IMHO it'd be quite a stretch to even constitute special reasons not to endorse.
mickR
Brucey, in my opinion, If you said you going to buy but were not owner or RK,
on the day you took the policy out you were neither the owner or RK and Budget must have issued the insurance on that basis! and the policy valid. Most insurance Co will issue policies in this way as long as the present owner is not a relative.
The vehicle would have been covered by the traders own policy and notified on MIB database (even if not for you to drive)
this means the DOV extention on your policy would be enforceable. On the day you were stopped you did have insurance on a vehicle, drove another that did not belong to you and that vehicle was insured elsewhere.
I see no reason for you to notify them you did not buy the origional vehicle as you were not insured in that context.
the fact that you did not own the vehicle you insured should not be relevant as this was the basis on which the policy was issued.
the fact you were not the "RK" does not mean you are not insured, many people are insured when not the RK.
bruceygotabonus
In response to the first reply, i produced the producer at the police station, THEY made a phone call. They then came back and said i was NOT the registered keeper of the original car i was insured on so i could not possibly be insured. The police refused to accept the producer and said i was not insured. Whether they rung Budget i have no idea.

Just took a look over ALL the questions now. Forget the trader, its not his fault, and yes the vehicle was on the MID database as it was part of his stock. Budget say i am not insured, the police say i am not the registered keeper so cannot possibly be insured PERIOD.

Looks like a day in court and i will get the prosecution to PROVE to me and the court the offence has taken place and which one it is. Its all i can do.
The Rookie
I'm not sure why 'test drives' whould be excluded, that is not what the policy says, it says cars not owned by the policy holder or hired or rented. I would lean on the insurance company hard, sounds like a minion spouting off!

Simon
bruceygotabonus
Oh dear me, it matters not what was going on with what car and what i was doing.

I have been told i WAS NOT THE REGISTERED KEEPER OF THE ORIGINAL CAR (the one i didnt buy) SO THEREFORE MY INSURNACE IS INVALID no matter what i was doing with it apparently legit or not. Thats the problem, forget the trader etc etc, the car i got insured on that i didnt buy is the problem, budget tell me as i am not the registered keeper i am not insured to drive anything else. period.
The Rookie
OK that is back to my original point right at the start, it does sound a little unreasoanble that by reducing their exposure (they are no longer insuring a car) they rmove your DOV extension, but not having the car you said you would have his a material fact you failed to tell them about, so fair enough really.

Simon
jobo
what they tell you and what it says in your policy are two very different things,

ask them to point out this clause
mickR
Brucey you seem to have ignored my previous post.
so, again.... when you took out the insurance did you say you were going to buy the car OR did you say you had already bought it? THEY MUST HAVE ASKED WHO THE RK WAS
if you were "going to buy" then they issued the policy on the basis you were NOT the RK and NOT the owner !!!! .
this is an important point
because if you did not cancel the policy you were insured even if you didn't buy it! therefore your DOV extension was still valid
if you told them you had already bought it OR the policy only came into force after you had bought it then it would have been on the basis you were the owner. Then as you did not buy it the policy would not have come into force!

FORGET what the police told you about cant be insured if not RK PERIOD! that is Bo**ox! you can! it depends on the Ins Co. I know because i am insured in a vehicle i neither own or am the RK.!!! so is my son.

it all hangs on what you told Budget when you took out the policy.
Logician
QUOTE (bruceygotabonus @ Mon, 18 Oct 2010 - 13:22) *
Looks like a day in court and i will get the prosecution to PROVE to me and the court the offence has taken place and which one it is. Its all i can do.

That is NOT how it works, it is your responsibility to prove that you did have insurance. If you cannot do that you are guilty of the offence. If you were misled, you are still guilty but just possibly you may convince the court that there are 'special reasons' not to endorse your licence.

That is why we keep asking you these questions that you do not answer:

1. What conversation took place between you and the trader about insurance?

2. Did you tell Budget when you took out the insurance that you were looking at the car with a view to probably buying it, or did you say you were the registered keeper?

The answers to these questions may provide some basis to go further, but just parroting what some policeman told you quite wrongly gets us nowhere.
bruceygotabonus
That is NOT how it works, it is your responsibility to prove that you did have insurance

Definately not, the prosecution have to prove the case against you in any situation. Otherwise that would make you guilty until proven innocent.

Regards the two questions i cannot remember and am asking Budget shortly. Regards the trader he is not insured, and i am not insured through him, if he has done something wrong by letting me drive it in the first place i have no interest in stuffing him up over it.

Will be back soon re Budget.
nemo
QUOTE (Logician)
That is NOT how it works, it is your responsibility to prove that you did have insurance

QUOTE (bruceygotabonus @ Tue, 19 Oct 2010 - 11:43) *
Definately not, the prosecution have to prove the case against you in any situation. Otherwise that would make you guilty until proven innocent.

Logician is correct.

Once the use of a vehicle without insurance has been alleged, the burden of proof is on the defendant to produce evidence to show that he was insured.
The Rookie
Agree with Nemo and Logician.....think logically, it would be vanishingly impossible for the police to prove someone had no insurance, so the reverse burden of proof applies, the Police have reasonable grounds to allege you don't, your responsibility to show (prove) you were insured.

Simon
nemo
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 19 Oct 2010 - 12:16) *
..it would be vanishingly impossible for the police to prove someone had no insurance, so the reverse burden of proof applies, the Police have reasonable grounds to allege you don't, your responsibility to show (prove) you were insured.

That, and s.101 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 -

QUOTE (MCA 1980)
101. Where the defendant to an information or complaint relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification, whether or not it accompanies the description of the offence or matter of complaint in the enactment creating the offence or on which the complaint is founded, the burden or proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him; and this notwithstanding that the information or complaint contains an allegation negativing the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification.

bruceygotabonus
Ok, this is what happened. Im doing this for a friend

I took the producer to the police station, they pnc the car, then they said it is not in my name therefore they cannot check if i am insured, and therefore cannot accept my insurance certificate because it looks dodgy, which it would do as it was emailed to me and i printed it off, i am not a printer.
I asked them to ring Budget, they refused, they said its not their problem. I asked them to provide me with written proof of why they cannot accept my insurance/producer at which point a male officer came to the desk and told me to go away and he shut the hatch.
And here we are !!
The Rookie
Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance.......
peterguk
QUOTE (bruceygotabonus @ Tue, 19 Oct 2010 - 15:16) *
Im doing this for a friend


So you tried to produce docs for a friend? So who's policy? Who was driving? wacko.gif
jobo
????

sigh,

your doing what for a friend, posting Chinese whispers, no wonder we cant get any sense out of you



and again, what the police on the desk say, is totality besides the point, you/ he is either insured or not and this is dependent on what is WRITTEN in the policy document and under what terms the insurance was taken out

why dont you get your friend to post, then he might be able to answer simple questions
bruceygotabonus
Ok, go ahead with the simple questions.
jobo
QUOTE (bruceygotabonus @ Tue, 19 Oct 2010 - 16:32) *
Ok, go ahead with the simple questions.


OK, one at at time,

when you/he took the policy out did you/say they were the RK or the owner of the car for the car or say you wanted the insurance to run from the point when you became such, nb this conversation will be recorded and they normally ask are you the RK/ owner, what did you reply ?
bruceygotabonus
;-)
I asked that earlier but she couldnt say. I will call again and try and find out.
jobo
then she need to read or post the policy details, does this in anyway restrict the policy to cars you own or are RK for,
and if not

does it restrict what other cars you can drive on the policy

i know why they have turned awkward, its to stop people getting cheap insurance on a car they dont own then driving sports cars round,,,

has she spken to someone in authority at the insurance, call cntre drones will just say no as a first responce

can your friend used the internet,

b you should be able to get a coppy of the recorded conversation as to what terms were agreed on the phone
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.