Insured or not insured…that is the question!

[L90OOK]

You are quite right...it doesn't say the other vehicle has to carry it's own insurance.
It also doesn't state that the vehicle has to have an MOT or Tax.
However it does state various Road Traffic Acts & duty of care.  Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. :)

[Yoshi]

Yes, but your missing the point, it doesnt say that it needs mot or tax, because these are required for the vehicle to be on the road in line with the insurance, but the vehicle is insured thus road legal whilst in your care as long as you dont own it or it isnt hired to you!

[Boggert]

To my knowledge there is only one policy that will allow you to drive any car, even if it has no insurance and that it a trade policy and it should be accompanied with trade plates.

[Yoshi]

But the point here is, the vehicle surely becomes insured when the new driver gets in it and is thus insured third party???

[L90OOK]

But the point here is, the vehicle surely becomes insured when the new driver gets in it and is thus insured third party???

No, reading between the lines your insurance insures you against third party liabililty claims whilst in charge of the vehicle.  Where as named drivers on a policy insures the car for those people & the car whilst it is not being used.  A play on words I know but it's the best explanation I have  :?

[Yoshi]

Hence the other point i made which stated that when the vehicle was unattended on a public highway after it has been driven then it becomes illegal, but whilst in the care of the person with the third party covered it is legally insured to be driven.

So as i say again, if the person with this entitlement drove the vehicle directly from one private driveway to another private driveway, surely no law is being broken as there is adequate legal insurance on the vehicle in the form of third party insurance?  At no stage on that journey is the vehicle unattended so therefore insured on the total journey.

Obviously as has already been assertained on this one, the grass area the OP wishes to park his vehicle is public land so therefore would need insurance whilst unattended.  But for actual driving the DOC entitlement on some peoples insurance should be legally adequate.

[L90OOK]

The third party insures you as a driver to drive the vehicle, not the vehicle to be on the road...that's how I understood it today when I spoke to NFU.  :lol:

If it worked the other way round then we'd just have to have one insurance to drive any roadworthy car...It works the same when you go to get your road tax.  You have to have an insurance policy that insures the car.  You can't get it using your insurance & telling them your the driver!

I've got a headache now  :(  ...time for some whisky   :D

[Yoshi]

This is what i have been saying all along, once the test driver gets in the car then its insured, but its not insured and thus illegal while no-one is in it.

[L90OOK]

But it's not the car that is insured whilst you are driving it under third party insurance...it's you.  i.e. you are insured but the car is not.  I know it seems petty, & a play on words, but the insurers will do anything to wriggle out of a claim...The insurers may/will ask for the owners insurance certificate in the case of a claim.

[Yoshi]

No, they will ask for proof that the driver is insured, not the owner.  The third party insurance you get is only the same as the standard third party insurance you can take out on any vehicle.

[Buddha]

But it's not the car that is insured whilst you are driving it under third party insurance...it's you. i.e. you are insured but the car is not.

No, they will ask for proof that the driver is insured, not the owner.

This is exactly the point; if the owner of a vehicle allows their vehicle to be driven by another person knowing that in the event of an accident they will not be able to recover the loss of the vehicle, so be it. BUT, where a driver has a policy with an insurer, that insurer MAY extend 3rd party cover to any vehicle they may drive,
This is an arrangement between you and your insurer. It's a perk, something to set them apart from their competitors (possibly).

Bottom line is, it's been exploited in the past and insurers generally are tightening their rules on this. There's nothing in legislation that says the other vehicle MUST have a policy in effect, but there MAY be in your policy documents (if you're covered DOC at all).

It's something I've taken advantage of in the past, and all the time that some insurers offewr this benefit, I will not give my business to one who doesn't.

[SteveGoodz]

Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles?  As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.

That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.

[SteveGoodz]

Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course  :D

[Yoshi]

Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles?  As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.

That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.

Yes, but those documents are supposed to be in accordance with the law, so therefore it wouldnt be ignorance of the law as you would quite rightly trust that the insurance company, governed by said laws, would have the documents in accordance with the law.

As it stands currently there is no real evidence for either side of the argument.  As previously stated the NFU have said that both sides are right, once to L9000K and once to me.  I remember last time this argument came up that our regular serving officers werent too sure on this one (even though boggert has stated something).

To the serving police officers on here, when you pull a vehicle and ask for documents, the insurance is for the driver to be able to drive the vehicle.  Am i correct in assuming that (its been a while since i was pulled over).  As stated in the insurance documents the only exemptions from the DOC entitlement on the certificate are "not owned or hired to under a hire purchase agreement".  Surely if there was a part about insurance then it would say the vehicle must be insured as well??

It is a legal loophole, and one which should quite rightly be closed or clarified.

[BigSi]

Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course  :D

Before the Boys in Blue come around, the Jeep is still at home! I was only asking the question to see if I could park it there in the first place!  :shock:  :shock:  :shock:  :shock:

[Yoshi]

See the trouble youve caused now!!!  Poor old L9000K has been driven to drink (although i dont think there was much arm twisting!!) lol

[Yoshi]

And to further support my argument!!

Many people assume that if they have comprehensive car insurance then they are automatically covered to drive other people's cars. This is not always the case. Some insurers no longer offer this cover and those that do don't offer it to everyone. The only way to know is to check your insurance certificate, which will state clearly if you have it.

One more thing to beware of is that the 'driving other cars' extension gives you just the basic insurance cover allowed by law. This is called Road Traffic Act cover, which is even less than third-party only insurance. The nub of this is, if you have an expensive accident whilst driving someone else's car, you may end up being liable for part of the other party's claim!

Also, when you park a car driven on this extension and walk away, it is no longer insured at all, which means you cannot claim for damage, fire or theft. At least, not until a named driver on the policy takes control of the vehicle again. Therefore you should use this extension as a last resort.

Taken from

http://www.fool.co.uk/insurance/information/car-insurance.aspx

[Yoshi]

And just for absolute clarification after just being pulled over whilst driving like that!

The traffic officer pulled me over for no insurance.  I told him the vehicle had no insurance of its own and i was driving it under the 3rd part provision of my other insurance, and once this was confirmed everything was hunky dory.

Although the cretin did decide to give me a £30 fixed penalty because me front number plate wasnt fixed on the front of the vehicle!!!!

[Wireless]

If you can take the time to point out the small print on your insurance, he's entitled to take the time point out the small print on the legally correct display of registration marks on your vehicle, and issue you with a fixed penalty fine for not doing so.

Why call him a cretin?  You were trying to be smart, and he turned out smarter, lesson learned.

Next time you'll check ALL the small print, and make sure you're completely legal.

[Yoshi]

I knew it wasnt legal, but he could have given a warning to get it fixed and shown at the police station, and yes i pointed out the small print in the insurance document as otherwise i would be approximately 6 points and about £500 worse off when i was actually legal in that regard.

[Yoshi]

And to add, he was a cretin cos his attitude towards it all was exceptionally poor and i didnt quite like being accused of lying to him about my details.  I didnt give the whole transcript of the conversation as i felt it was irrelevant to every other person.

[Wireless]

Several people have raised the point that ignorance is no defence in Law during this thread, yet you admit to prior knowledge of the vehicle not being legal.

You are correct, the Police do have discretion regarding how they deal with offences.  So does the bench at a Magistrates Court, especially when presented with mitigating circumstances.

The Police obviously felt that there was an element of premeditation rather than ignorance with respect to the registration plate, and decided that a caution was not sufficient, especially as you'd taken so much care to bring along your insurance document to present to them if you were pulled over as uninsured.

You can't really expect to have results to your satisfaction both ways can you?

[Yoshi]

And i didnt have the insurance document with me, he followed me home to get it.

[Wireless]

So you were pulled over before the journey home was completed?

I think he wanted to make sure the vehicle would be parked on a private driveway at the journey end, and check out your insurance document, I think he was giving you the benefit of doubt regarding these offences.

I'm not sure all officers would take that trouble, letting you drive what he suspects is an uninsured vehicle to your home, and following you.

I think you've actually been lucky.

[Yoshi]

He had no choice, if he has no real way of checking with the insurance company, which is one that is known to them as not being able to check with as 99% of their contact is web based, then they have to go with the certificate as a back up.

The company in question arent on their database so cannot be checked real time like most of the companies.  In that situation they cannot arrest you on suspicion of anything as they are known to not be on the database and thus the details are inaccessible.

[Guardian.]

jesus

[welshlaner]

really interesting all this stuff excellent thread

Could anyone tell me if it was legal for you to park up along side a public right of way either tarmac or unsurfaced on land that you yourself owned, without tax and insurance.

Secondly could you be done for driving untaxed and uninsured on private unadopted roads which have no right of way for the general public except the lanes or roads themselves are used by properties which share that right of way. Residents have a right to drive on the route, the public only if they can show a reason to be there. Would this apply to residents or visitors

[Yoshi]

Welshlaner,

If its on private land then as long as the vehicle is sorn it can be parked there, as its not on a public highway.

Same goes for driving a vehicle, i dont know about unadopted roads or anything like that, but i know that private fields and stuff can be driven on, again as its private land and not a public highway.

[welshlaner]

Welshlaner,

If its on private land then as long as the vehicle is sorn it can be parked there, as its not on a public highway.

OK the "case" i'am thinking of is a cottage on a "greenlane", its not one to get excited about just a unsurfaced farm track leading to a farm and a couple of houses.

In the deeds it clearly states the cottage owns the track, but it has a right of way over it an OPPA, next to the cottage is a old landy without tax & insurance parked next to the track, but not on it.

Now some "pain in the neck" now wants the lane to be shut to motorised traffic and wipping up some local opperstition, they have noticed the untaxed and uninsured landy and approched the owner saying its against the law to park it there has its on the right of way. However if the lane was shut then such laws would not apply. There is no boundary line or anything just a grass verge.

Its a bit like the poster who said he would park up next to the road and leave a untaxed uninsured motor, does the law make allowances for the owner of the vechicle if they owned the land.

Put it another way if the farmer was driving along a legal row ie a greenlane, but he owned the land would they be commiting an offence if no tax/insur/mot.

I've approched the owner of the landy& cottage, they don't want to sell, neither do they want the lane shut, seems after taking legal advice they would be responsable for the up keep.

[Yoshi]

The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.

If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue.  The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue.  How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins.  Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.