David_Dickson

*sigh*

My insurance covers me fully comp on my vectra.
If Someone had an uninsured Veyron and let me borrow it I WOULD BE INSURED. The cover for third party risks on my own policy is transfered to whatever car I drive. It is specified that the cover is for short-term temporary use or use in an emergency, I couldnt drive the car regularly using this extension.

I have done this argument to death over a multi-page thread on another forum. Its a fact that I have known from the start, but to be sure I have double and triple checked it with my insurers. The other car DOES NOT need to be insured.

I cant make it any clearer than that.


This is what MY policy states, and is the cover MY insurers offer. Other policies are different and may offer different terms.

I have direct personal experience being stopped by the police in this situation and it was not an issue for them to undestand this.

Look at it this way....if I had an accident while driving Another car, and it WAS insured on its own policy....who would be paying out? It would be my policy, the cars own insurers would have nothing to do with it.
About 5 years ago, my sister borrowed my car and stuffed it into the back of some poor sod sat at traffic lights. His claim came to me through my insurers who wanted my side of the story, I told them it was my sister driving, using this cover on her own policy and that was the last I heard of the claim. Her insurance covered the third parties claim in full.
Sadly, I lost my car as it was beyond easy repair. My sisters policy obviously wouldnt pay out for it, as the cover offered is third party only.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Every car that is driven on the UK roads, needs to have it's own insurance. End of.

David Lock

Exactly right Mr Dickson. dl

David Lock

So, just by way of example, every time a garage collects or delivers a roadworthy, but uninsured, vehicle from, or to, a customer using his trade policy he is breaking the law? dl

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

No, because we are talking about private insurance, not trade.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

By your way of thinking, you could have a nissan micra insured fully comp for your day to day stuff and then a ferrari 308 in the garage that you may only use once or twice a year. Are you telling me that only having insurance on the Micra makes driving the 308 legal?

David Lock

But that's unrealistic in practical terms and would be an abuse of the insurance terms. The insurance companies don't provide cover like this for any Tom, Dick or Harry. Plus the Ferrari would have to be owned by someone else and taxed and MOTed which could only be achieved by having it's own insurance. Personally I wouldn't want to risk driving a Ferrari on just 3rd party cover dl

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

So you do have to have insurance for every car to be legal on the UK roads?

speedking

So before I drive someone else's car, which I'm thinking of purchasing, what level of proof do I need that it is insured? I doubt I would be able to tell the difference between a genuine and forged insurance certificate. I don't have access to the insurance database

If the seller is a dealer, does his trade insurance cover my driving?

Effectively I must get my own insurance company to cover the risk. They do this by allowing me to drive any other car .... (etc. you know the rest.)

David_Dickson

If your policy terms allow it, then yes, of course you can.

As DL said, the Ferrari will have to be MOT`d and taxed, and not belong to you, and only be driven temporarily, but it is not a problem. The Ferrari will be legal to drive on the road, although its hardly the sensible or practical option to avoid the high insurance costs.
Also DL correctly said that the ferrari will need its own policy to get tax, but once a car has tax there is nothing to stop you cancelling the insurance or even just allowing it to expire.

David_Dickson

If anyone is really that worried about being covered for a test drive, Norwich Union and various other companies offer short term insurance on a day by day basis for about a tenner a day iirc.

speedking

FWIW I believe that HMG is confusing things by requiring vehicles to have insurance, which is patently ridiculous. A vehicle is not a hazard.

You insure your vehicle against fire and theft because you don't want to suffer a loss.

The driver has to have third party to protect innocent victims from loss caused by him while driving.

Why a vehicle has to have insurance is beyond me (but no doubt will be explained in a minute .)

If an insurer is prepared to offerthe cover then I should be able to get cover for any vehicle without naming them all.

PS How do haulage firms insure their trucks, or parcel delivery firms their vans? Presumable on company insurance for any driver / vehicle combination.

urdad

I reccommend that anybody considering this should contact their own insurance company.
As I've said I've done this,even when driving back from auctions,getting stopped it belonged to my m8,as not owning the vehicle is part and parcel of the clause,if not as mentioned you could insure an 850 Mini and drive a Ferrari.
And as someone else mentioned is supposed to be a temporary arrangement.
The driving factor is age,cover of this sort usually comes with maturity and is not within the realms of younger(irresponsible)drivers.

urdad

All vehicle should be covered to be on a public road,being on the road reads as using the road and therefore represents a liability.
If you drive with the extended 3rd party cover then the car is insured through you,even if it does not have it's own cover(then of course it would be parked on privte land ).
Trade is a completely different kettle of fish,Eddie Stobbart fans will be along shortly......

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And every truck/van/car that they want to be covered has to listed ion the policy.

speedking

And so we go full circle.

If NU can issue cover irrespective of the insured state of the vehicle for £10/day, then they could include that cover as a matter of course in their regular insurance policies, including an extra £10 in the annual cost.

Which I think is where we came in

So with the NU £10 policy would you still get nicked by FP? Or do you have to provide NU with the vehicle's insurance details?

amahrap

section 143 of RTA 1988 - is quite clear, just read it as it is available online

you have to have 3rd party cover to drive, the car doesn't

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.

apples24

iTrader: (1)

its all good until you rap the car round a lampost and have to give your friend the money for the car.

fatherpierre

Still going!

By the way, (from original post) the person allowing the other person to test his uninsured car on a public road is also committing an offence of allowing an uninsured car to be used on a road.

A private car has to be insured to be on a road............ and THEN the driver has to have 3rd party cover if not the owner. S143 has an 'and' between a & b.

You may be insured to drive any car on a road with your policy but the car has to be insured to be on a road - your 3rd party liabilty isn't insuring the car to be on a road. Kin 'ell - brick wall time - therefore you're driving without insurance.

Several court appearances, 100s of points and £10000s of fines can't be wrong?

As I said, test it out if you're so confident:

drive an unisured car through an ANPR and see how far your 3rd party liability gets you.

Insurance companies would make no money if you could drive any car from 1 policy as fraud would be rife. I've seen Porches and Ferraris being taken off people who think that a 3rd party liabilty cover from a lesser car allows them to drive anything on the road becaus they've tried to be clever and not get a policy for the car.

For the last time - a vehicle (normal use for the average person, not traders' policies) has to be insured to be on a public road. To be insured it has to have a policy stating that the vehicle is insured. If you drive a car that doesn't have a policy covering it you are not insured even though your cover note says you're insured to drive any car, because that car isn't insured to be on a road. That's the way it is.

The confusion seems to be insured to drive against insured. You may well be insured to drive an unisured car, and your insurance co may pay out for an accident, but the car's not insured making the driver liable for prosecution for driving an uninsured car on a public road, as well as the owner of it for allowing the uninsured car to be used. Does that make sense?

amahrap

yep, i've read the "and" and it doesn't say that the car needs to be insured

Have i lost the ability to read plain English in the last 5 minutes or have you

Read the actual words and stop reading what you think it says and read what it actually says or at least point out in the RTA where it states that the car has to be insured in its own right as 143 says nothing of the sort

cster

Could be a good one for the Loop-hole lawyer to try out.
The courts have been known to get it wrong on the advicement of the police/CPS.

fatherpierre

Not really as driving an uninsured car on a road is an absolute offence. The driver has to prove the car is insured AND that they are insured to drive that vehicle.

Odds on

But if your only allowed 1 insurance policy on a vehicle at any 1 time, why is the second one needed? You can't claim from 2 policies for the same incident IIRC.

shustir

Why cant this be settled for once and for all. It's always the same when this subject comes up.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

That isn't the point though is it.

The question is, can he drive a car legally if the car in question has no insurance or tax? It is private so the trade insurance angle is out. If the car has no tax, it has no insurance. There are far more arguments against this than for it.

You can try the above argument if you get caught. Just hope that lady luck is on your side.

fatherpierre

Points To Prove from Police National Legal Database:

date and location
use a motor vehicle on a road/public place
there not being in force in relation THE VEHICLE a policy of insurance/security



THE VEHICLE means it has to have a policy of insurance. So the vehicle you are driving has to have a policy of insurance. That is what CPS/police prosecute on, and that is what the courts require you to prove you are insured and the car is insured.

We can go around in circles all day long but the facts are the vehicle has to be insured to be on the road. Without that you are not insured because the vehicle isn't.

Odds on

I have no intentions of trying.

I mearly asked a question.

amahrap

Ok that may be what the CPS prosecute on but the question stills remains "where does it state that in the law (RTA)" as 143 does not say anything like that? What are they prosecuting for and in breach of what?

fatherpierre

It's in S143 - you may be interpreting it differently to the law and courts and to how it's meant to be interpreted:

Points To Prove:

date and location
use a motor vehicle on a road/public place
there not being in force in relation the vehicle a policy of insurance/security

Police Actions MCA procedure may be applied to this legislation
Consider fixed penalty ticket scheme
Legislation Code Road Traffic Act 1988

Offence Legal Topic no insurance
Offence Code RT88191
PNC Code 12.15.13.1
HO Stats Code 809/01
DVLA Code IN10
Standard Statement Of Facts At **(..SPECIFY TIME..) on **(..SPECIFY DATE..) the defendant used **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..) ON **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..) when there was no insurance in force covering that use of the vehicle.
National Region Great Britain

The last bit of the statement of facts:

'when there was no insurance in force covering that use of the vehicle' - that's the bit that blows all the 3rd party rubbish people are saying. There has to be insurance in force covering that vehicle - a policy for that vehicle. That's the way it's interpreted by the law and that's what you lose your licence over.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Thank you!