urdad

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 3rd party subsection placates that.
A car should be insured to be on the road we're not arguing.
The issue is wether or not as a 3rd party using a policy subsection you can drive a vehicle does not have it's own policy,you can if your policy says so,I have and will continue to do so.
My sons policy covers him to drive his vehicle,his policy doesn't cover me,my policy covers me so your logic is fundamentaly unsound,if he had no policy I would still be covered,the emphasis is the I,insurance companies insure the drivers not the cars.


And...
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
Read it properly.

urdad

This is from the link I posted in case anyone has not seen it,from an Insurance type...
FNG
TA Guru

Online

Posts: 1435


Insurance Bod


Re: Insurance
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2007, 12:43:00 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we do not generally insure vehicles in the UK, we insure people.

The RTA says a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road, so as far as I know a parked vehicle does not need to be specifically insured. Though the trafpol will probably have more information regarding the definition of "use"

You can not be insured on an uninsured vehicle as by definition by driving it, it is insured

fatherpierre

The 3rd party bit does not insure the car to be on the road. You're interpreting the act wrongly. You're quoting one part of the act covering driving of vehicles, not the need for cover of that vehicle to be on a road in the 1st place.

So every police officer issuing fines, points, and confiscating cars, pluss the courts are all wrong?

David Lock

Going back to the basics the point of insurance is to ensure that if a third party is injured then they are able to seek recompense.

As reported earlier in the thread an insurance company did pay up when damage was done to a third party by a driver using his policy to cover driving another vehicle.

So it would seem pretty bloody minded of a copper to do said driver for non-insurance when, in reality, this wasn't the case. dl

fatherpierre

And from the same forum, a police officer saying this:

Well if someone is using a thrird party extension and the vehicle they are driving is not showing any insurance, or is not insured on further investigation for 3rd party minimum, then we will seize the vehicle.

It does need insurance to be on the road. 3rd party only.


Which agrees with me, as that is the way the law sees it - and more impotantly, the courts.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it won't help you in court or at the roadside when pulled over driving an unisured car.

Enjoy, and don't get too jittery when using your mate's uninsured motor when you see a police car behind you. You're iunsured, after all and there's no way they can take the motor off you and send you to court............

cster

Well as has been said before, if the driver is insured to drive the vehicle, by definition, the vehicle is insured to be driven by the driver.
The AND may be deemed superfluous, though it may be argued that its inclusion indicates that the lawmakers at the time intended that it should be interpreted in the manner you have indicated.
Having said that - who gives a toss?

fatherpierre

Indeed.

I'm bored now. All I know is I have 4 insurance policies - 2 classic and 2 normal that say I can drive 'any car'.

I wouldn't drive any other car unless I knew it had a policy covering it, at risk of getting done for no insurance and getting the car confiscated, and because I'd be breaking the law.

But that's because I have done the confiscating etc so know what happens........ I'll leave it there.

cster

Big ditto there , apart from the number of insurance policies

fatherpierre

And they all renew with 2 months of each other too

Only one of them is ££ though!

Moley

iTrader: (9)

If you are driving an un-insured car using your 3rd party cover, depending on the insurer you should be covered.

However, if you step out of that car on a public highway, you are commiting an offence. (leaving an un-insured car on the highway)

You could argue that if you stay in the car and get out on private land you'd be ok. Good idea in theory, but if the police follow you, and their ANPR indicates the vehicle has no insurance, they'll pull you over and ask you to step out of the car.
You'd then have to refuse to get out the car so that you don't commit the offence. Then see just how difficut the police officer will make your life.

Please note this is what i was told 7-8 years ago when i first started working in insurance, so don't blame me it it's wrong!!!

David_Dickson

Ah well,
I guess I must be wrong.
I guess my insurance policy is wrong.
I guess my insurers have been wrong every time I have asked for confirmation.
I guess the police who stopped me that time were wrong.
I guess the police who dealt with the producer at the station were wrong too.
I guess all the insurance companies involved in my sisters claim were wrong as well.

Perhaps I imagined it all?

Sorry to have wasted your time everyone.

cster

I think you would have to go to the court of appeal after a guilty verdict to get to the bottom of this.
Anyone up for it?

urdad

And this is from a respected insurance agent..thanks ,it's always worked for me...
FP is still going to argue... I'll happily continue doing what I'm doing,a tip though;carry your policy with you for proof of the 3rd party liability cover because it won't appear on any database.
I don't think they can actually make you leave the vehicle as witnessed on police stop ,but then you'd prolly be asking for more grief as moley says...

urdad

It would be covered depending on your policy and the 3rd party clause,which as stated is the minimum...

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Funnily enough, I did use my brothers car whilst he was away on his travels and I did crash it, minor bump and Tesco's didnt bat an eyelid, they just paid for the bit of bodywork to the other car.

Now I am fairly sure it wasn't insured by him as he was travelling the world and was away for ages, they paid out, I repaired his manky old Rover so the cost to Tescos was a couple of hundred.

What I wonder is, I may have occasion to drive a rather expensive car as a favour to the owner, drive him to a few boozers and drop him home, in his car which is insured, he accepts the fact that if I bump it, the repairs to it are his problem but I wonder what my insurance would make of it, I am going to check first as its 100k's worth, but I suppose me rear ending a Mondeo in a Rover 214 si or a 911 Turbo is the same net effect, a bumped Mondeo and a damaged cart that the insurance company has no obligation to pay for in the slightest, however you cant get 911 bits from BrittParts for pennies and batter it back into shape, bog it and hand it back.

So, inconclusive but thats my experience, I have tried to clarify it subsequently and the girl on the phone said its for "Emergencies" only, she couldnt quantify and emergency, mercy dash with a woman in labour or we have run out of Ketchup ?

GC8

The trouble is that people with a vested interest are now adding their interpretation to what otherwise would be a simple matter. I have also been told by traffic police officers that 'what it really means is...', which was rubbish. Now that the government have ineptly altered vehicles insurance requirements the matter is far from clear cut. This is proved by the need for case law and test cases.

The point that I have made is this: my trade insurance offers cover on any vehicle in exactly the same way as the 'other vehicle' cover that people are talking about here. There is no legal difference between the two, so how can one be cast iron, whilst the other is, at best, questioned.....?

GC8

With regards to the arguments about who gets points in court: I have seen a CPS solicitor concede that the accused hadnt committed a crime (their action did not constitute an offence), but the magistrates still came back and found him guilty! I have also seen a traffic police officer completely change his story when he was shown to be lying, completely contradicting himself; and the motorist was found guilty.

That fairly sums up the treatment that you can expect to receive in a police court.

Odds on

Looks like the Police governors have written up guidelines for the officers that 'should' catch the **** takers (with the minimum amount of red tape/time off the road, etc - Can't argue that really.)

Unfortunately it looks like this has gone on for so long, that the courts are believing it to be true.

I reckon a half decent solicitor will 'get you off' (Not that he should have to), if you do actually have the right cover.

Just another case of an easy nick on a generally honest citizen, if it's pushed that far.

Was gonna add - "Communism? Not here. Just do what they say, regardless of what's right. " But I decided not to.

Stainy

FP is wrong and urdad/moley are right. Simple as (as I posted 3 pages ago ).

I have been an insurance underwriter (past life) and was an ACII (look it up)and my current job requires legal knowledge of such things.

Just to upset the applecart more, even if the police stopped you and you got out to talk to them you should be okay....There is legal precident that a short stop is still counted as driving the car (the person in question had nipped in to a shop to buy a paper).

Right, I've got more pop-corn, now off you go

fatherpierre

Can't be arsed. Bottom line is that the car has to have a policy covering it to be on a road.

The insurance certificate or cover note issued by the insurance company constitutes legal evidence that the vehicle specified on the document is indeed insured.

That's where it starts and ends.

All you 3rd party arguers will lose in court if you're ever unlucky enough to get stopped in an unisured car. And if it were me stopping you, your 3rd part cert for another car won't mean a thing. I'll have your car impounded unless you can show me a cert of insurance for that car at the time you were driving it.

If not, then the car would be crushed or auctioned off if over a certain value and you'd get your 6 points

GC8

Thats not communism; thats fascism. Although, as Ferris said: "...not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good..."

fatherpierre

The issue is this:

You are insured to drive said uninsured car with your own car's cert, yes.

Is the car insured to be on the road? No.

That's the offence.

Stainy

Ah not long to wait at all


I regularly drive an uninsured car on my own certificate. You are welcome to seize it, the compensation will be jubbly.

I recommend to speak to a Traffic Sergeant and / or an ERO or Training Officer regarding your interpretation of the law.

You may well avoid a Reg 9 (Reg 15 from November) for crushing someones car.

I too am fed up of this, there's no helping some people, night

fatherpierre

We could go all day long on the interpretation of the law.

Uninsured is unisured for being on a road and the courts still require a cert of insurance to prove the vehicle is covered. When it changes I'll change my view.

There was a recent training package out for all officers (uniformed) stating the above as insurance is a grey area.

It would certainly make my life easier if the 3rd party thing was relaxed as I'm constantly having to get temp cover on uninsured cars I buy but pay for afterwards

GC8

The issue here is evident in the statement: 'you could drive a supercar on your third party entitlement and you cant have that'. Yes you can: abuse or not and its the place of the insurers to restrict the benefit, not the place of civil servants to interpret what the insurers really meant. In the same way the insurers cant tell you that its for emergencies only or stipulate a journey distance or time limit, unless that restriction is is referred to in the policy schedule/certificate.

This Police driven interpretation (used loosely as its not an interpretation, its simply making something up) started long before the government fudged the issue with regards to vehicles needing to be insured simply to be on the road: the trouble is that now it has gained an extra impetus.

fatherpierre

Indeed.

It then puts the onus on the driver to prove something they can't, and puts them at risk of losing a car that's not theirs (unles they're being fraudulant) and getting hit with points and fines.

The whole thing needs re-wording, but I'm stating things from the way it's currently used against people.

And we all know how cars are now the enemy of the state, making it even more difficult to beat the system.

GC8

The real test of this premiss, is my trade policy. The cover offered is (in practice) absolutely the same as the cover that people benefit from with their own policys third party extension. Im sure that the law doesnt differentiate or make a special case of trade insurance (the distinction is made by the insurers alone), so how can one policy cover me without question, but the other lead to a car being seized? One further point: the EU4th directive only requires that cars on risk for in excess of 14 days need be entered on the MIB database. This means that I can use a car under cover for every second week for ever, without having to enter it (I do this myself). The point here being that vehicles dont have to be recorded on the MIB database for the cover to be validated.

exvaux

iTrader: (1)

ermif theres no mot then should it be on the road,never mind no insurance it might not be roadworthy and your risking more points

fatherpierre

The way it's viewed with MIB is that if the car's not on the database then there is another source open to the officer on the street. This source is updated in advance of that database and we have a numbe to ring to check.

If there is no record on that then the driver is allowed on his/her way and issued with a HORT1 and then needs to show an insurance doc for that car relating to it at the time of the stop. Or be arrested if the person couldn't prove who they were and where they live - SOCPA.

I've only ever seen 2 traders policies and they both stated that the named driver was insured to drive any car and the policy also covered the car they were driving, regardless of what it was.