If I test drive a Private Car
25 August 2008, 12:27 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I test drive a Private Car
Which has no TAX and no Insurance .... am I being a naughty boy?
Will I be covered on my Policy which states that I can drive other cars with the owners consent .... even if the test car has no insurance in place in its own right?
I know the TAX thing is a little naughty - but the Insurance is the bigger issue.
Will I be covered on my Policy which states that I can drive other cars with the owners consent .... even if the test car has no insurance in place in its own right?
I know the TAX thing is a little naughty - but the Insurance is the bigger issue.
25 August 2008, 12:57 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 August 2008, 02:21 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need to have anohter discussion about insurance?
If the car's used on a public road it needs to be covered by its own policy. Plus, no tax and insurance means the crusher will likely.
Trending Topics
25 August 2008, 02:23 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 August 2008, 02:35 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isnt so. The cover is dictated by the policy, if it say that the other car must be insured, then it must: if it doesnt stipulate this then you are covered. The 'it must be seperately insured' clause seems to have been made up by the police, rather than insurance companies, as this is generally where you hear it from.
This is complicated by the fact that a vehicle must have its own insurance now, whereas before it only had to be insured to be used on the road (and could be parked uninsured legally).
A case in point (which tests the theory): I have a trade policy, which would cover me indisputably to drive the vehicle in the example given. This policy would not be dependant in any way on the other vehicle being insured and the fact that the vehicle did not have its own insurance policy would not open it up to the possibility of being crushed if I was stopped by the police.
This is complicated by the fact that a vehicle must have its own insurance now, whereas before it only had to be insured to be used on the road (and could be parked uninsured legally).
A case in point (which tests the theory): I have a trade policy, which would cover me indisputably to drive the vehicle in the example given. This policy would not be dependant in any way on the other vehicle being insured and the fact that the vehicle did not have its own insurance policy would not open it up to the possibility of being crushed if I was stopped by the police.
25 August 2008, 02:43 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For police, court and general use purposes a car being used on a public road has to have be covered by an insurance policy.
For the purposes of the initial post the car's not insured unless it has its own policy and would be deemed uninsured and the driver given the relevant penalties and the car maybe taken away and crushed.
Trade policies are different and cover far more - hence the cost.
I have (in the past) met with people who think they are insured to drive an uninsured car via their policy saying they can drive any car. They are always uninsured and received points and fines at court.
For the purposes of the initial post the car's not insured unless it has its own policy and would be deemed uninsured and the driver given the relevant penalties and the car maybe taken away and crushed.
Trade policies are different and cover far more - hence the cost.
I have (in the past) met with people who think they are insured to drive an uninsured car via their policy saying they can drive any car. They are always uninsured and received points and fines at court.
25 August 2008, 03:58 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isnt so. The cover is dictated by the policy, if it say that the other car must be insured, then it must: if it doesnt stipulate this then you are covered. The 'it must be seperately insured' clause seems to have been made up by the police, rather than insurance companies, as this is generally where you hear it from.
This is complicated by the fact that a vehicle must have its own insurance now, whereas before it only had to be insured to be used on the road (and could be parked uninsured legally).
A case in point (which tests the theory): I have a trade policy, which would cover me indisputably to drive the vehicle in the example given. This policy would not be dependant in any way on the other vehicle being insured and the fact that the vehicle did not have its own insurance policy would not open it up to the possibility of being crushed if I was stopped by the police.
This is complicated by the fact that a vehicle must have its own insurance now, whereas before it only had to be insured to be used on the road (and could be parked uninsured legally).
A case in point (which tests the theory): I have a trade policy, which would cover me indisputably to drive the vehicle in the example given. This policy would not be dependant in any way on the other vehicle being insured and the fact that the vehicle did not have its own insurance policy would not open it up to the possibility of being crushed if I was stopped by the police.
AFAIK for a normal person to drive another vehicle the subject vehicle needs to have insurance cover and you will only be driving it 3rd party not fully comp.
25 August 2008, 04:30 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not dependant on trade plates, no.
As I keep saying: the cover that you benefit from is described in your policy. If it does not state clearly that the vehicle must be separately insured, then it does not need to be in order for you to be insured. There arent, and there can not be, any hidden clauses or provisos which restrict insurance cover: you get what is offered without caveat.
As I keep saying: the cover that you benefit from is described in your policy. If it does not state clearly that the vehicle must be separately insured, then it does not need to be in order for you to be insured. There arent, and there can not be, any hidden clauses or provisos which restrict insurance cover: you get what is offered without caveat.
25 August 2008, 04:51 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, you need to ask your own insurers because they all have different policies for this.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
25 August 2008, 04:55 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 9,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, you need to ask your own insurers because they all have different policies for this.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
25 August 2008, 05:07 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, granted, things may have changed lately, as I havent be stopped for years, but ages back I was stopped several times, and once I was driving another car, using this cover.
I got a producer, which I took to the station, with the cars V5 which was in a friends name, MOT, and my own policy document, which had my own car reg on it and just the wee paragraph..."the policy holder may also drive, with the owners permision blah blah blah...."
This wasnt questioned at all, and no mention or demands were made as to whether the car was insured by another policy
I got a producer, which I took to the station, with the cars V5 which was in a friends name, MOT, and my own policy document, which had my own car reg on it and just the wee paragraph..."the policy holder may also drive, with the owners permision blah blah blah...."
This wasnt questioned at all, and no mention or demands were made as to whether the car was insured by another policy
25 August 2008, 05:27 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, you need to ask your own insurers because they all have different policies for this.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
I HAVE asked my insurer, and they were clear -the other car does not need to be insured seperately.
If it is not owned by me or rented/leased to me, and I have the owners permission, then i AM covered, no matter whether the car has its own policy in force or not.
The cover is third-party only, for the period I use the car. It is stated in the policy that it is for temporary use or use in an emergency.
25 August 2008, 05:46 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As said this has been discussed before.
My insurance company have stated that I am covered even if the other car is not insured. But fatherpierre would happily do me for not having insurance as he must feel that my insurance company are not allowed to insure cars. My view is that if I had documentation that I was insured then the court would be on my side. dl
My insurance company have stated that I am covered even if the other car is not insured. But fatherpierre would happily do me for not having insurance as he must feel that my insurance company are not allowed to insure cars. My view is that if I had documentation that I was insured then the court would be on my side. dl
25 August 2008, 07:37 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, drove the car and didn't get pulled over .... didn't buy the car either.
I think I will go with the advice that Insurance is Insurance and the vehicle in question does not need it's own policy for another policy to cover it - which makes sense.
Obviously, you can own an un-insured car (SORN'd in your garage for example) as long as it is not used on the Public Roads
I think I will go with the advice that Insurance is Insurance and the vehicle in question does not need it's own policy for another policy to cover it - which makes sense.
Obviously, you can own an un-insured car (SORN'd in your garage for example) as long as it is not used on the Public Roads
25 August 2008, 10:14 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it this way - the way it's taught to police............
If you could drive any car that doesn't have its own cover with your cover, then you can own a 1000cc Fiat Panda and be covered for an unisnured 1000bhp Veyron because your policy says you are insured to drive a car not owned by you, but you have permission to drive.
This insurance thing is the biggest misconception on today's roads and gets people banned who think they are covered when they're not.
Your policy may say you can drive 'any' car, but that car has to be insured. Your policy of insurance relates to your car primarily, and covers you 3rd party for any car, but that car has to be covered too.
The point of law is finalised in that every car (other than where specifed - police, military and a few others covered elsewhere) has to be insured to be on a public road. So your insurance may cover you to drive it, but you are driving a car that has no insurance to be on a public road - invalidating your perceived cover. The car needs a policy to insure it to be on the road in the 1st place.
Don't be easy meat - that's why there are companies who do temp insurance for the movement of cars. They wouldn't exist otherwise. I've been to court more times than I can remember over this issue and never seen anything than the court agreeing the driver was uninsured.
If you could drive any car that doesn't have its own cover with your cover, then you can own a 1000cc Fiat Panda and be covered for an unisnured 1000bhp Veyron because your policy says you are insured to drive a car not owned by you, but you have permission to drive.
This insurance thing is the biggest misconception on today's roads and gets people banned who think they are covered when they're not.
Your policy may say you can drive 'any' car, but that car has to be insured. Your policy of insurance relates to your car primarily, and covers you 3rd party for any car, but that car has to be covered too.
The point of law is finalised in that every car (other than where specifed - police, military and a few others covered elsewhere) has to be insured to be on a public road. So your insurance may cover you to drive it, but you are driving a car that has no insurance to be on a public road - invalidating your perceived cover. The car needs a policy to insure it to be on the road in the 1st place.
Don't be easy meat - that's why there are companies who do temp insurance for the movement of cars. They wouldn't exist otherwise. I've been to court more times than I can remember over this issue and never seen anything than the court agreeing the driver was uninsured.
25 August 2008, 10:19 PM
#22
My view is that if I had documentation that I was insured then the court would be on my side. dl[/quote]
No insurance is an absolute offence. The onus is on the driver / person in charge of that the vehicle to ensure it is insured for that purpose on that road by that person at that time. Each policy is different. Rather than take in ill advice, check with your own insurer for the definitive answer. In the UK, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
No insurance is an absolute offence. The onus is on the driver / person in charge of that the vehicle to ensure it is insured for that purpose on that road by that person at that time. Each policy is different. Rather than take in ill advice, check with your own insurer for the definitive answer. In the UK, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
25 August 2008, 10:22 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that insurers don't understand the law themsleves. They may still pay out on a driver being covered if he has an accident in a uninsured car, but the law would still hit them with the penalties.
The Road Traffic Act can make a driver liable for not being insured even thought the compay pays out. Hence the confusion.
The Road Traffic Act can make a driver liable for not being insured even thought the compay pays out. Hence the confusion.
25 August 2008, 10:33 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the reg owner/keeper, anyone as long as there's cover from somewhere - PAYMENT!!!
25 August 2008, 10:50 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FP: all you have described is 'the police' making up their own law. The insurer descibes the risk and accepts it if they choose. The point being that if they say you are legally covered, then you are covered. I cant comment on the cases that you have mentioned previously, so I have no choice but accept that you say, but I would defy you to quote the law which backs up yours, and many other police officers opinion/positions.
Simon
Simon
25 August 2008, 10:56 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only go by what the courts say, and what the RTA says - which is pretty much the daddy as it's the law of the road, set by our very own government, and insurance companies have no say in this.
It's not made up by the police - a car that's not insured is not insured to be on a road, and the courts give out the points for people caught driving a car on the road illegally.
Do you think that if you own a £200 1988 escort with fully comp insurance @ £70 PA that you are covered to drive a £180,000 Ferrari that has no seperate cover? Are you ****!!!! That's where the issue comes in, and where you are not covered - the loophole was closed.
It's not made up by the police - a car that's not insured is not insured to be on a road, and the courts give out the points for people caught driving a car on the road illegally.
Do you think that if you own a £200 1988 escort with fully comp insurance @ £70 PA that you are covered to drive a £180,000 Ferrari that has no seperate cover? Are you ****!!!! That's where the issue comes in, and where you are not covered - the loophole was closed.
Last edited by fatherpierre; 25 August 2008 at 11:11 PM.
25 August 2008, 11:00 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way to test, if you're keen, is to drive an uninsured car around for a bit then get pulled over and state your case by flapping you fully comp doc for another car in face of the copper stopping you. Then produce it in court, and see what happens.
I'm bored with repeating this, but: vehicles have to have cover to be on a road. Then, your 3rd party cover for your car will cover you to drive it. If the car isn't covered by a policy, you are driving an uninsured car.
Edit:
You're probably looking for section 143 of the RTA 1988.
Last edited by fatherpierre; 25 August 2008 at 11:45 PM.
26 August 2008, 12:23 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: windsor
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of the wording may be a bit off.
I asked the same question of my insurers their reply was that the part allowing you to drive other cars actually covers you not the vehicle,you are the liability that they are insuring.
The 3rd party means they will pay out for damage done by you to property which may occour during any accident.
As for you driving a £180,0o0 pound car don't you think that's a silly statement to make,surely someone with a car of that value wouldn't be messing with 3rd party insurance which inevitably would not pay out...
And of course any car parked or using a public highway must be insured.
The part of the policy being disscussed would come into force for example if someone was selling a car that they have no insurance on,which should be parked on private land.
And yes I have had to produce using this type of cover.
I asked the same question of my insurers their reply was that the part allowing you to drive other cars actually covers you not the vehicle,you are the liability that they are insuring.
The 3rd party means they will pay out for damage done by you to property which may occour during any accident.
As for you driving a £180,0o0 pound car don't you think that's a silly statement to make,surely someone with a car of that value wouldn't be messing with 3rd party insurance which inevitably would not pay out...
And of course any car parked or using a public highway must be insured.
The part of the policy being disscussed would come into force for example if someone was selling a car that they have no insurance on,which should be parked on private land.
And yes I have had to produce using this type of cover.
