Insurance and ANPR vans

[Guest 10110001]

A motor trader for example doesnt have a particulat vehicle ID on his policy. He can (usually) drive any car anywhere for any reason. Without passengers or freight if its a trade vehicle.

[patdavies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by patdavies

The law that allows Police to seize uninsured vehicles does not require the vehicle to actually be uninsured. It requires a Police Constable to believe that it is uninsured to provide valid grounds for seizure.

 

Once the vehicle is properly seized, then the motorist becomes liable for the associated costs.

 

So where is this laid down Pat??

RTA 1988, s 165A, a new section inserted by SOCPA 2005, s 152 provides a power of seizure in respect of vehicles reasonably suspected of being, or having been, driven by persons who are unlicensed or uninsured. Also the RTA 1988 contains new provisions inserted under SI 2005/1606. The fees are in S.6

 

Quote:

It means that any vehicle, including those on SORN will need to be insured. This has been driven by the insurance industry mainly.

 

Thats not what it says here

 

Quote:

1. There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place.

Road Safety Act 2006 - the provision is not yet enacted

 

S.22 Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

 

(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 144 insert—

“144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

 

(1) If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—

(a) it is covered by a 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) either of the following conditions is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.

(4) The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—

(a) the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and

(b) the vehicle is owned by that person.

(5) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle.

[Conniff]

I still says except SORN.

 

Section 144A creates the new offence which arises when a vehicle does not meet the insurance requirements. Under the insurance requirements the registration mark of a vehicle, or the vehicle's owner, must be specified in an insurance policy or security. There are a number of exceptions to the offence set out in the new section 144B. Some of these are similar to the exceptions in section 144 of the RTA which apply to the section 143 offence of using a vehicle without insurance. They include vehicles owned by local authorities, the police and the National Health Service. Other exceptions may apply where the vehicle is no longer kept by the registered keeper; it is not kept for use on a road or other public place or has been stolen. The exceptions apply only if a prior statement (such as a statutory off-road "SORN" declaration) has been made to the appropriate authorities as required by regulations.

[patdavies]

Where are you quoting from? I can see nothing in the Act itself that allows SORN'd vehicle an exemption.

[Guest 10110001]

Paragraph 84 in the OPSI text of the Road Safety Act 2006.

[JonCris]

Also it's worth noting that the right to drive another vehicle on your own policy is being scrapped by the insurers.

 

When compulsory insurance was introduced it was on the basis of understanding that the Insurers would, having been handed a captive market, offer a level of affordable insurance so that everyone could continue to drive their vehicle.

 

This understanding has been eroded, particularly by this government. allowing insurers to increase their premiums to ridiculous level so that their are now many more uninsured drivers on the road (which they use as an excuse to increase premiums even more). Not because they are all villains but many have no choice but to use a car to go about their daily business.

 

Some will say but the insurance companies are private business so should be allowed to charge what they want. That would be fine if we had a choice but we don't.

 

Also don't be conned by these comparison websites. They are owned by the insurers they claim to canvas for a lower premium.

 

The insurers have each decided to take on a particular risk which means one insurer offering what appears to be a lower premium for a particular risk when in fact the others have ensured their premium exceeds the other thereby making appear to be the cheapest.

 

Perhaps someone from the insurance industry would confirm what I already know to be true

[Trojan1401]

What's the Government got to do with pricing of motor insurance (other than IPT) ?

Insuarance costs have risen to meet the costs bourne by this "compensayshun" culture we now live in so blame the ambulance chasers. Don't forget the 1m+ uninsured criminals.

Some aggregators are owned by insurers but mailnly independent and get their income from insurers. It is in the insurers interest to get you as a customerto flog other services. Personal lines insureance is a loss leader and at the moment insurers do not generate a significant operating margin from personal lines motor/household. ( Even the mighty NU who have 1/8th of the Pers lines mkt).

 

Also, the poster above who said that the motor bike would be covered by househild insurance. This is incorrect, you cannot insurer a road registered vehicle on a contents policy however some motor insurers may offer F&T cover whilst off the road.

[JonCris]

Here we go the "compenshaysun culture".

 

Absolute rubbish. Research by the Government, the Law Society - & the Insurance Industry has established that there are considerably fewer claims now than there where 10 years ago when legal aid was scrapped.

 

As for the rising costs (if any) It's called inflation also the cost of supporting a quadriplegic over their lifetime has risen considerably in the last 10 years. Last but not least insurers fight every claim, even no hopers, so that they incurr added legal costs

 

If there is no understanding about what insurers charge, what is a captive market, then there is no understanding of the principals involved

[patdavies]

 

When compulsory insurance was introduced

 

And there's the get out clause. Motor insurance is not compulsory - a security may be deposited instead

[Guest 10110001]

Also it's worth noting that the right to drive another vehicle on your own policy is being scrapped by the insurers.

 

When compulsory insurance was introduced it was on the basis of understanding that the Insurers would, having been handed a captive market, offer a level of affordable insurance so that everyone could continue to drive their vehicle.

 

This understanding has been eroded, particularly by this government. Allowing insurers to increase their premiums to ridiculous level so that their are now many more uninsured drivers on the road.

 

An insurance monopoly isn't the answer. British Columbia's version of the DVLA ICBC has a monopoly on car insurance for the whole of BC. Uninsured driving is rife. It’s even accepted by police forces that motorists don't insure because the premiums are too high.

 

The government could regulate insurance premiums making it into a new motoring tax, much like how tax discs work in France.

 

Also don't be conned by these comparison websites. They are owned by the insurers they claim to canvas for a lower premium.

 

Apparently Norwich Union operate the majority of them and only list quotes from insurers within their umbrella of companies. Interesting to know who is behind MoneySupermarket and MoneyExtra.

 

Insuarance costs have risen to meet the costs bourne by this "compensayshun" culture we now live in so blame the ambulance chasers. Don't forget the 1m+ uninsured criminals.

 

Is there such a thing as an insured criminal?

 

Do you mean tightening motoring rules = more motoring offences committed = more bans handed out = more convicted criminals = more people cant drive = people on benefits/cant do their job.

 

The government needs to think what is being gained in tightening the rules on motoring.. There is little semblance between tighter controls and road safety. Motoring offences are usually punished with fine and a sanction on driving privilege. The Governments so-called War on Motorists doesn’t consider the long-term impact on the economy.

[JonCris]

And there's the get out clause. Motor insurance is not compulsory - a security may be deposited instead

 

Oh please!

 

You got a spare £500K have you. No then it's compulsory to most of us who ain't footballers

[Guest 10110001]

Filler filler

[dcdkpug]

to be honest like some people put on here best way if you drive another vehcle is to carry your insurance with you as this is what i do otherwise when im in my own vehicle i never carry any at all as i very rarely get stopped

[MrMT]

I thought I might add my own experience on this topic, having been stopped driving a car that the police computer said was not insured. The asked me to step out of the vehicle "assisting a crime?" and to get in the back of theirs "arrested?" and explained to me the reason for stopping me lawfully going about my business. When I told them I had FC on my own car they checked it using the VRM which showed I was telling the truth. They then began questioning me about a recorded event some 20+ years ago tagged to my name but subsequently released me without further action.