Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI DX Yes check it every month , after I reinstated the second DD I was checking every week. Also checked my bank statements and each payment has cleared. When responding to the court claim does it need to be in spefic terms ? Or laid out in a certain format? Or is it just a case of putting down in writing how I have expained it on CAG?
    • Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Insurance. Driving other vehicles!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3171 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi. Query regards driving other cars. I am insured to drive a Citroen c3. My policy states that i am allowed to drive other cars with the owners permission. Now how does this work when pulled over by the law if i am driving another car that has tax and mot but not showing any insurance.As the driver(me) is insured to drive it. If the car is sorn as not insured. Would the owner get notification of no insurance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The other car normally has to be insured as well for you to drive it, check your own policy for exact wording, you would definitely get a pull from the police as it will still show as uninsured unless you add it temporarily to your policy which may be the safest way.

 

dfh101

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful with driving other cars extension.

 

Check terms. You know it is third party only cover while driving. So no cover for any damage you do. Also if you park it while going to a shop, it is not covered.

 

It is meant to be temporary cover when you have urgent need to drive another car. It is not a replacement for normal insurance. It won't show as insured on the database and if stopped the Police might be reluctant to accept the driving other car cover.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have checked the policy and yes 3rd party cover. However if stopped by the law the driver has insurance so they can not lift it.!? I agree its a policy for temporary cover. I am concerned that if the car is with out insurance does the owner of the car get a notification that the car is on the road?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have checked the policy and yes 3rd party cover. However if stopped by the law the driver has insurance so they can not lift it.!? I agree its a policy for temporary cover. I am concerned that if the car is with out insurance does the owner of the car get a notification that the car is on the road?

 

They could, as your cover would not be on the database.

 

It you were stopped by the Police, they might not let you drive on, until they have checked with your Insurance company. If they managed to get through on the phone, the Insurers might ask why you had urgent need to drive the car. If they were not satisfied, it could get tricky, with car held until Insurance is proved. If the Police could not speak to your Insurers they may not let you drive on, whatever it states in your insurance certificate.

 

This topic always causes arguments. The Police have realeasd press statements before saying that they are not happy about driving other car cover and have asked insurers to tighten their procedures. Also insurers have raised their own concerns, that the cover is miss used by people.

 

I would only ever use it, for a one off emergency.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

But have the police released a public statement saying that the 'other car' MUST be insured in its own right?

 

Or is that decision down to each insurer, in which case it should specify the requirements on each policy.

 

It is rare that the police cannot contact an insurer, thats why they have dedicated phone numbers, so they arent left on hold like you or I would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes insurance certificates have different wordings. I think there was talk of a move to standardise requirement to have vehicle insured by owner or keeper. So cover was always shown on the database.

 

Think the Police do contact Insurers, particularly if they find a car full of teenagers. Depends whether they have the time and what risk they perceive.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can drive someone else's car on your own insurance policy, but it still has to be covered by the owners policy at the same time

 

If there is no cover by the owners policy, you will get done for driving without insurance, even if your policy allows you to drive it

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the other vehicle should be insured or the keeper would be committing an offence.

 

The DOC cover should be purely for emergencies, say a driver is injured or becomes ill a passenger could continue the journey.

 

When stopped, the police will contact the insurer if they think there is any risk of an offence being committed, lots of people pay a month to get the certificate then cancel the policy but keep the certificate to show the police if stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SORN is Statutory Off Road Notification, so it shouldn't even be on the road. You definitely can't drive another car unless it has it's own insurance... it's the car that has to be insured, not you. Bonkers, but true. But you can drive an insured car on your policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the car was meant to be off the road, SORNed and uninsured by the owner, then if the car was pulled over, on the road, then the owner will get fined

 

Unless he says you did not have permission to be driving to be driving the car, then you are in a lot of trouble

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can drive someone else's car on your own insurance policy, but it still has to be covered by the owners policy at the same time

 

If there is no cover by the owners policy, you will get done for driving without insurance, even if your policy allows you to drive it

 

This would only be correct if your own policy eg the policy providing DOC stipulated that the other car must hold it's own Insurance, there are still plenty of Insurers who do not stipulate the other car must hold it's own insurance and thus such an Insurer providing DOC (Without the requirement for the other car to hold it's own insurance) do not need the other car to hold it's own Insurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Query regards driving other cars. I am insured to drive a Citroen c3. My policy states that i am allowed to drive other cars with the owners permission. Now how does this work when pulled over by the law if i am driving another car that has tax and mot but not showing any insurance.As the driver(me) is insured to drive it. If the car is sorn as not insured. Would the owner get notification of no insurance?

 

If you produce your relevant Certificate of Insurance eg your Certificate that covers you to drive other vehicles when you're stopped, then providing the policy has not been cancelled etc the police cannot legally seize your vehicle. If they do seize the vehicle they're not abided by the law and you can look to recover your costs from the Police.

 

This is assuming the Certificate itself does not stipulate the other vehicle must hold it's own Insurance (Some contain this wording).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ

 

On all those cop shows the old bill check the other persons insurance. Both vehicles must have insurance,

 

The cop shows frequently show the police making errors when it comes to insurance.

 

Just because they're police and on television does not mean they do not make mistakes. They tend to make the same assumptions about Insurance that the general public do which can be wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if you park it while going to a shop, it is not covered.

 

That's debatable, there's no direct case law (AFAIK) regarding leaving a parked car and it becoming uninsured under DOC when you pop into a shop.

 

However all of the other case law regards an overall journey with say a stop in a garage or shop during the trip being regarded as part of the same journey and the driver of the vehicle when they parked it for a short stop in a shop as still being in charge of the vehicle in the eyes of the law.

 

If you parked the vehicle up for a long period, the law would most likely regarded you as no longer in charge of the vehicle and thus it being uninsured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All i see are a lot of assumptions and no links to statute as confirmation

 

You're relying on TV police shows and what you're friends say down the pub.

 

Which parts of the laws relating to DOC and / or my posts in this thread would you like me to explain in detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All i see are a lot of assumptions and no links to statute as confirmation

 

Perhaps you could come up with links to statute to prove your assertion that the other vehicle being driven under DOC must hold it's own cover by law

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...