Insurance. Driving other vehicles!

[Raykay]

Continuous Insurance Enforcement Scheme also makes it a legal requirement if not SORN to have a minimum third party cover

 

I will now withdraw until a link has be given on this subject from an objective source to state any different on this subject

 

If the vehicle is being driven using valid third party insurance cover, then there is insurance for the use of that vehicle, and the CIE requirement will be satisfied at that time - s.144A(5), Road Traffic Act 1988.

[dacouc]

CIE legislation makes it a requirement for the KEEPER to have a policy of insurance. It says nothing about the driver.

 

Just as i said in post #61 at the top of this page, but people keep bringing up CIE as if it helps their argument. IT DOESN'T!

 

People read to much into it.

 

It's not breaching a statute law, nor is it covered by case law, it's just down to simple contract law.

 

You have a contract between the Insurer and you, they state what perils they cover along with an exclusions to this cover.

 

Some Insurers chose to exclude it from the contract by stating this, where as a minority of the insurers eg Direct Line & Aviva chose not to exclude it from the cover so don't state it as an exclusion.

 

It's normal contract law.

[Aretnap]

And you definitely can't take a SORN'd vehicle on the road just because you are allowed to drive any car on your insurance...

Actually there are situations where it is perfectly legal to drive a SORNed car on the road. Driving to a pre-booked MOT is the most obvious one (it could not be any other way, as you cannot tax and unSORN it until you have an MOT certificate. Obviously whoever drives it must be covered by an insurance policy, and buying one day insurance, getting a friend with suitable driving other cars cover, and getting the mechanic to come and collect it using his own any car policy are all equally legal ways of getting it to the test station. In that situation neither the keeper nor the driver would be breaking any laws.

[ThedaBara]

Actually there are situations where it is perfectly legal to drive a SORNed car on the road. Driving to a pre-booked MOT is the most obvious one (it could not be any other way, as you cannot tax and unSORN it until you have an MOT certificate. Obviously whoever drives it must be covered by an insurance policy, and buying one day insurance, getting a friend with suitable driving other cars cover, and getting the mechanic to come and collect it using his own any car policy are all equally legal ways of getting it to the test station. In that situation neither the keeper nor the driver would be breaking any laws.

 

Obviously.

[colin11]

Just thought i would add this, It is FMOTL rubbish, but does make the point

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7rZJTBjVc

Edited October 3, 2015 by colin11
added bit

[BazzaS]

Just thought i would add this, It is FMOTL rubbish, but does make the point

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7rZJTBjVc

 

I know it may be viewed as "just doing his job", but kudos to the police officer for his calm and methodical approach to a FMOTL buffoon.

 

One wonders if the FMOTL brigade consider the ramifications of "Acts only apply if I consent" .....

Are they saying that they won't be asking for help from the police and courts if their house gets burgled if the burglar leaves a note saying "This is a FMOTL re-allocation of property & I do not consent to the Theft Act", or (returning to that video) if their car got hit by an uninsured driver who then said "of course I'll pay for the damage, but I can only afford £1/week, so it'll be paid off only after we both retire!"

[colin11]

They are pretty stupid, and i cringe at watching some of these video's, but

 

The police officer was definite that the car needed it's own current insurance policy along side the drivers policy

[caro]

I couldn't watch it to the end but agree with bazza about the police officers approach.

 

Back on topic he was very clear. If you think about it, we insure cars, not people.

[unclebulgaria67]

They are pretty stupid, and i cringe at watching some of these video's, but

 

The police officer was definite that the car needed it's own current insurance policy along side the drivers policy

 

He may have checked the certificate of insurance re DOC and it stated this.

 

The problem is that DOC is being used as a replacement for cars having their own insurance. This is a pain for Police trying to enforce, as the cars get flagged by ANPR.

 

Some people are just taking out temporary cover when tax is due, as the car needs insurance to get taxed. The insurance then gets cancelled and they use any DOC cover they may have under another policy. DOC was never meant to cover regularly driving another car.

 

I expect the RTA to be changed, with all Insurers made to change the DOC cover, so that all vehicles must have insurance in place.

[BazzaS]

 

 

Some people are just taking out temporary cover when tax is due, as the car needs insurance to get taxed. The insurance then gets cancelled and they use any DOC cover they may have under another policy. DOC was never meant to cover regularly driving another car.

 

Is this still the case, with the demise of the paper "tax disc"?

 

I could understand before, people doing so to get a paper tax disc, and relying on people only doing that visual check eg of a parked car. It wouldn't have helped with ANPR

 

Now both are being checked online only : little point in them getting tax and not insurance as it won't stop them getting checked (for both) online.

 

Whether this will just mean fewer cars having keeper details registered / tax held ... is another matter!

[unclebulgaria67]

Is this still the case, with the demise of the paper "tax disc"?

 

I could understand before, people doing so to get a paper tax disc, and relying on people only doing that visual check eg of a parked car. It wouldn't have helped with ANPR

 

Now both are being checked online only : little point in them getting tax and not insurance as it won't stop them getting checked (for both) online.

 

Whether this will just mean fewer cars having keeper details registered / tax held ... is another matter!

 

That is what i meant. They need insurance showing on the MID to be able to apply for a tax disc.

 

Previously some people were going into post offices with certificates showing DOC cover and the post office staff were not accepting as it did not show insurance against the vehicle registration.

 

You have always needed insurance on a vehicle to get it taxed. This is why some take out temporary cover. They then cancel it later, if they believe they have DOC on another policy to cover them driving it.

[mikeymack2002]

If you do find that the owner of the car does not have insurance then the car isn't covered by you the driver and could be subject to a s165. That's very expensive and the fine goes to thee driver as do the points. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure the car is insured before getting in to it to drive it, the risk is far to great nowadays.

 

 

As far as getting a cover note/document knowing it is false is fraud. (A separate offence altogether.) The best thing that ever happened was this s165 a great tool for those that think it is still ok to not have insurance see this link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165