Insurance Checks

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Fri 26 Oct 2012 00:53
Insurance Checks - julie page

DVLA are thinking orf removing the insurance Checks when Taking a Vehicle.

www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/consultations.aspx

Think the idea is nuts!!!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 00:58
Insurance Checks - Avant

I like the thought of the DVLA removing the restrictions on thieves.....

I think you must mean 'taxing'.

Ths consultation document (and it is only that at the moment) says that because the DVLA and the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) introduced the Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) scheme in June 2011 in an attempt to counter the amount of uninsured drivers, the check at the time of taxing a vehicle is no longer necessary - basically because they believe that CIE will catch uninsured drivers more successfully.

Let's hope that's true.

Edited by Avant on 26/10/2012 at 01:03

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 01:01
Insurance Checks - julie page

Ooops!

I acually cut and pasted that bit.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 01:28
Insurance Checks - unthrottled

The continuity of insurance requirement is a non-issue for seasoned drivers whose insurance premium is a relatively small part of their cost of motoring and which is often dominated by the 'need' to change cars every couple of years and subsequently suffering a voluntary and unnecesary depreciation hit.

For the new motorist it is yet another impediment to becoming mobile. When I bought my first car it was a non-runner (albeit taxed and MOTd). I fixed it up with my dad who test drove it-legitimately-on his insurance policy. Only once the bugs were ironed out did I take a policy out in my name and drive it myself. No fiddles, no law breaking, just financial necessity.

It's a blunt instrument that is not necessary to catch uninsured drivers.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 10:00
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

who test drove it-legitimately-on his insurance policy.

No he didn't, the "you can drive other vehicles" only applies if they are already insurred and you are only covered third party. Most policies do not include this now to stop kids buying a wreck, insuring it and then go out driving the Scooby which is of course uninsurred.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 11:10
Insurance Checks - unthrottled

You can normally drive other vehicles 3rd party on a comprehensive policy.

Most policies do not include this now to stop kids buying a wreck, insuring it and then go out driving the Scooby which is of course uninsurred.

This service is not usually extended to under 25s. My insurer offers this service. As did my previous insurer. You must have a very chreap, nasty policy. :)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 11:46
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

Its an urban myth that the cover you get in the "you can drive other vehicles 3rd party" on your comprehensive policy allows you to drive an otherwise uninsurred car. It does not, simple as that, the other car must have a current insurance policy.

If you do not believe me check with your insurance company.

And I do not have a cheap nasty policy.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 11:51
Insurance Checks - nick62

I'm with Thunderbird on this one....................

You can only drive another vehicle with cover from your OWN policy, so long as that vehicle is insured currently in it's own right, UIVMM?

I have seen a few people get caught-out with this one on the "Cops with cameras" TV programmes.

Edited by nick62 on 26/10/2012 at 11:53

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 11:57
Insurance Checks - unthrottled

I stand corrected. I did not realise that-and I thought I'd read the small print fairly thoroughly. Oops!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 12:08
Insurance Checks - Bromptonaut

It depends on the policy terms. Most require the other vehicle to be insured but it's not universal.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 13:50
Insurance Checks - RT

Its an urban myth that the cover you get in the "you can drive other vehicles 3rd party" on your comprehensive policy allows you to drive an otherwise uninsurred car. It does not, simple as that, the other car must have a current insurance policy.

If you do not believe me check with your insurance company.

And I do not have a cheap nasty policy.

Then why is the wording "The insured whilst driving any private motor car not their property or hired to them"

As that very specific wording excludes another car that is their property or is hired to them, you'd expect the wording to exclude any car not insured by the keeper if your flawed theory were correct.

Edited by RT on 26/10/2012 at 13:51

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 20:22
Insurance Checks - Duncan112

AIUI the problem with driving an utherwise uninsured car on the third party element of another policy is that it only covers the car whilst it is being driven, so if the car was parked and left unattended in a public place (or broke down) it would not then be being driven and would be uninsured.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 20:36
Insurance Checks - Bromptonaut

AIUI the problem with driving an utherwise uninsured car on the third party element of another policy is that it only covers the car whilst it is being driven, so if the car was parked and left unattended in a public place (or broke down) it would not then be being driven and would be uninsured.

Which I suppose accounts for the need for vehicles driven under DOC extension to be 'properly' insured. Absent that cover there's a problem, even before the continuous insurance requirement unless car is driven from one pice of private land directly to another.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 20:42
Insurance Checks - Bromptonaut

The proposal being consulted on does have some merit. Under continuous insurance the DVLA and insurance databases are cross referenced. Vehicles that are uninsured but not SORN'd are flagged and subject to enforcement.

On that basis there's limited value in second guessing the insurance check at the time tax is renewed. It also removes an issue for those whose tax and insurance fall due around same time where MIB says no because it cannot see valid insurance on a prospective renewal in advance of month end.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 26 Oct 2012 21:43
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

For a car to be legally driven on the road in the UK that car must be insured. The section of your policy that allows you to drive another vehicle on your comprehensive insurance with the vehicle owners consent only covers you third party and the vehicle still has to have current insurance in place. It is to allow drivers to use a car they do not own and are not insured to drive legally in an emergency with limited cover in place and not as a substitute for insuring a vehicle. As another poster has said just watch Police, Stop, Idiot, plenty of youfs fall foul of this, they are probably fully aware and are just flouting the law.

The only policy that allows a car to be driven on the road without vehicle specific insurance is a Traders Policy and under the T & C's of the policy it has to be under test, demonstration, being moved, etc etc, but it must be concerned with the policy holders business, you cannot use the car for SD&P on a traders policy as far as I am aware. Traders policies are not available to the general public and are certainly not cheap.

The posters who disagree with this should check with their insurers and the Police ASAP and then come back and confirm the facts. Putting such nonsense on a forum could prove very expensive if a reader believed it and was stopped by the police and fined and given points (or even banned).

Edited by thunderbird on 26/10/2012 at 21:46

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 09:24
Insurance Checks - RT

The posters who disagree with this should check with their insurers and the Police ASAP and then come back and confirm the facts. Putting such nonsense on a forum could prove very expensive if a reader believed it and was stopped by the police and fined and given points (or even banned).

The requirement for continuous insurance for the vehicle is entirely seperate from driving other cars.

The continuous insurance requirement falls on the keeper of the vehicle - the driving other cars insurance relates to the driver.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 09:35
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

My point is simple, if people come on this forum, read the advice given in this post that its OK to drive another car that is not insurred on your own policy and then get stiopped, fined and endorsed who is going to pay their fine. If it was me Honest John would be in the firing line for allowing such nonsense on here.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 09:41
Insurance Checks - RT

My point is simple, if people come on this forum, read the advice given in this post that its OK to drive another car that is not insurred on your own policy and then get stiopped, fined and endorsed who is going to pay their fine. If it was me Honest John would be in the firing line for allowing such nonsense on here.

It's the keeper who would get fined/endorsed - not the driver, because the driver would be insured - but that's no different to the police going to the keeper's home because the requirement for continuous insurance or SORN is absolute.

Edited by RT on 27/10/2012 at 09:42

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 10:08
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

My point is simple, if people come on this forum, read the advice given in this post that its OK to drive another car that is not insurred on your own policy and then get stiopped, fined and endorsed who is going to pay their fine. If it was me Honest John would be in the firing line for allowing such nonsense on here.

It's the keeper who would get fined/endorsed - not the driver, because the driver would be insured - but that's no different to the police going to the keeper's home because the requirement for continuous insurance or SORN is absolute.

Total and utter b******s. Its the drive who is in the car and his third party cover does not work if the car does not have its own insurance. The driver would be fined and the car impounded and the owner fined.

Check the facts before you put such dangerous advice on a public forum.

PLEASE NOTE ITS TIME A MODERATOR TOOK ACTION TO STOP THIS

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 11:23
Insurance Checks - unthrottled

PLEASE NOTE ITS TIME A MODERATOR TOOK ACTION TO STOP THIS

Grow up. This sanctimonious hand wringing is unhelpful.

I've checked my policy statement regarding DOC and nowhere does it stipulate that the vehicle in question must be insured in its own right. You could argue that it is illegal to leave an unisured vehicle unattended on a public road. Nevertheless, I can't see how driving an uninsured vehicle under the DOC clause would not meet minimum 3rd party liability insurance requirements whilst it was being driven. I'm partially retracting my withdrawl!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 11:45
Insurance Checks - Avant

"If it was me Honest John would be in the firing line for allowing such nonsense on here."

Fortunately it isn't you. You shouldn't need me to remind you that neither HJ nor anyone else in the organisation takes responsibility for personal opinions expressed in this forum.

Clearly the only sensible course of action in a situation like this is to check very carefully the terms of your own policy - they aren't all the same - and if necessary consult the insurer or broker themselves.

None of the views above are 'nonsense': it just shows what a complex area this is, and why it's so important not to drive a vehicle unless you're sure you're insured to drive it.


Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 27 Oct 2012 12:32
Insurance Checks - thunderbird

Saying that it is not illegal to leave an uninsurred vehicle on a public highway shows how much one forum contributor knows.

All policies are identical in one respect, if it says you can drive another vehicle the other vehicle must be insured. It does not have to say it, its the law.

I say again check with the Police and your insurer and apologise and then confirm I am correct.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link