No idea about leaving it on the road but you'll find that the third party coverage on most, if not all of the policies require the car to be insured in the first place. I.e. - it won't matter what coverage your friend has. If you haven't insured the car, he isn't insured on it either.
I think.
|
I've checked her policy and it says nothing about requiring my vehicle to be insured by me.
Her vehicle is out of action for a few days, and during those few days she is using mine which was previously kept off road at another address.
|
|
What did your/her insurer tell you when you asked them this question?
|
Nsar,
I didn't ask, the policy clearly says NOTHING about any conditional requirements that the car is insured by me aswell.
My insurers don't exist in this scenario.
|
|
I'd have thought that your partner's insurers would be able to answer the question.
|
But the main question is can I keep a car without insurance on the highway, whilst it is driven by her I'm confident it is insured by her policy. Whilst it is on the road not in use....
A) is this ok anyway because it is not an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle on the road.
B) in the event that A is not true, is the vehicle still considered in her charge because she parked it and is using it. no one else is using it, because it is on loan to her, whilst hers is out of action.
Lastly yes her insurer would answer 2 out of the 3 questions, but I cannot ask her insurer about her policy can I? Which is why I asked here.
|
|
It just seemed obvious to me to go straight to the horse's mouth for the answer rather than ask strangers who, whilst keen to help and in many cases with expert knowledge are ultimately less qualified to advise than your partner's insurer who is an interested party. There must be a reason why your partner is unable to speak to her insurer but that's your own private business.
|
Nsar,
Yes it's called the time. The 24 hours that we all live our lives by.
|
|
|
|
I've checked her policy and it says nothing about requiring my vehicle to be insured by me. Her vehicle is out of action for a few days, and during those few days she is using mine which was previously kept off road at another address.
Why doesn't she 'simply' (not sure if it really is this simple) transfer her insurance to your uninsured car for a few days - in exactly the same way as some garages insist you do when you borrow a courtesy car?
|
Bill
Because her car is on the road.
|
Bill Because her car is on the road.
So your uninsured car will be (when she's not driving it).
I think you're answering your own original question - If her car can't be (unused) on the road without insurance, then (obviously) neither can yours.
|
Bill
We don't want to have the hassle of transferring insurance. She has cover to use other peoples cars. - no mention of it being insured. She is using mine parked or driven, it is in her care..for a few days.
We don't want to have to say a car with no insurance can be held on the road but we want to know where we stand if we should have to say that.
I'm not going further down this aspect of this thread, I just want people in other parts of the thead to justify what they have said.
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is the other person's policy covers another vehicle which will be detailed on the insured vehicle database and they only drive your vehicle (occasionally??) and then with only third party cover. Your vehicle will not show up in any police check as specifically insured so I think you need to insure it in your name.
|
|
|
|
If it is left on the road then it will only be insured while the other person is in charge of it, which usually means driving it. The rest of the time you'll be committing an offence.
|
|
Certain Insurance Companies are recently no longer covering the driving (by someone on a fully comprehensive policy), a third party vehicle even if it`s insured for the owner to drive.
|
|
|
If it is left on the road then it will only be insured while the other person is in charge of it, which usually means driving it. The rest of the time you'll be committing an offence.
I may be wrong, but AFAIK it is not yet an offence to park an uninsured vehicle on the road as long as it is taxed, although there has been talk in the press recently of it becoming an offence to own an uninsured vehicle.
|
Kith,
Thankyou, I am thinking you may be right. But I really need someone to tell me Absolutely if it is an offence to keep an uninsured car on the road if it is taxed and MOT'd. I have googled a bit and the only offence I have found so far is keeping a vehicle on a public road without tax.
And if we look at this web site
tinyurl.com/8ylo8
It suggests that it is not currently illegal to keep an uninsured vehicle on the road.
|
>>But I really need someone to tell me Absolutely if it is an offence to keep an uninsured car on the road
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35436&...e
|
|
|
|
|
If the driver is using a DOC Clause(driving other cars) on her insurance she will be insured whilst driving your car.
However if she were to leave the at the side of the road / in a car park by parking it or breaking down then the car would be uninsured and there could be charged with having an uninsured car in a public place(road, car park etc) for example It could go on fire, the handbrake could fail and damage other cars, property etc so it requires to be insured by you for that specific car
|
FB,
I hear what you're saying, but is it not still in her charge as she used it to drive A - B, parked it with the intention of using it again.
|
When you tax a car you need MOT and a Certificate of Insurance.
I would suggest that the implication is that if a car is taxed it should be insured to be on the road!
Don't know for sure though.
|
The website I linked to above says this
"The current enforcement regime requires motorists to be caught driving without insurance. The proposed new regime will complement this by introducing a new offence of keeping a vehicle without insurance and therefore enabling systematic enforcement from the record."
So it really does look as though I am ok with this scenario. Her policy says nothing about the other car needing insurance, and I have seen on another forum where this has been thrown out as a myth, that there really is no requirement the other car needs to have insurance.
|
Just checked my insurance, certificate does indeed state 'insured to drive another car (3rd party only) with permission of owner. BUT under fine print in policy terms and conditions...only applies when actually driving and car must also be subject to owners insurance policy. Read all the policy fine print and terms and conditions.
I read the above to state that if your partner drives the car to the shops then parks it and leaves the car, they it gets stolen, it will not be covered even if they intended to pick it up 10 minutes later.
StarGazer
|
I read the above to state that if your partner drives the car to the shops then parks it and leaves the car, they it gets stolen, it will not be covered even if they intended to pick it up 10 minutes later.
Of course, even if it was "covered" while they were in the shop, that cover would only be third party.
So theft of the car would not be an insured risk in any case.
|
|
|
Thankyou for your constructive input (that is not sarcastic I do appreciate your reply).
I have checked her certificate and I saw it says
"The policy holder may also drive with the owners permission a motor car not owned by the policyholder or hired or leased to the policyholder"
There are no further conditions stated on the certificate. And there are no fine prints in the policy booklet either and no conditions of such quoted. This is Tesco insurance btw.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Horatio,
I suspect from this and your other threads that you have some "issues" with the insurance industry and may be trying to prove a point.
If you search this forum you'll find there are lots of threads on the Driving other Cars extension on comprehensive policies. There have been differing views, and the policies themselves may vary, as to whether the vehicle needs to have its "own" cover as well as that of the driver. What is more certain is that these extensions are intended to cover occasional and v limited use. Examples might be getting home if the insured is taken ill or going onto the road while shuffling cars in the driveway. DOC is not intended for regular daily use and in the event of a claim the insurer will ask searching questions and may declare the policy invalid (for abuse) and even seek to recover costs and losses from those involved. It's that sort of abuse of the privilege that is leading the insurers to withdraw it.
Frankly if you've got enough time to post and re post messages to this forum on the subject you've enough time to draft a letter or email for your lady friend to send to her insurers and get a definitive answer.
I’m sorry if the foregoing seems a bit brutal but proving points with big insurers is a high risk sport and you need to be absolutely clear about the consequences if it blows up in your face.
|
Come on everyone!
He has asked a simple question, is it an offence to keep (as opposed to drive) an uninsured car on the road.
He says that his other half's policy covers her to drive it. He says he has read the policy carefully and it makes no requirement that his car be insured.
So it is just one question then, is it illegal to keep an uninsured car on the road?
ps. I don't know the answer by the way, but I always assumed that the offece was to drive without insurance
|
|
|
Thankyou Brompt,
You are wrong in your assumption:
"I suspect from this and your other threads that you have some "issues" with the insurance industry and may be trying to prove a point."
But I can see how you came to that assumption. I am simply trying to overcome a short period of hassle in our lives, 3 - 7 days Maximum.
You are, however, correct in thinking I may think your post is less than helpful (I do).
I agree with you that it is dependant on the policy and it appears we are in the clear on this one. In respect of policy and Law with the vehicle on the road parked.
Cheers
|
>>and it appears we are in the clear on this one. In respect of policy and Law with the vehicle on the road parked
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35436&...e
|
|
|
|
Lets recap:
Car on the road needs INSURANCE (24/7) Excise and MOT.
Current Excise and MOT but no Insurance. Ping OFFENCE.
Off road currently No Insurance OK -
No Excise OK providing SORN has been declared -
No MOT OK.
For the future fact that vehicle has no Insurance whilst off road will have to be declared like SORN. Legislation before Parliament as we read.
Uninsured car (rest of docs in order) lent to third party DOC applies (Norwich Union are to stop this)if on the others Certificate that it allows them to drive someone elses car but will only cover third part risks. (Think about it could I buy a clapped out Mini and then drive a new Ferrari belonging to a mate?) The purpose behind this is to cater for Emergency and temporary use. Once the person using the car parks up on a road at the end of a journey then he is no longer using it but the actual owner is and Ping OFFENCE. Short stops/break in a journey to cater for shopping etc has been held to be still using by the person to whom the vehicle loaned.
dvd
|
Dvd,
Please look at the site I linked to and comment on why the police currently have to catch the owner driving the car uninsured.... hence a "new offence of keeping a vehicle on the road without insurance is being consulted on".
|
|
|
Dvd,
What is the name of the offence I would be charged with?
If I was driving it would be "Driving without insurance"
If it is parked on the road with tax and MOT in good working order....What is the name of the offence please?
and why then is there a new offence being created if your offence already exists?
Cheers
|
Oh for goodness sakes. Because one is using or keeping on a public highway without insurance and the other is owning without insurance, irrespective of whether or not its on a public highway.
You might be prepared to waste this amount of your time trying to dodge paying insurance for 7 days, nto to mentiont he other threads, but you'll not be getting any more of my time on the subject.
Why don't you put the effort into finding out for yourself rather than expecting to be spoon fed anwers you're going to challenge anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>So it really does look as though I am ok with this scenario.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35436&...e
|
FM2R
So you are referring me to your post of 11:56 ? Why couldn't you just say that? Even you say "usually means" I don't see why she is not still in charge of it, having borrowed it from me she has to park it on the road, whilst she goes about her business, and life, so she is in charge of it until she gives it back to me and she brings it back to it's off road location.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
horatio -
since your googling skills did not help, and the lawman cannot help, i thought i might have a go:
search uk google for "Pumbien v Vines"
|
Horatio,
DVD knows what he's on about. Listen to him.
|
I'm sure he does, and the link provided by Dalglish was informative but complex, my car has an MOT, and has been taken from an off road situation by my partner to use on her policy with my permission for a few days.
Why is there a need for a new offence of "keeping a vehicle on the road without insurance" if it is alledgedly already covered?
|
Mark said,
"If it is left on the road then it will only be insured while the other person is in charge of it, which usually means driving it. The rest of the time you'll be committing an offence."
Adam says
"I agree"
|
|
|
|
horatio and others -
to save yourselves some debate, this whole subject and its permutations have been done at
www.ureader.co.uk/message/852276.aspx
( inclusing questions such as supposing car rolls away if handbrake fails, why is a car in "use" when in fact it is parked with wheels removed and is immobilised, etc. )
as i say, look up "Pumbien v Vines" or earlier case of "Elliot v Grey"
|
>> I've checked her policy and it says nothing about requiring myvehicle to be insured by me.
>>Her vehicle is out of action for a few days, and during those few days she is using mine which was previously kept off road at another address.
>>
Why doesn't she 'simply' (not sure if it really is this simple) transfer her insurance to your uninsured car for a few days - in exactly the same way as some garages insist you do when you borrow a courtesy car?
|
|
|
Dalglish
Perhaps you would like to comment on why a new offence of blah blah blah is being consulted on, if it is already covered?
|
Perhaps you would like to comment on why a new offence of blah blah blah is being consulted on, if it is already covered?
Because that it the style of government that we voted into office.
Sir Humphrey: "Minister - people are getting away with stuff because it's difficult to prove the offence. We have three options;
i. Put in the resources needed for proper enforcement of the existing law
ii. Amend the existing law and/or enforcement procedure so as to clarify things, or
iii. Create a whole new offence, issue lots and lots of press releases, appear on the Today programme, take up lots of parliamentary time, confuse everyone as to the meaning of the existing law, introduce lots of new police procedures to cope with the new law, and generally make a huge fuss that eventually consumes more resources than option i."
Hacker: "Did you mention the Today programme?!"
|
|
|
Perhaps you would like to comment on why a new offence
>>
and why should i want to do that?
i have tried to help you in two threads now by pointing you to the appropriate authority/company to investigate matters for yourself.
my only comment it is that it seems to me that you are not very satisfied with the way the insurance works. tough.
end of my contribution to your questions, for now and forever.
|
Dlglish,
I was very polite to you on the other thread (and on this one) and thanked you for your input.
In this thread, it is clear that there is a lot of ambiguity going on, the site I linked to was the assoc british insurers. And they said that police had to wait until the car was being driven, and that there was a new law being brought in to combat this problem.
My questions in this thread have been due to the ambiguity of the current situation. Your quoted cases were cars that were not MOT or insured, and were an eyesore for the residents which is why police took action.
Your cases are relevant to the arguement. But it is illogical to create new laws for something already covered, so there might be a reluctance on the part of police to prosecute unless the car is unfit for roaduse and causing an eyesore.
I am only trying to discuss here the apparant ambiguity of the situation. All I get is accused of being blinkered and not accepting what some say is the truth, and accused of having some skulking ulterior motives, and accused of not accepting what the situation is regarding insurance.
How can it be the absolute truth given the ambiguity I have highlighted....polite discussion is all I ever want. I don't want people asking me justify why I'm asking the question, or to "mind read" my motives, just discuss - politely.
End of...... & Goodbye (apparantly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.
If a vehicle is shown to be a 'motor vehicle' and on a 'road' it may be said to be in use even if it is in such a state that it cannot be driven. Pumbien v Vines 1996 which leads to the premis that there is no longer a need to show some element of control or operation of the vehicle.
Going further back - A vehicle is in use on a road even when it is stationary and unattended and it must be insured (Elliott v Grey 1959.) In the case of Adams v Evans 1971 it was held to be using where a vehicle was on a road without a back axle and wheels and parked in a cul de sac.
What the media report is trying to outline is the proposals being made so that there will be continuation in regards to Insurance similar to Excise Licence. Insuranced for road or a SORD (Statutory Off Road declaration)when Insurance not required.
In doing so this will help the computor database ID uninsured vehicles and a fine sent out without the intervention of a check by Police etc.
dvd
|
Horatio - please bear in mind that you are asking for advice which is freely given, some with much more authority and knowledge than others. Neverthless none of this advice should be regarded as binding or legally correct in any way - if you have a particular legal question for which you need a comprehensive and legally correct answer then you should seek your own legal advice from an appropriately qualified person.
Also bear in mind that our members are sometimes only reporting hearsay or media statements, which may or may not be correct in the first place, but certainly gives them scant grounds for forming opinions about why things exist as they are.
And finally you are likely to get more help with your queries if you desist from pursuing or questioning every little detail.
smokie, BR Moderator
|
It would seem to me that dvd has comprehensively answered this. I had the impression that dvd was a serving police officer ?
Given H's insistence that he is OK, despite pretty much all other opinion being against him, I would vote for lockimg the thread.
But then I've had a pfd day and am quite easily irritated. Roll on opening time.
|
Vote noted, but it isn't a Poll thread :-)
That option was in my mind but it's always worth once last chance...
|
smokie -
come to think of it, i expected you would have referred horatio to your own thread
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35141&...e
and its link
tinyurl.com/8thwo
where it says
"But the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used.
As well as the fines, the new powers will mean uninsured drivers could have their vehicles seized or crushed.
|
Sometimes you think too much Dalgish :-)
I'd forgotten about that one...
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to write to Radio 4, legal programme, "law in action" It is supposed to be only concerned with topical issues that are in the headlines, well this sort of qualifies, with the DfT and Norwich Union move recently. So I will give it a try, and I'll cite the cases mentioned.
Does anyone have any other legal request shows that I can also try?
Cheers
|
Just to think all this wasted time and bandwidth could have been saved by one phone call.
|
|
Can her insurance company tell me if it is legal for me to leave my car on the highway with no insurance?
|
Who cares ?
They can tell you that her insurance wont cover the vehicle unless it is already insured properly by someone else.
|
|
|
" Can her insurance company tell me if it is legal for me to leave my car on the highway with no insurance?"
Please see above.
Or ask them.
|
|
|
Can her insurance company tell me if it is legal for me to leave my car on the highway with no insurance?
dvd has already given you the case law that states that such action is illegal
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
|
|
"I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to write to Radio 4, legal programme, "law in action" It is supposed to be only concerned with topical issues that are in the headlines, well this sort of qualifies, with the DfT and Norwich Union move recently. So I will give it a try, and I'll cite the cases mentioned.
Does anyone have any other legal request shows that I can also try?"
No, but as many others have said, save yourself (and all the good people on here who have given up their time to offer you very good and very knowledgeable advice which you don't accept because it doesn't fit what you want to hear) a lot of time and effort and ring the insurance company.
Or you could follow my advice (and I know nothing) Why bother with insurance at all? Insurance companies are stupid (see other thread). They do not make their policies easy to understand and the chances of needing insurance are fairly low, providing your partner drives very carefully and so does everyone else on the roads where she drives and where the car is parked.
Course, if there is an accident (heaven forbid) you (and your partner) may suffer but you could always complain to some legal request show couldn't you?
Phil
|
I thought this was a discussion forum, my mistake apparantly it is a listen to what you're told even if what your told is people mind reading your skulking ulterior motives, and people telling you to ask your ins company a question about keeping an uninsured vehicle on the road, and ask your insurance company why the government is to make a NEW OFFENCE of "keeping a vehicle on the road without insurance", which implies that at present it is not illegal to do so. Of course I should have known my insurance company are really a legal request show!
I'll know better next time, that this is a yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir type of "discussion" forum.
|
For God's sake man. Give it a rest!
You asked advice - you were told by at least two people who definitely know what they're on about and advised by the rest as to the solution to the problem but decide to question it relentlessly.
Take the advice or leave it. It seems that you're determined to leave it so let's...well...leave it at that and stop moaning.
I really can't see how you're going to get anymore useful information than you already have done. Others are (understandably) ignoring this thread which is exactly what I'm about to do.
|
"this is a yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir type of "discussion" forum."
Damn right, because there are some people on this forum who really know their stuff and when they say something you accept it as the truth/law/very informed opinion. Now you can discuss it 'til the cows come home with me, 'cos I know less than you, but I've read the stuff above and reckon I have learnt a lot - so I'm going to shut up now and just say "thanks you lot, very informative thread which I shall remember should I need to refer to it in the future and if ever anyone asks me about keeping an uninsured (?) car on the road"
Phil
|
>>because there are some people on this forum who really know their stuff and when they say something you accept it as the truth/law/very informed opinion.
Well said PhilW,though I think its a wind up.surprised this thread is still here?
--
Steve
|
|
Come on mods, step in here. Many faithful and knowledgable BR contributors have had their genuine efforts to help flung back in their faces here today and a thread that has descended so far into farce does the BR no credit.
|
|
|
|
I thought this was a discussion forum, my mistake apparantly it is a listen to what you're told ....
In that case, listen to what I have to say -
I feel you have wasted enough of people's time; they've offered you advice, which you in turn have thrown back in their faces,
therefore, thread locked.
DD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
