If I drive a friends car which is not currently insured (is taxed and mot'd) using the 3rd party cover of my own policy, is it legal to leave it A) parked on the road or
B) in a retail shopping centre car park
as I presume it would then be classed as uninsured.
Thanks
|
IIRC, to drive any cars using "Drive Other Cars" section, that car itself should have insurance in its own right.
Then you can use DOC clause to drive it.
|
|
|
You can drive using DOC clause in your policy but switch the engine off and leave the car it is uninsured. You cannot leave it in any public space - car park, side of road etc.
The only place you can leave the car is on private property where there is no access for the public - i.e. your own driveway (assuming it is not shared by other tenants). Tesco's car park is private property but you cannot leave it there, others have access and is therefore "public" and insurance is required.
|
|
|
IIRC for any "outside" insurance to be valid (e.g. Driver of car A drives car B using driver A's 3rd party insurance) the car being driven must also be covered by an insurance policy.
Looking at all the shenanigans that goes on with ANPR, police checks, cover notes, drivers cancelling policies after one week... I am convinced that the system in Spain and other European countries - the policy covers the car rather than the driver - is better. An awful lot of police time is wasted in the UK with the police verifying whether car A is being driven with the permission of the owner strictly in accordance with the insurance policy, blah blah,... It may be that the system runs more smoothly because everyone has ID and the police can request it and check it at any time, but so what? I have been stopped and had documents checked three times in 18 years (police roadblocks, in each case following a recent ETA bomb attack) and never been held up more than two minutes. And I was saluted at the start and end of the process.
The insurance market may not be so competitive as in the UK - a BMW 530 fully comp costs pretty much the same for everyone! - but it means that I can borrow a friend's car without (i) spending a fortnight knee deep in bureaucracy or (ii) instantly becoming an outlaw/terrorism suspect.
|
|
You would have to read the policy to know what it says. Every policy I have seen says the car you drive on your 'any car 3rd party' cover should also have it's own separate insurance policy as others have said.
|
|
|
|
The OP and Falkirk Bairn are closest to understanding this correctly but there seems to be a lot of confusion around. If anyone is in doubt they should check with his/her insurance company as the position varies. My low-cost classic car insurance policy through a Lloyds broker doesn't allow me to drive any other vehicle. Just checked a comprehensive Churchhill policy, however, and that does allow me to drive any other vehicle not belonging to me and not a hire car; makes no mention of any requirement for other insurance on the borrowed vehicle but adds that my own insurance only kicks for a third party claim if the borrowed car is NOT already covered by a suitable policy. Must also have permission from the owner of the vehicle so company cars could be out.
Last week a friend asked me to help out with a delivery using his van. No hire or reward involved so my Churchill insurance insurance would have covered me for third party risks provided there was NO other policy. However, the van owner has an any driver policy so that becomes the principal insurance and Churchill would not get involved. In either situation I was covered to the legal minimum but the owner's policy would have carried additional fire and theft cover in this instance.
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Quite right.
Likewise mine covers me in relation to anothers vehicle irrespective of whether it has Insurance or not.
But one should note that it only covers me to DRIVE a vehicle, not use and there is a subtle difference in those terms as pointed out above.
Best practice is to read the Policy and if in any doubt whatsover speak to the Company for clarification.
dvd
|
As usual, lots of confusion on this thread.
SOME DOC insurance requires the other car to have insurance, some does not.
However, if the car does not have this insurance, then there is a good argument that the moment you park it and leave it, it is apparently no longer insured. You may well then have left an uninsured car on the public highway.
|
Harmattan. My policy states the same as is with Prudential underwritten by Churchill.
My concern is about leaving it in a Public space or Highway.
Falkirk Bairn implies that this is illegal, presumably due to possible 3rd party risk if somehow it were to cause damage.
Not worried about any risk to said vehicle as of low value.
|
|
|
However, if the car does not have this insurance, then there is a good argument that the moment you park it and leave it, it is apparently no longer insured. You may well then have left an uninsured car on the public highway.
But who gets prosecuted? The true owner (who insisted that, and had agreement that the car would not be left unattended), or the person (with DOC) who parked it up. In the latter case presumably he was not driving or using the vehicle. Alternatively, if the DOC driver is stopped whilst driving, by Plod and asked to get out the vehicle, can he refuse to do so on the grounds that he then becomes guilty of an offence?
pmh
|
However if the car does not have this insurance then there is a good argument that the moment you park it and leave it it is apparently no longer insured. You may well then have left an uninsured car on the public highway.
It's been held that you can leave the vehicle as long as the stop is incidental to the journey - popping into a shop etc. In the event of a dispute about what is "incidental" then a court would have to decide.
But who gets prosecuted?
Both possibly, again leaving the courts to decide.
People look for black & white answers on legal matters, but there's no such thing - hence there are many busy lawyers!
Edited by Bill Payer on 21/07/2008 at 16:46
|
|
|
However, if the car does not have this insurance,
This was the point debated the Insurance industry in their submission to Greenway
www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/364/submission_to_the_...f
"... David Greenaway has been asked to consider the benefits of moving towards a system based on the insurance of the vehicle (as is commonly found on the Continent ? as opposed to the UK?s person-based regime.) ... "
www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/aug/13/motorinsuranc...e
"Drivers set to lose second car cover. Fully comprehensive insurance covers motorists when they drive other cars. But not for much longer. Liam Vaughan explains how new rules will affect you ... "
|
Theoretically, why a parked car needs to insured? If someone hits a stationary object, then it is his fault anyway.
If continental rule is to allow the car rather than person, why don't we follow it here? The second link states that 5% drivers are uninsured in UK while in Germany/Sweden it is around 0.2% only.
|
Theoretically why a parked car needs to insured? If someone hits a stationary object then it is his fault anyway.
As you say, theoretically ...
Not everyone who drives into a parked car is kind enough to leave their details :(
Edited by NowWheels on 21/07/2008 at 17:38
|
|
|
Theoretically, why a parked car needs to insured?
Because in theory, a parked car is "obstructing the highway".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... if in any doubt whatsover speak to the Company for clarification.
Wise words.
it only covers me to DRIVE a vehicle, not use and there is a subtle difference
www.statutelaw.gov.uk
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) Part VI Third-Party Liabilities
"
143. Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. ?
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person 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)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2 or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person 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.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves?
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.
|
With increasing ANPR checks for uninsured vehicles you might find yourself stopped and if there is any doubt on insurance it will be impounded and proof of insurance for that vehicle needed to recover it. Proof of insurance will be for the car itself and not DOC.
So you could find the car impounded, storage charge mounting and no way to get it back without insuring it. And if low value it will be scrapped.
If you need to drive this for the friend then better to insure via Norwich Union for short term insurance (costs little) and then it will show on the Motor Insurance Database as insured.
|
So you could find the car impounded storage charge mounting and no way to get it back without insuring it. And if low value it will be scrapped.
My policy covers driving other vehicles, but specifically excludes usage to release the vehicle from a public authorities custody.
|
My policy covers driving other vehicles, but specifically excludes usage to release the vehicle from a public authorities custody.
This would lead to an interesting situation where you were driving quite legally, without cert to hand, ANPR thinks you are uninsured, vehicle confiscated, and no way to retrieve it! Meanwhile the owner who did you a favour is completely unaware, back packing in outer Mongolia for 6 months.
pmh
|
My understanding.
?No insurance? is an absolute offence - you either have cover for the situation or you don?t and the onus is on you to make sure you are covered.
No excuses, you either produce a piece of paper providing cover or it is off to see the Beak.
|
|
|
|
Which is why you need to have your certificate with you when driving a vehicle that has no policy of its own then. Otherwise it's your word against the police and it will be impounded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
