|
thanks for the reply.. clears up my question.. now i just need to wait for the police to reply i took pictures before and after the police kindly removed my car.. and found 80 miles had been clocked when the impound was only 5 miles (google maps) away...
|
|
|
to further what FB has already said... every car has to have it's own insurance (or be covered by a policy that covers a number of vehicles, with that vehicle specifically mentioned on it)..UNLESS.. a person is driving it under a differing policy i.e. their own
e.g. your car has no insurance and is parked up on private land, you lend it to your mate and he's allowed to drive other vehicles with owner's permisssion as FB said above
but...the problem with that is, when he parks it up and leaves it...there's a grey area as to whether or not it's still insured. I'd imagine it could be argued it's still insured under his policy if he's still 'using' it, but you know what insurance companies are like for wriggling if there's a claim... and if there was a large time gap you could in theory be liable, as the owner, for allowing an uninsured vehicle to be on a road
and as mentioned above, the entitlement to drive other vehicles under your own policy is only for a vehicle owned by someone else, not you. The thing with this bit, is that in the past most insurance companies provided this bit as a matter of course. Nowadays you often have to specifically ask for it. Many people don't realise this and will borrow a car or test drive something thinking they're covered on their own policy, when they're not. In the past, i've re-newed with the same insurer and the new certificate hasn't had this on it...so when i've rung to clarify they've said they've changed their conditions and you now have to ask for it...lucky i noticed, albeit it didn't cost any more....(although it would have done if i'd not noticed and borrowed someone else's car & then got stopped or was involved in an accident).
|
|
I thought driving another car on your own policy usually provides Third party only - ie no fire/theft?
|
|
You are liable to be prosecuted for driving without insurance 6 points and a nasty fine, so do not treat this lightly. The officer is insured to drive any vehicle when he is on duty. However if the photo's show the speedo before and after the chief constable may be embarrassed enough to drop the case but do not hold your breath as you can not prove the officer did the miles as it may have been an employee at the pound. Regards Peter
|
You are liable to be prosecuted for driving without insurance 6 points and a nasty fine so do not treat this lightly. The officer is insured to drive any vehicle when he is on duty. However if the photo's show the speedo before and after the chief constable may be embarrassed enough to drop the case but do not hold your breath as you can not prove the officer did the miles as it may have been an employee at the pound. Regards Peter
I would consider that it was in the 'care' of the police. Someone needs their backside kicking for the extra miles and the immediate loss of their job and all entitlements.
MD
|
|
|
You are liable to be prosecuted for driving without insurance 6 points and a nasty fine
Perhaps he'll be "done" for allowing & permitting himself to drive the thing.
P.S. Yes, I know.
|
Martin - it's not in the care of the police now that the law allows them to use contractors. If the contractor drove it unlawfully then they commit the offence of taking without consent.
Lotusmad - if you think you can prove the mileage at the point of seizure, then complain to the Police. They will have to investigate, whether it's themselves at fault or the contractor, but in either case it is highly unlikely in itself to lead a discontinuance of your 'no insurance' offence. It's unusual for officers to drive seized cars away themselves, unless it's more convenient to remove it to a nearby station to await the contractor, thus allowing the officers to continue their duty. You could question this very aspect too.
|
Lotusmad,
You need to get insurance on the car to get it back. In the meantime it is clocking up storage and will have a recovery cost. This is going up in price by the day. So to get it back:
- Insure it properly
- Go to get it and pay the recovery and storage (probably at least £100+)
Then you will be in front of the magistrates for driving without insurance. So a fine and 6-8 points. You cannot get out of that. The extra miles on the Lotus is the least of your worries. The points will also affect future insurance - some might not cover you at all because of driving without insurance.
If you don't collect the car in a timely fashion then risk it being sold or crushed.
|
In the very very very small print of car insurance policies that insure a driver to drive "any car*" - the "car*" referred to is always an INSURED car, otherwise no dice. It's a bit like complaining about the quality of TV programming if you haven't paid your licence. Oops.
Police drivers are not covered by an insurance policy as such but a kind of "bond", whereby a particular police force deposits a seven or eight figure sum with the Treasury and any insurance claims would be met from that fund. A police officer may suddenly have to drive a vehicle whilst on duty, occasionally in a life or death emergency, so they are all covered "just in case".
|
....Police drivers are not covered by an insurance policy as such but a kind of "bond"...
Might only be a technical difference, but that is what I understood as well.
This came to light when a mate was rear-ended by a Met police car on the Embankment.
He got his money OK, but it was from a fund administered by the chief constable, not from an insurance company.
|
Just interested to know why you took a photo of the speedo before the police impounded the car.... did you expect it to be misused? It would be the last thing on my mind if I was stopped for no insurance.
David
|
|
Anyone-not just the police- can deposit a bond with "government" and not have to have seperate 3rd. party cover.The "Red Cross" and presumably other similar organisations however have two policies-one to cover their normal vehicles-cars/vans and a seperate one-much more expensive- to cover the "blues & twos".
|
My last major employer (private company) had their own bonded insurance. It was great when you could phone a guy in transport admin and say "my wife has just reversed our Land Rover into my one week old company car". They would just say what a shame and book it in... no forms and zero no-claims loss.
David
|
|
I worked for a major motor manufacturer.We did in fact have insurance but third party only on ANY vehicle that you were driving(even your own)as long as you had the company's permission.I had to produce evidence of this insurance once to a police station.The officer I showed the certificate to have never seen a certificate like it.One line-"The driver is insured in line with RTA xxxxxx!"Nothing else at all.
|
Here you go, Road Traffic Act 1988:
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 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 ..........
Edited by Fullchat on 15/01/2009 at 10:38
|
|
In the very very very small print of car insurance policies that insure a driver to drive "any car*" - the "car*" referred to is always an INSURED car otherwise
Sorry, this is wrong. Some policies may have conditions attached regarding the DOC, I've had many policies with different insurers that have not stated this.
A normal policy with a 'normal' DOC states that you can drive any other vehicle not owned by the policy holder. The cover given is normally third party only, this is enough to meet the legal requirement for using a car on the road.
The car itself does not have to be insured, it only has to be covered by a valid policy.
|
This raises an interesting question actually. We have three cars. All individually comprehensively insured. Two of them by me with my wife as named driver and the third by my wife with me as named driver. All those policies allow us to drive other vehicles with third party cover.
Two of our cars have some value, the third one, while still very useable. doesn't. If it were legal to do so it would be quite a saving if we didn't have to pay for insurance for it and could simply drive it on the third party cover afforded by the other two policies.
Sounds, and probably is, too good to be true in fact.
|
Just re-read the thread and the flaw in my question seems to potentially lie in the matter of who is the registered keeper ? Not that I plan to do this but for the sake of the legal discussion, given my example above, supposing I "sold" the car to my mother for £1 or something and made her the registered keeper......
I won't be doing this I promise, but it is interesting.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 15/01/2009 at 12:40
|
|
AFAIK the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner.
|
Fair enough understood. But here is a scenario. My old Mondeo is going in for its MOT tomorrow. Provided it passes it will be legal from that point of view for a year. It is also due to be taxed and I could buy a 12 month disc. It is currently insured by me on a comprehensive policy and I have a similar policy on my other car.
Supposing as I mentioned above, if after getting the MOT and Tax sorted for a year, I then "sell" it to my mother for £1. I cancel my insurance on it and take any refund. she gives me permission to use it and I use it for 11 months covered by the third party clause on my other policy ? In month 12, I insure it, get another MOT and VED and then cancel the insurance again.
Legal or not ?
Can't be can it....
|
|
Humph - if such skulduggery is an inherited trait, your mother might very well sell the car... :-)
|
|
Tee Hee Old Sock ! No, I couldn't be bothered with all of that and it would scare my mum half to death anyway. I am just interested in the hypothesis really.
|
|
Purely from that perspective, whyever not?
|
|
Humph how do you tax it with no insurance?
|
|
You cannot get a RFL unless the car has insurance - DOC cover is not good enough for re-taxing a car.
|
|
Posts crossed, see above.
|
If you go with the argument that you can drive another vehicle on your minimum third party cover and that vehicle does not have cover in its own right then you would not be able to park it on a road or public place as the cover would only be whilst it was being driven.
|
Thanks Fullchat, I think you have it. The devil as they say, is always in the detail. Knew it was too good to be true.....
:-)
( Mum, can I have my car back please ? )
|
|
I asked my previous insurers ( it's only a commercial , dear.. ) if my DOC cover applied when the borrowed car in question did not have it's own policy, and they said yes , I was covered regardless .... and this was in Sept 08 .
|
|
That is incorrect. If I borrow your car on my 3rd-party "any car" insurance, drive it to the shops, get out to buy something, it's still covered by my insurance, not yours. When I get back in, it's still covered by my insurance. When I return it to you, it's covered by your insurance.
|
|
FT I can see your logic but not sure about your conclusion. If I borrowed your car, parked it and it caught fire causing damage to other cars parked nearby I can't see my insurance company paying up for the damage to the other cars.
|
|
Yet you were "driving" it - unless you are saying that you'd contacted me to "return" it?
|
"That is incorrect. If I borrow your car on my 3rd-party "any car" insurance, drive it to the shops,...................................."
If you have a Policy that covers you 3rd Party on someone else's car it will say 'DRIVE'. So as soon as you park it up you have ceased driving at which point it should be covered by the owners insurance. If it said 'USE' that allows more flexibility.
|
This is developing into quite an intriguing thread, almost like a Whodunnit before the crime has actually happened!
In some cantons of Switzerland, registration plates - and with them the insurance cover - can actually be transferred between cars - a hinged, locking mechanism allows rapid switching. a wealthy couple might have a collection of cars (ragtop for the summer, a saloon with winter tyres for the colder months, etc.) and one insurance policy per driver, which is "attached" to the car with the registration plate. Given that one driver can only drive one car at a time!
|
The Dowager Backbridge could, however, insure it for doing 100 miles p.a., which would not cost her very much - particularly if she lives in the back of beyond.
|
|
If it turns out that it was the policeman who drove the car 80 miles, then it can't have been on police business, so he too was driving uninsured?
|
If it turns out that it was the policeman who drove the car 80 miles then it can't have been on police business so he too was driving uninsured?
yes... and it would be beyond any permission to drive the vehicle...so it would be a criminal offence of 'taking a conveyance'
either the police officer or pound employee could commit that offence
there's another angle. If someone were to make that allegation formally and it were found to be not true, easily achievable these days with all the CCTV cameras/ANPR everywhere, then that person would be committing offences such as 'wasting police time' or maybe 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'
so whichever way round it is, if formally reported e.g. as a complaint, then someone would be up for something
would be interested in hearing any update
|
>>>If someone were to make that allegation formally and it were found to be not true, easily achievable these days with all the CCTV cameras/ANPR everywhere, then that person would be committing offences such as 'wasting police time' or maybe 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'
That's rather the way my mind was going....
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
