Insurance. Driving other vehicles!

[dacouc]

I have already stated it is just my opinion from those cop reality shows

 

It is you making the statements as to what is lawful and what is not

 

I am asking you to link your source, that is all

 

Which posts would you like me to provide links for and explain?

[obiter dictum]

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/driving-other-cars-guide

[dacouc]

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/driving-other-cars-guide

 

That link does not stipulate the other vehicle must hold it's own Insurance.

 

Incidently that link is pretty good for a comparison site trying to gain maximum advantage from SEO.

 

They're typically written by journalists / marketing experts with the sole purpose of pushing the website further up google with the information frequently being incorrect as they just google for their information.

 

If you have a bit more of a google, you'll find articles on comparison sites or sites trying to gain affiliate commission from comparison sites written by SEO executives / freelance journalists who have gained their information via googling and (incorrectly) state that all Insurers require the other vehicle to be insured for DOC to be operative.

[obiter dictum]

Dave Rendell is a digital marketing executive at Confused.com, and has worked in insurance since 2011.

[CrappoMan]

The link provided earlier by colin11 to swiftcover DOES state that the other vehicle must have its own cover, but thats only for swiftcover policies and I've personally never had a policy that has had a restriction like that.

 

As to not being able to get out of the vehicle, it would lead to the absurd situation of not being able to refuel the vehicle.

[obiter dictum]

The law requires the other vehicle to be insured unless Sorn

[king12345]

If the vehicle is sorn, simply it cannot be driven.

If the vehicle doesn't have insurance because the owner keeps it in his garage, but it's taxed and MOTed, than someone with full comp insurance can drive it, providing that the policy wording doesn't require the vehicle to be insured (mine doesn't mention it).

A few months ago my friend got pulled for no insurance and the car was impounded by the police.

I went to the pound with him to take it away and after they checked that my insurance certificate was genuine, they gave us the car which at that point was still uninsured (but i was).

[obiter dictum]

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/car-off-the-road-you-still-need-insurance/0026575/

 

 

Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), came into force in June 2011, making it a legal offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified the DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by way of a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN).

 

This includes any and all vehicles, including motorbikes, that are kept on driveways or in garages, even if they’re never taken out on the road. You don’t have to be driving to be caught!

[dacouc]

Dave Rendell is a digital marketing executive at Confused.com, and has worked in insurance since 2011.

 

Lol

 

He left University in 2011 and worked for Admiral in their claims Department for 18 months then went to Confused working on SEO.

 

Not an expert on Insurance.

[dacouc]

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/car-off-the-road-you-still-need-insurance/0026575/

 

 

Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), came into force in June 2011, making it a legal offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified the DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by way of a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN).

 

This includes any and all vehicles, including motorbikes, that are kept on driveways or in garages, even if they’re never taken out on the road. You don’t have to be driving to be caught!

 

The owner / keeper is responsible for SORN / CIE and is the one committing an offence.

 

If I borrowed a friend's car that was sorned and drove it under my Direct Line car insurance (Which does not require the other car to be insured under DOC) then I would be insured and committing no offence, however my friend would fall foul or the SORN laws

[CrappoMan]

If the vehicle is sorn, simply it cannot be driven.

Correct, if it is SORN it does not have VED and cannot be 'used' on a public road or place.

 

If the vehicle doesn't have insurance because the owner keeps it in his garage, but it's taxed and MOTed, than someone with full comp insurance can drive it, providing that the policy wording doesn't require the vehicle to be insured (mine doesn't mention it).

 

If the vehicle doesn't have insurance but it is taxed, it doesn't matter where it is kept, the RK will get a nice fine/invite to court. All thanks to the C.I.E. regulations.

 

A few months ago my friend got pulled for no insurance and the car was impounded by the police.

I went to the pound with him to take it away and after they checked that my insurance certificate was genuine, they gave us the car which at that point was still uninsured (but i was).

 

You cannot usually use the DOC cover to recover another vehicle from a police compound. My policy states this under 'Exclusions':

 

...Use to secure the release of a motor car, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority.

[obiter dictum]

I will now withdraw from this debate

 

I have posted credible links to give my persuasion on the matter with no links to counter my response

 

If in doubt contact your insurance company

 

Third hand knowledge is very dangerous if not substantiated

 

I am not saying you are in error, only that so far it has been nothing but your own subjective opinions with no points of secondary reference sources

[dacouc]

If in doubt contact your insurance company

 

Third hand knowledge is very dangerous if not substantiated

 

I would have happily explained if you had stated which of my posts you wanted explained.

 

Here's a link which confirms some of my statements. http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

 

Note the case refers to driving other cars and that the Police and also the employee of the Insurer also had the same opinion as you that the other car needed to hold it's own Insurance (It did not at the time with Saga).

 

If it was the case that the other car needed it's own Insurance, why did Court of Appeal rule the police were in the wrong?

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, traffic cops are not always right when it comes to Insurance.

 

The Pryor Case which is very famous in the Insurance industry is why you should always carry your Certificate of Insurance or now days a downloaded copy is acceptable as being a "Relevant" Certificate if you produce it.

[CrappoMan]

I have checked another of my previous policies with a different insurer and it had the EXACT same exclusion wording about using the policy to recover another vehicle.

[obiter dictum]

http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

 

That case originates from 2008 so not retrospective to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE),which came into force in June 2011

[CrappoMan]

What the hell does CIE have to do with this ?

CIE affects the RK not the driver. Driving without insurance is dealt with by S165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That was 23 years earlier.

[dacouc]

http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

 

That case originates from 2008 so not retrospective to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE),which came into force in June 2011

 

Continuous Insurance Law does not have any effect on Driving Other Cars.

 

The responsibility to keep the vehicle Insured under CIEis down to the owner / keeper it has nothing to do with the driver.

 

The CIE & being leaned on by the Government is why the majority of Insurers now stipulate that the other vehicle holds it's own Insurance. But there are still a fair few of the bigger Insurers who do not require the other vehicle to be insured and by using this you do not break any law. Only the owner / keeper and break the CIE law

[obiter dictum]

As i have stated, i will now withdraw

 

If anyone has any doubts as to your cover phone your insurance company

 

Getting an IN10 on your licence will cripple you

 

Better safe than sorry for the cost of a phone call

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

Seems to be a big grey area regarding driving other cars. Wondering what policy the motor traders or similar trades use as this would be the same. Yes the policy would state in its wording of use. But i am of the idea that its the person insured surely.? If the policy states drive other cars that should be ok? All being it 3rd party cover.

[unclebulgaria67]

Seems to be a big grey area regarding driving other cars. Wondering what policy the motor traders or similar trades use as this would be the same. Yes the policy would state in its wording of use. But i am of the idea that its the person insured surely.? If the policy states drive other cars that should be ok? All being it 3rd party cover.

 

They have a system they use with their Insurers under a trade plate number. They advise the number plate of any vehicle they will be driving. Would not appear on the insurance database immediately, but they can evidence cover to the Police.

 

It is slightly different, as the Police can check with the trade policy insurers. But they can be caught out without insurance, if they have not followed their insurers process.

 

Driving other cars is complicated, as it supposed to be urgent temporary usage in line with the terms stated. If Insurers turned around and said they were not happy, it is then an argument. Some people use the cover to regularly drive other cars and that is not its purpose.

[Aretnap]

Driving other cars is complicated, as it supposed to be urgent temporary usage in line with the terms stated. If Insurers turned around and said they were not happy, it is then an argument. Some people use the cover to regularly drive other cars and that is not its purpose.

that might have been its original purpose, but no DOC extension I've ever seen has had a condition that says it can only be used in unforeseen or urgent circumstances. If you want to use your DOC cover to drive someone else's car on a regular basis you are perfectly entitled to do so. If insurers aren't happy with that it's down to them to write their policy terms to make clear that it can only applies to urgent temporary useage - and they'd have to start be coming up with a definition of what they mean by "urgent".

[king12345]

They have a system they use with their Insurers under a trade plate number. They advise the number plate of any vehicle they will be driving. Would not appear on the insurance database immediately, but they can evidence cover to the Police.

 

It is slightly different, as the Police can check with the trade policy insurers. But they can be caught out without insurance, if they have not followed their insurers process.

 

Driving other cars is complicated, as it supposed to be urgent temporary usage in line with the terms stated. If Insurers turned around and said they were not happy, it is then an argument. Some people use the cover to regularly drive other cars and that is not its purpose.

 

I disagree, I've never seen the conditions of urgency and emergency in my policy wording.

I've been with several insurance companies and always read the small print.

[unclebulgaria67]

I disagree, I've never seen the conditions of urgency and emergency in my policy wording.

I've been with several insurance companies and always read the small print.

 

I have said it is a subject that always raises arguments !

 

All I would say is that i personally would not risk regularly driving around using third party cover, particularly if the owner does not already have their own policy, so it is shown as insured on MID.

[ThedaBara]

You may only drive an insured car… Not a car that has been declared SORN or is otherwise uninsured for the road.

 

This is an absolutely black and white issue. Apart from traders who are allowed to move vehicles using trade plates, it is the car which must be insured in the first instance.

[obiter dictum]

As i have previously stated watching these cop reality shows where they take the car of people for no insurance

 

The coppers always say both cars have to be insured. (Trade plate excluded) The person also has to have fully comp insurance to drive the donor car with third party cover or expressly written into the insurance certificate