Uninsured car parked in front of my house

Brooker_Dave

naijapower wrote: »

Well then you may want to provide me their details
If they dont care and wont give hassle during claim, then it's all good to go.
Though i very much doubt if they just wish to dish out and dish out without checking.
maybe they are called 'Dishing Out Insurance Ltd'

:j :beer:

If you're a carpenter and you crash, does your insurance company demand proof you're a carpenter?

If you're a teacher and you crash......................................

dacouch

They don't for a carpenter because theyn take out a normal insurance policy for just their vehicle. They do however for Motor Traders who do not have premises and have a Road Risks Only Motor Trade Policy. The reasons are they get a lot of people who want a policy that covers them for any vehicle even though they are not motor traders. Hence when you make a claim they normally request proof your a motor trader.

If your with MMA, Chaucer, Tradex, KGM, Motortrade Sols, Service Motor Policies, they will all normally request proof your a motor trader. If you can't prove it they void the policy.

raskazz

naijapower wrote: »

Okay, i have some update now. Quite interesting.
Though our neighbour has suddenly moved his van, Police have come back to me saying that an UNINSURED vehicle is legally allowed to be parked on the road so long as it is not causing an obstruction.
Police state they can only clamp down on untax vehicles.
They state an offence is only commited if this neighbour choses to drive this van uninsured.

The Police are wrong here. They might not be interested in investigating it, but it is definitely an offence under s.143 of the Road Traffic Act, and there is case law to back this up.

If I were you I'd call the Police back and ask them to comment on the cases of Plumbien v Vines and Elliot v Grey.

naijapower

raskazz wrote: »

The Police are wrong here. They might not be interested in investigating it, but it is definitely an offence under s.143 of the Road Traffic Act, and there is case law to back this up.

If I were you I'd call the Police back and ask them to comment on the cases of Plumbien v Vines and Elliot v Grey.

Many thanks. TBH, i doubted what i was told and would most certainly follow up

cyclonebri1

naijapower wrote: »

Many thanks. TBH, i doubted what i was told and would most certainly follow up

Are you sure about this? I was going to post and suggest to the op that the vehicle not being insured itself is NOT an offence,asuming it is taxed, but the op got the same answer from the police.

Only when the car is driven is the offence commited. You would surely need proof the he had personally "deposited" the van there before he had commited any offence???

Just had a quick look at the Department of Transport website;




Current legislation and penalties

1. Driving a vehicle on a road or public place without insurance against third party risk is an offence contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The requirement is for the driver to be insured in respect of the use of specified vehicles, rather than the vehicle to be insured for use by specified persons, and, following the recent Greenaway review of ways to tackle uninsured driving, it is not proposed to change this. The driver may be insured to use one or more specified vehicles only or to use any vehicle with the consent of the owner.

But further on;


Proposed solution

1. Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters people from driving uninsured but which does not require police intervention, and will have a minimum impact on the honest motorist. We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for having control of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch him using it on a road.

naijapower

I have just read s 143 and it seems to tally with what you have stated.
So my point is : Police prefer to catch him driving it which i presume might be time consuming as resources nned to be deployed to catch him red handed. Can they not take action on the basis of reports received?

Also, i wonder what would happen if an uninsured vehicle develops hand brake failure and rolls into another car, person or house. Quite possible. One of my old car rolled onto the main road from my driveway but luckily didnt cause any probs/damage

Lum

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

1. Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters people from driving uninsured but which does not require police intervention, and will have a minimum impact on the honest motorist. We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for having control of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch him using it on a road.

Oh god, are they still planning that? Basically they're going to issue fixed penalties if you let your insurance lapse and don't declare the car SORN. It's not going to affect criminals as the criminals wont have the cars registered in their name but it will affect the honest motorist.

Suppose my insurance runs out on, say, the 7th and I plan to take the car off the road for 2 weeks to do some work on it. I'm not going to pay insurance for that 2 weeks as I don't need it, however with having to SORN it, I'd lose the part month that I used, and then when I put it back on the road on the 21st I'd have to pay for the part month again when I retaxed it.

I would also have fallen victim to it when someone rear ended my car just before the end of my policy and it was a 3 month repair. I certainly wasn't going to take out a new policy until the car was back on the road.

raskazz

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Are you sure about this? I was going to post and suggest to the op that the vehicle not being insured itself is NOT an offence,asuming it is taxed, but the op got the same answer from the police.

Only when the car is driven is the offence commited. You would surely need proof the he had personally "deposited" the van there before he had commited any offence???

Just had a quick look at the Department of Transport website;




Current legislation and penalties

1. Driving a vehicle on a road or public place without insurance against third party risk is an offence contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The requirement is for the driver to be insured in respect of the use of specified vehicles, rather than the vehicle to be insured for use by specified persons, and, following the recent Greenaway review of ways to tackle uninsured driving, it is not proposed to change this. The driver may be insured to use one or more specified vehicles only or to use any vehicle with the consent of the owner.

But further on;


Proposed solution

1. Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters people from driving uninsured but which does not require police intervention, and will have a minimum impact on the honest motorist. We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for having control of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch him using it on a road.

The actual offence is (s.143 of the Road Traffic Act):

"(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
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road 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."


The offence is 'use of the vehicle' - 'use' for the purposes of the Act has been defined by case law as including situations such as simply leaving the vehicle parked on a road (see the cases I referred to earlier).


The DofT website is correct in that 'driving' is merely one example of 'use' and thus is an offence, but doesn't explain the fuller picture.

anewman

This is all a bit premature. What if the guy has an insurance policy? The van itself need not necessarily be insured depending on the policy he has. He may even get day insurance, drive it there, and when he needs to use it again get day insurance again. And if the police take the stance they seem to be taking then it seems unrealistic to assume he will ever be booked for simply having a vehicle on the road. You would just have to hope he gets caught driving one without insurance one day if that is indeed what he does.

cyclonebri1

anewman wrote: »

This is all a bit premature. What if the guy has an insurance policy? The van itself need not necessarily be insured depending on the policy he has. He may even get day insurance, drive it there, and when he needs to use it again get day insurance again. And if the police take the stance they seem to be taking then it seems unrealistic to assume he will ever be booked for simply having a vehicle on the road. You would just have to hope he gets caught driving one without insurance one day if that is indeed what he does.

Yes it could be in this case, but It seems to be a bit of a play on words and open to some interpretation/misinterpretation, ie, use of in control of, driving of.
The op even got the view of the police that the car/van does not need to be insured to be parked on a public road?

Anyway seems like there is some intent to clarify this in the future;)