Am I covered to drive another car?

darich

arenaman wrote: »

Correct, otherwise everyone would be insuring 1.1 fiestas and driving BMW's or Mercs on that insurance

No they couldn't.

The policy states drive a vehicle "not owned" by the policy holder so unless they fraudulently register the car as owned by someone else, they can't do what you suggest at all, because both cars would be owned by the same person.
That clause in the insurance then is clearly not applicable.

Quentin

FH_Brit wrote: »

talksr - ONE BIG THING - your mother is only insured to drive another car as long as that car has insurance itself. Example I had a spare car (old Mk 4 Grany 2.8) was off road but MOT'd - I just was not using and my brother borrowed it on his Fully Comp ins. My brother returned the car to me when he'd finished using it and illegally parked it outside my house but over hanging the next door neighbours drive (the lowered kerb) I gort a ticked for the parking and fined and points for no insurance - my argument was that brother had it insured and that's how we found out it had to be insured in it's own right.

You have misunderstood the situation.

Your brother drove your car on his driving other cars cover quite properly.

It was him leaving it parked on the road which was improper as the car was uninsured.

So your argument was wrong and you were correctly fined for allowing your uninsured car to be parked on the road!

FH_Brit

Be carefull people, like me there are a lot of people out there that read their policy and think they are covered, trust me you are not correct. Ask the AA, their legal dept represented me in this case in court, not because I was right but more to reduce any conviction. The AA lawyers told me I was on a looser before it went to court - we just presented the mittigating cercumstances and I was fined (if I remember correctly) £140.00 and 3 points. (here's the thing too) the 3 points was not for being uninsured, it was because when the police came about it, I moved the car onto my drive (swopping it with the car I was using) and as I moved it off the road (about 25 feet) the police witnessed that I knowingly drove it on the road uninsured!

In the end my brother done all he could and paid my fine.

Quentin - what would have happened if my brother did get back into the car? Then it was parked in his use and if what you say is correct it was covered under his policy. For the week and a bit he used it, then if what you say is right (and it is not according to Hertford Majistrates Court) during the period of my brother borrowing the vehicle, every night while he was in his house and the car was parked outside the car effectively was on a public road without inurance as your description only covers my car on his policy while he was actually driving it.

Shelly - Not so in any of these the car owned by someone else MUST have it's own, valid insurance. As a point of law it is covered on the road while not actually being driven.

FH_Brit

Talksr - Mechanics have a totally different policy that covers uninsured vehicles, also un taxed (that's why they have trade plates, effectively Road Tax for any vehicle) and also un tessted (MoT) vehicles.

This is why after this lesson I took out a Traders Policy (I owned 49 vehicles in my company) and after this i was covered (like a mechanic) as the wording of a traders policy is "any vehicle in the control or custody of the policy holder". Therefore no more problems and also I was totally covered on this policy for ANY vehicle I was licensed to drive (HGV & PCV also but not for carrying passengers)

FH_Brit

darich - you are totally wrong, I thought the same - and learned a lesson the hard way - It has nothing to do with policy wording - I was charged under the Road Traffic Act (that's common law not civil), that states any vehicle kept, used or driven on a public road must have adequate insurance.

think what you are saying logically - You have a spare car, off the road and not insured because you just bought a new one and switched the cover to your new car, and your (say for example) mother's car breaks down, and she has Fully Comp insurance that covers her to drive another car, so you lend her your spare car.

Mum says thank you and drives home, on the way she stops at Tesco, while she is shopping, that car is kept on a "public road" (before you say it, shop car parks and other private property that is open for public use is considered a public road by the law) is not being driven by her, it is your car therefore is not insured - you, the registered keeper are liable for that vehicle including the fact that it is not insured (because Mum is not actually driving).

I questioned this and it was explained thus - look at your policy that covers driving another car, even if you are fully comp. it says that you are only covered on the "other" car as third party only.

The law says - You (the driver/operator) are the First Party, your vehicle is the Second Party, anyone else is a Third Party, (see where this is going!), Third Party only does not cover the Second Party, the Car! Example; While Mum is in Tesco, your uninsured car's hadbrake fails (or absent minded Mum forgets to pull handbrake on) and it goes off downhill in Tesco's car park and plows into another car. Who is llegally responsible? Not Mum, she is only covered (under your terms) while she is driving, and she was not in the vehicle so no way can she be considered as driving the car, you as the owner/keeper are responsible and you aint got insurance = Fine, points and probably being sued by the owner of the car your vehicle hit!

Don't Belive me - ask a traffic cop!

ALWAYS REMEMBER - Just because an insurance policy (or any other legal contract) states a certain condition, it is not legal if the condition itself is contrary to common law. i.e. You cannot get away with something just because you both agreed and signed a contract.

FH_Brit

Quentin wrote: »

You have misunderstood the situation.

Your brother drove your car on his driving other cars cover quite properly.

It was him leaving it parked on the road which was improper as the car was uninsured.

So your argument was wrong and you were correctly fined for allowing your uninsured car to be parked on the road!

Agree under the law I was wrong - my entire point exactly - as the police said if my brother had been caught driving it - he would have been charged not me, he did not get caught and got away with it, but he was illegally driving the vehicle for almost 2 weeks!

FH_Brit

darich wrote: »

No they couldn't.

The policy states drive a vehicle "not owned" by the policy holder so unless they fraudulently register the car as owned by someone else, they can't do what you suggest at all, because both cars would be owned by the same person.
That clause in the insurance then is clearly not applicable.

Ahhh! her we are - you say "fraudulently register the car as owned by someone else" guess what? Registering a car is not proof of ownership - the registration document is worded legally as "Registered Keeper" registration documents are NOT proof of ownership in the eyes of the law.

There is nothing stopping you registering a car in your name that you do not legally own (Company Cars, Cars on HP - not yours until you fully pay up the HP, they are owned by the finance company).

"because both cars would be owned by the same person" - totally irellevant - I owned 49 vehicled in my chauffeur company = all on one (fleet) policy - When I only owned 5 cars (before expanding) they were all individually insured. I could have insured them all separately or on one policy - my choice, depending on what the IC offers, and the law's view is that it does not matter, as long as they are insured sufficiently.

Quentin

FH_Brit wrote: »

Quentin - what would have happened if my brother did get back into the car? Then it was parked in his use and if what you say is correct it was covered under his policy. For the week and a bit he used it, then if what you say is right (and it is not according to Hertford Majistrates Court) during the period of my brother borrowing the vehicle, every night while he was in his house and the car was parked outside the car effectively was on a public road without inurance as your description only covers my car on his policy while he was actually driving it.

Whenever the car as described (with no insurance of its own) was left parked on a public road, then it was illegal, as it was uninsured. The charge would be correctly brought against you as you had permitted your brother to drive your car. (ie He hadn't taken it without your consent).

You were responsible for allowing it to be left on a public road uninsured!

But when your brother was driving it on a public road using his "driving other cars" certificate, he (and the car) were legally insured.

Quentin

FH_Brit wrote: »

the police said if my brother had been caught driving it - he would have been charged not me, he did not get caught and got away with it, but he was illegally driving the vehicle for almost 2 weeks!

No he wasn't.

As long as his certificate allowed him legal cover to drive other cars not owned by him!

FH_Brit

No - Think - While he was driving, then as soon as he got out to get a coffee, stop for a pee, on a long journey pull over for a break and stretch his legs, he is not driving and ther car is uninsured then 5 minutes later it is again as he gort back in it.

You may think you are right - I thought exactly the same - but I'm sorry the proof that you are wrong is on my licence - The Court dissagrees with you and THEY are what matters as THEY will prosecute and no matter what you say or think - I have the proof i was prosecuted for it - and as they said - under those conditions the car HAS to carry it's own insurance - no exceptions the law states it.