Am I covered to drive another car?

dacouch

You could try this but it is not guranteed to work. Bear in mind that what you are proposing is illegal and I have seen police officers go to great lengths to prove these cases where someone does something similar. They do not always but you never know and apart from falsely supplying information to the DVLA it could also be classed as perverting the course of justice which carries severe penalties.

The pound will not normally release the vehicle without all of the documents being in order, not all will accept you just saying yo have reregistered the vehicle without actually seeing a log book in your brother's name. Also some Insurers specifically state on their certificate it does not cover retrieving vehicles from the compound that don't belong to you. (The pound will only release the car once they are satisfied the vehicle is insured in some way).

daven1978

But I am not the legal owner until the car is paid for so legally I am correct to say tot hem...I do not own the car but am insured to drive it.I will just re register in my brothers name until it is fully paid for or I could have sold it back to him 2 days ago for all they know. I will ring them tomorrow and tell them.

dacouch

Which Insurer are you with?

raskazz

daven1978 wrote: »

But I am not the legal owner until the car is paid for so legally I am correct to say tot hem...I do not own the car but am insured to drive it.I will just re register in my brothers name until it is fully paid for or I could have sold it back to him 2 days ago for all they know. I will ring them tomorrow and tell them.

I think it is unlikely that your insurer will view the car as being insured at the time of the alleged offence, given that:

- The vehicle was registered in your name
- You were the individual who SORNed it
- The vehicle was clearly in your possession and had been for some time, without your brother ever forseeably regaining possession of it
-You were effectively in a position where you had bought the car on an informal hire purchase basis.

I also think that re-registering the vehicle after the event is pointless at best or potentially will cause you a lot more grief.

daven1978

I am with e sure. they wont insure the car while it is seized so does anybody know how or who will insure me to get the car back??

dacouch

For info here is the cover esure offer for driving other cars

"1b. Driving other cars
If your Schedule says so, your policy provides the same cover as section 1a (above) when
you are driving any other car as long as it is not a car either owned by you or hired to you
under a hire purchase agreement. This cover only applies if:
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car
• the car is being driven in the UK
We do not cover loss of, or damage to, any other car you drive."

You could swap the car over on your policy as if you had just bought it, if you do this there is no cover on your other car (Unless you take out a temporary policy). Your Insurers may have marked your file to stop you doing this or their documents may state they do not cover you to remove a car from a compound.

You could take out an annual policy with a different policy, bear in mind the documents can sometimes take a long time to come through (The post strikes won't help). This will also incurr admin fees when you cancel the policy.

Some pounds will allow the release of the vehicle to a motor trader under certain circumstances (So check first). If they allow this you can sell the car to the motor trader (They will normally pay you well under the trade value in these circumstances) and then the motor trader can collect the car as it belongs to them.

Some pounds will allow the car to be removed by a friend who has driving other cars, check with them first as a lot will not allow this and also some Insurers word their certificates to prevent this happening

Quentin

Swiftcover issue certificates online, together with a letter of authenticity to explain the situation (regarding the self printed certificate).

missile

Quote wrote: »

Motor mechanics would normally be covered by a Road Risk Motor Trade Policy which allows them to drive any vehicle in their custody or control.

What is the obsession people have with driving other vehicles?

The sooner this flimsy piece of contingency cover is removed from all motor policies, the better.

I do not agree. This can be a very useful add on, to name but one example = When the insured is unable to drive his vehicle.

I believe SAGA has a clause, where in a medical emergengy anyone can drive the vehicle under their policy.:A

GSXRCarlos

some of you are jumping between criminal and civil law, you might be able to sue the driver (borrower) of the car if you end up with points, and that will be based on a contract (verbal or written) between you (owner) and driver. but the criminal matter still stands as to the car not being driven by and insured driver

raskazz

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

some of you are jumping between criminal and civil law, you might be able to sue the driver (borrower) of the car if you end up with points, and that will be based on a contract (verbal or written) between you (owner) and driver. but the criminal matter still stands as to the car not being driven by and insured driver

I think you are getting confused. If someone lent a driver their car on the express condition that the driver arranged insurance for its use, then the criminal matter of permitting the use of an uninsured vehicle will not stand against the owner of the vehicle, as no such crime has been committed by them. This point has been confirmed in case law:

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Newbury v Davis [1974] RTR 367, an appeal was allowed against a conviction under the equivalent section to Section 143 of the 1988 Act in the Road Traffic Act 1972 ("the 1972 Act"), also section 143. The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance. Giving the leading judgment of a Divisional Court presided over by Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J stated, at page 370: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In my judgment the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant’s permission. In other words, permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence."[/FONT]

Of course the criminal matter of using a vehicle uninsured would still stand against the driver, but then I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise on this thread.