Driving on someone else's insurance

[Deleted User]

The car you want to drive on your own "drive any other car with owners permission" extension on your own car has to have it's own insurance wise it will be classed as uninsured when you park it up somewhere and leave the car. This is was I am lead to believe.

Mankysteve

newfoundglory wrote: »

Why are we employing police officers who do not know what they are doing?

It actually makes me really quite frightened that you can be stopped, arrested and have your car seized due to police ignorance and incompetence of the relevant laws.

Becuase the law is such a complex area that not even the best judges will know absolutely everything and mistakes will made that why they are appeal processes.

maninthestreet

Mankysteve wrote: »

Becuase the law is such a complex area that not even the best judges will know absolutely everything and mistakes will made that why they are appeal processes.

Not for a 'Section 59' there isn't!

Wig

dacouch wrote: »

Newfoundglory, are you asking this question as you have just seen a police show on TV? I ask this as there was a cop show on recently where the policewoman did not understand insurance and told the driver she had stopped him in (It belonged to someone else) that if he was a named driver on the vehicle he as driving or was driving under any driver that he also had to have his own cover on his own vehicle. The advice she gave in relation to the person she stopped was incorrect and we had a discussion in the Insurance forum about it at the time

I saw the same show, and I was shouting at the TV :rotfl:

The poor bloke got his van towed and if you noticed at the end of the show all they said about him was that he had to pay to get his van released absolutely no prosecution what so ever disgraceful! And disgraceful reporting.

Although I agree about the 'trader' bit, not having read his policy can't really comment on that part, but what she said re the OP was wrong.

HO87

I think you'll find that during their training police officers are not taught about the technicalities of insurance and are expected to rely on their own personal knowledge and experience to make judgements at the roadside. God help us. Much as in the cited case, I have heard officers state categorically that there is no such thing as DOC cover but when you analyse it their assertion is based on the fact that they do not have it on their own policy rather than any in-depth insurance understanding. That is where the problem lies.

maninthestreet

HO87 wrote: »

I think you'll find that during their training police officers are not taught about the technicalities of insurance and are expected to rely on their own personal knowledge and experience to make judgements at the roadside. God help us. Much as in the cited case, I have heard officers state categorically that there is no such thing as DOC cover but when you analyse it their assertion is based on the fact that they do not have it on their own policy rather than any in-depth insurance understanding. That is where the problem lies.

...so if the police officer has never owned a car in their life (quite possible), they would have no experience to go on. That's worryimg.

Mankysteve

Well the bloke didn't have a licence or he was lieing to the police about his age.

DirectDebacle

Wig wrote: »

The poor bloke got his van towed and if you noticed at the end of the show all they said about him was that he had to pay to get his van released absolutely no prosecution what so ever disgraceful! And disgraceful reporting.

This poor bloke gave two !!!! and bull stories about his insurance and also gave reasonable suspicion that he had given false details.

The police officer did precisely what she was there to do. She correctly identified an uninsured driver and made sure he was not allowed to continue his journey.

They said someone else (who would have to be insured) collected the van the following day.

Don't see anything disgraceful here. Good job well done.

maninthestreet

As the guy didn't appear to have a valid driving (full?) driving licence, he was not insured to drive the van, regardless of what insurance policies were in place. The WPC was correct in seizing the vehicle as the driver was not insured to drive it, but the reasons given may not have been correct. I did find it odd that the driver somehow thought showing the police his passport somehow entitled him to drive the vehicle on a public road.

iolanthe07

It's so much easier in the United States (well, in California - I don't know about the other states) where so long as the car itself is insured then anyone with a valid licence is entitled to drive it. My American friends find our system very restrictive.