Insurance without a driving licence

PennyL

Hi - Sheila's Wheels will not continue to insure me as my licence is invalid for medical reasons and I need 6 months cover. The car is on a driveway and SORN at the end of the month.

Know of any insurance companies willing to cover the vehicle.

Thanks
From a frustrated and currently non driver
:mad:

Coveredinbees!!!!

you used to be able to off road insure, I guess you still can but it might need to be in a garage

jblack_2

Can someone else insure it in their name?

Yorkie1

jblack wrote: »

Can someone else insure it in their name?

Might be tricky; in my experience most standard insurers expect the car to be insured by the registered keeper and kept at the insured person's / registered keeper's address. If the insured person isn't the registered keeper then there might be difficulties with this.

KillerWatt

PennyL wrote: »

The car is on a driveway and SORN at the end of the month.

If the car is kept on the driveway (aka, off road), then there is no legal requirement to have insurance in force.

As far as getting insurance without a license goes, it's not going to happen I'm afraid as it is the law that stipulates that a driver must hold a license (full or provisional) in order for insurance to be effective.

You can insure it in another persons name if you wish (providing they hold a license), but make sure you tell the insurance company that the insured and the registered keeper are two different people (the law does make provision for such a scenario).

forgotmyname

Had classic insurance on a pile of rusty bits, Licence was not an issue, But it had to be garaged (brick or concrete) and had to notify them when it became a rolling chassis/shell.

vaio

KillerWatt wrote: »

........As far as getting insurance without a license goes, it's not going to happen I'm afraid as it is the law that stipulates that a driver must hold a license (full or provisional) in order for insurance to be effective......

Don't suppose you have a link to this law?

KillerWatt

vaio wrote: »

Don't suppose you have a link to this law?

It's part of the Road Traffic Act somewhere along the line.

The basics of it is that if there is anything amiss in the license department, then your insurance (if you bothered to buy it) is automatically invalidated.
That in itself is quite reasonable, because if someone doesn't have the right license then they shouldn't be on the road regardless.

The downside of course is that some people have vehicles that they "lay up", but would still like to have them covered for acts such as fire & theft.

Lum

As stated you do not legally need insurance as your car is not being used or kept on the public road.

I am therefore presuming you want insurance against theft, fire, vandalism etc. etc. but not necessarily insurance to drive the car. This is often called "Lay up insurance"

I know Adrian Flux used to offer a lay-up policy for a reasonable price. No idea if they still do.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

Don't suppose you have a link to this law?

KillerWatt wrote: »

It's part of the Road Traffic Act somewhere along the line.

The basics of it is that if there is anything amiss in the license department, then your insurance (if you bothered to buy it) is automatically invalidated.
That in itself is quite reasonable, because if someone doesn't have the right license then they shouldn't be on the road regardless.

The downside of course is that some people have vehicles that they "lay up", but would still like to have them covered for acts such as fire & theft.

I was hoping for a link rather than just a repeat of the post I questioned

Thinking about it your idea would actually expose third parties to increased risk of uncompensated damage whereas the general thrust of the RTA is to decrease that risk by requiring insurance and limiting the reasons insurance companies can use to avoid claims.

As an example….if my licence expired or got suspended for medical reasons and I carried on driving then under your idea my insurance would become invalid and anyone I hit would not be compensated.

In fact my reading of S151(3) of the RTA http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_11#pt6-pb1-l1g148 actually prohibits insurance companies from avoiding third party claims based on the licence status of the driver.

Getting own damage claims paid might be a different matter especially if I had an accident whilst driving although I can see an argument that it would be fair & reasonable that any claims not involving driving should be paid, along the same lines as the FOS ruling that even when a policy requires the car to be kept roadworthy/MOT’d and it isn’t then any claims not caused by the lack of roadworthyness must still be paid.

raskazz

KillerWatt wrote: »

As far as getting insurance without a license goes, it's not going to happen I'm afraid as it is the law that stipulates that a driver must hold a license (full or provisional) in order for insurance to be effective.

The law makes no such stipulation. You don't need to hold a licence to insure a car at all, as long as you are not using it on the road as defined by the Road Traffic Act. Of course, if you want to use a car on the road without a licence then you will not find any insurer who will accommodate this element of the risk as (i) the insurer would not want in any way to accept the risk and (ii) it would be encouraging illegal activity against the public interest.

Simple example of a vehicle insured where the policyholder does not hold a driving licence: A commercial vehicle in a company name. The company is the policyholder but as the company is not human it cannot hold a driving licence. Other example: on laid-up cover there is no road risk so no requirement to hold a licence. I could go on.