Car Ownership / Insurance Question

Quentin

If you hit a problem over this and his insurer won't provide cover, then you could insure it yourself and put your partner on the policy as the main driver.

optimus_primera

Why not just send off the V5 with your partners details as the registered keeper if you are worried?
That does not make him the legal 'owner' of the car.

You do not have 'own' a vehicle to be insure it.

mikey72

I've insured my wife's car, she's insured mine for years. It's even an option on gocompare etc.

thenudeone

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The car itself must also be insured.

No it does not!
If you have a certificate stating that you are insured to drive another person's vehicle with their permission then you are insured. Simple as.

If you disagree, please post links to the relevant legislation.
I am prepared to be proved wrong .......

thenudeone

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If a vehicle is on the road, it is required to be insured.

Not quite. If the vehicle is on a road then its use must be covered by insurance. Whether that insurance is specific to the vehicle or whether it is a "driving other cars" part of the driver's own insurance (and within the terms of that insurance) is not important.

I have highlighted in bold the statutory wording below:

Road Traffic Act 1988 s143
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=road+traffic+act&Year=1988&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2276534&ActiveTextDocId=2276786&filesize=5549

143. Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act
(a)
a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] 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,

Flyboy152

thenudeone wrote: »

No it does not!
If you have a certificate stating that you are insured to drive another person's vehicle with their permission then you are insured. Simple as.

If you disagree, please post links to the relevant legislation.
I am prepared to be proved wrong .......

Why so rude?

I suggest you read the whole thread and then make comment.

While your at it, please tell me why it is necessary to prove a vehicle has the relevant insurance cover, to obtain a road fund licence.

thenudeone

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Having had the opportunity this evening, to have a chat with our local bobby, he informs me that the car needs to be insured if it is driven on the road. It is how they catch motorists who do not have insurance, by identifying the car. He seems to believe this is covered under PACE rules.

The local Bobby is wrong. See my earlier posts with link to legislation.

I have a working knowledge of the seizure of vehicles by the Police by being present at several seizures (in a professional capacity!)

The database that the police use is linked to vehicles.
Against each vehicle, there will be recorded full details of one insurance policy, including details of named drivers (or any driver).
If more than one policy is held against a vehicle (for example a shared car) then the database will indicate that another policy exists but it will not show the policyholder or named drivers etc.
If the second insured driver was stopped in these circumstances, and they had no previous record of uninsured driving, it would be difficult for the police to justify having a reasonable suspicion that it was being driven without insurance, so they would probably just ask for the insurance certificate to be produced within 7 days rather than seize the car.
If someone claimed they were driving a friend's car under the "other cars" extension, then this obviously would not show up on the database against their friend's car, but their own policy would show up against their own car (as long as it was the only policy). Again, it would be difficult for the police to justify having a reasonable suspicion that the friend's car was being driven without insurance, so they would probably just ask for the insurance certificate to be produced within 7 days rather than seize the car.

dacouch

thenudeone wrote: »

No it does not!
If you have a certificate stating that you are insured to drive another person's vehicle with their permission then you are insured. Simple as.

If you disagree, please post links to the relevant legislation.
I am prepared to be proved wrong .......

Your argument is correct, however a minority of Insurers do stipulate that the car being driven under the driving other cars extension must hold it's own Insurance. I stress this is currently a minority of Insurers.

mikey72

It won't matter shotly, once you have to sorn cars that don't have their own insurance.

thenudeone

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Why so rude?

I did not mean to be rude but I was getting frustrated because you repeatedly posted information that was factually incorrect (posts 14, 16, 19, 20 (partly correct), 25) AFTER your original post (11) was challenged in post 13 and subsequently.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

While your at it, please tell me why it is necessary to prove a vehicle has the relevant insurance cover, to obtain a road fund licence.

It's an additional statutory requirement intended to increase levels of insurance by ensuring that every taxed vehicle had its own insurance cover at least once a year.

It's not a foolproof measure by all means, but it increases the chances that an uninsured vehicle will eventually be taken off the road, because it will remain untaxed, and many councils now have devolved powers to seize vehicles parked on a road without a valid tax disc.