Car Ownership / Insurance Question

Gene_Hunt_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yes it does. Try read the Road Traffic Act.

Her's a hint: section 144.

My policy says otherwise as does the RTA.

Quentin

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Sorry, but there have been several posters who have.

The only poster in this thread who is out of step is you.

You are wrongly advising that we need to have our cars insured before letting anyone else drive them using their driving other cars extension on their own policy.

You are wrong about this.

But it's irrelevant to the OP anyway.

Gene_Hunt_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yes it does. Try read the Road Traffic Act.

Her's a hint: section 144.

144.—(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.

(2) Section 143 does not apply—

(a) to a vehicle owned—

(i) by the council of a county or county district in England and Wales, the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a London borough, the Inner London Education Authority, or a joint authority (other than a police authority) established by Part IV of the [1985 c. 51.] Local Government Act 1985,

(ii) by a regional, islands or district council in Scotland, or

(iii) by a joint board or committee in England or Wales, or joint committee in Scotland, which is so constituted as to include among its members representatives of any such council,
at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control,

(b) to a vehicle owned by a police authority or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police district, at a time when it is being driven under the owner's control, or to a vehicle at a time when it is being driven for police purposes by or under the direction of a constable, or by a person employed by a police authority, or employed by the Receiver, or

(c) to a vehicle at a time when it is being driven on a journey to or from any place undertaken for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the [1894 c. 60.] Merchant Shipping Act 1894,

(d) to the use of a vehicle for the purpose of its being provided in pursuance of a direction under section 166(2)(b) of the [1955 c. 18.] Army Act 1955 or under the corresponding provision of the [1955 c. 19.] Air Force Act 1955,

(e) to a vehicle which is made available by the Secretary of State to any person, body or local authority in pursuance of section 23 or 26 of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977 at a time when it is being used in accordance with the terms on which it is so made available,

(f) to a vehicle which is made available by the Secretary of State to any local authority, education authority or voluntary organisation in Scotland in pursuance of section 15 or 16 of the [1978 c. 29.] National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 at a time when it is being used in accordance with the terms on which it is so made available.

Flyboy152

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=5&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=0&activetextdocid=2949634&versionNumber=1

144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—

(a)it is covered by a 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,

(b)
either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)
The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.(b)
either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)
The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.

Quentin

Your highlighted section covers the issue (a driving other cars extension gives RTA cover for third parties).

But this has eff all to do with the OP.

Your contributions perfectly show why we shouldn't feed trolls.

Gene_Hunt_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=5&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=0&activetextdocid=2949634&versionNumber=1

144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—

(a)it is covered by a 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,

(b)
either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)
The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.(b)
either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)
The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.

Say's keeping.

Flyboy152

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Say's keeping.

And the difference is?

Flyboy152

Quentin wrote: »

The only poster in this thread who is out of step is you.

You are wrongly advising that we need to have our cars insured before letting anyone else drive them using their driving other cars extension on their own policy.

You are wrong about this.

But it's irrelevant to the OP anyway.

Rubbish, read the thread.

dacouch

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the car does need to be insured.

The car does not need to be insured unless the Insurer providing the driving other cars extension specifically specifies it must have insurance.

It is possible to drive a car to a shop under the driving other cars extension that is not insured (Assuming the Insurer does not stipulate it must have insurance) park the car up to go into say a shop and whilst the car is parked up the police could not prosecute for the vehicle having no insurance providing the parking up is part of a journey that will continue.

Flyboy152

Quentin wrote: »

Your highlighted section covers the issue (a driving other cars extension gives RTA cover for third parties).

But this has eff all to do with the OP.

Your contributions perfectly show why we shouldn't feed trolls.

I suggest you read the act again as well as the thread.