continuous insurance enforcement

King_Nothing

paddedjohn wrote: »

one of the reason this is coming in is to stop people insuring a small car with a 'drive other vehicles' on it and using it to cover a more expensive car that is otherwise uninsured.

Not really, because a majority of DOC policies stipulate that the other car cannot be owned by yourself, and a vast majority of them need the other car to hold its own insurance with someone, I don't know any mainstream insurance companies now which are allowing DOC policies on un-insured cars.

Quentin

King_Nothing wrote: »

I don't know any mainstream insurance companies now which are allowing DOC policies on un-insured cars.

I do:

Aviva/RAC/M+S/Morethan for starters. There are plenty more.

Wig

paddedjohn wrote: »

one of the reason this is coming in is to stop people insuring a small car with a 'drive other vehicles' on it and using it to cover a more expensive car that is otherwise uninsured.

That's not one of the reasons at all. The only reason they are doing this is try to tackle uninsured driving. They are very misguided if they think it will make any difference. Your example the driver would be insured so there is no problem what so ever.

They are also doing it because it will be another way to clobber the innocent motorist with an automatic penalty.

crazylegsr65

Wig wrote: »

They are also doing it because it will be another way to clobber the innocent motorist with an automatic penalty.

How are they innocent if they've broken the law? After all you'll only get the fine if you haven't followed the law...

It's very easy, if you're using a car then make sure it's insured (after all the law requires you to do so). If you're not using it then SORN it. Easy.

Wig

crazylegsr65 wrote: »

How are they innocent if they've broken the law? After all you'll only get the fine if you haven't followed the law...

It's very easy, if you're using a car then make sure it's insured (after all the law requires you to do so). If you're not using it then SORN it. Easy.

Except as experience has shown many, many innocent people do SORN only to get fines from DVLA for not SORNing! How will this be any different? Except that now there will be a double whammy!

Plus when the white paper for the SORN regs was published it was stated that this was not intended to be used as one fits all punishment for all including the absent minded (innocent) motorist, it said it was to be directed at the habitual criminal element in our society.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!

A person is not guilty of certain crimes/actions if they were brought about by absent mindedness. This is what is meant by the "innocent motorist".

davemorton

Quentin wrote: »

I do:

Aviva/RAC/M+S/Morethan for starters. There are plenty more.

Not bloody Admiral or Elephant, mores the pity!!!

paddedjohn

Wig wrote: »

That's not one of the reasons at all. The only reason they are doing this is try to tackle uninsured driving. They are very misguided if they think it will make any difference. Your example the driver would be insured so there is no problem what so ever.

They are also doing it because it will be another way to clobber the innocent motorist with an automatic penalty.

How do you know its not one of the reasons?
There was a programme about this subject on radio 2 last week in which someone from the insurance industry stated that one of the reasons behind the new rules was to stop unscrupulous persons from insuring a cheap car and driving a larger more expensive car which may not be insured in its own right on the 'drive other vehicle' addition on some policies. These policies state the vehicle must not be owned by the driver but there are ways around this eg registering in a family members name.
By the way i agree its just another money making scam by the DVLA

Quentin

Presently anyone driving an uninsured car using their DOC third party is complying with the requirement for third party insurance. So the introduction of CIE won't make any difference with regard to uninsured cars on the road in this particular area!

When all cars have to be insured it will just mean that 2 policies are in place when a driver is using DOC cover.

Wig

paddedjohn wrote: »

How do you know its not one of the reasons?
There was a programme about this subject on radio 2 last week in which someone from the insurance industry stated that one of the reasons behind the new rules was to stop unscrupulous persons from insuring a cheap car and driving a larger more expensive car which may not be insured in its own right on the 'drive other vehicle' addition on some policies. These policies state the vehicle must not be owned by the driver but there are ways around this eg registering in a family members name.
By the way i agree its just another money making scam by the DVLA

The insurance co's have free will, they can remove that clause from their policies if they want to. They can alter it to say the car must be insured in it's own right. There is no reason for government to introduce new legislation to fix something the insurance co's can fix themselves if they want to just by changing policy wording. That makes no sense at all. And that's why it cannot have been a factor in the creation of this new legislation.

squack

it's crazy. if the people doing the insure a cheap car to drive a more expensive car scam are doing it within the terms of their insurance, then they are covered for 3rd party. If the insurance policy says different, then they are not, so effectively uninsured. The more expensive car would come up on police records ANPR etc as having no insurance and they would be pulled and have to prove they had valid insuarnce covering them for the vehicle. To be honest i don't think your average uninsurable road users are capable of pulling such an elaborate scam. You need car specific insurance to get a tax disc anyway (unless a motor trader possibly) so the maximum you could do it for would be 6 or 12 months