Insurance Required Even If Not Driving

Flyboy152

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Right ... this year my renewal occurred whilst my car was sitting in an airport car park over a long weekend. The renewal had been too expensive and I decided to shop around on the internet while I was away. I let it expire by a couple of days before commencing the new one a day before I returned.

That was 20th February. May I expect a penalty notice from DVLA?

I am heartily sick of these new wheezes :mad:

Unlikely, the new law has not come into force yet.

Personally, I genarally support this new initiative. It will force more drivers to insure their cars, whereas before they took the chance. Of course it won't stop the hardened abuser of the law, but it will hopefully reduce it.

Flyboy152

birkee wrote: »

One observation I've not seen.
I'm insured full comp. Entitled to drive any car not owned by me with third party cover.
If I go to a private seller, roadtest the car, and decide to buy .... the car is then owned by me, and my insurance doesn't cover it, for me to drive it home.
What happens if I've bought the car for my Wife, who isn't insured yet, to drive the car home. I suppose the answer to that, is to say SHE bought it, and drive the car home myself.
This is all getting a bit messy folks, so expect lots of tweaking of the rules to occur.

You would experience similar issues with the current system. However, all you have to do, before you drive it away, is call your insurance company to put it on risk.

mikey72

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You would experience similar issues with the current system. However, all you have to do, before you drive it away, is call your insurance company to put it on risk.

But usually that would mean taking off the car you drove there in.
Or paying for two.

Flyboy152

mikey72 wrote: »

But usually that would mean taking off the car you drove there in.
Or paying for two.

Not necessarily. Most insurance companies realise that people buy cars and they need to drive them home, so will issue a temporary policy for one of the cars. Even if they don't, both cars will still need to be insured anyway, even today.

B00st

mikey72 wrote: »

But usually that would mean taking off the car you drove there in.
Or paying for two.

You can generally add a temporary 2nd car to most policies for up to 2 weeks. Last time I did this it cost around £20.

Or you get your own policy transferred over to the new car go there in the wifes / friends.

Wig

B00st wrote: »

Going by this thread on Overclockers it would appear that Admiral, Bell and Swift all require insurance on the other vehicle for DOC to be valid. My main policy is through Highway and underwritten by Lloyds.

AFAIK two (ad & swift) of those had the clause in for donkeys years, so who are the "large number" who have recently changed their policy in the last 12 - 18 months?

And good luck with ringing the actual insurance company / underwriters on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday, and not the call centre.

A call centre would be adequate to flag up any problems with someones insurance validity. And as the issue for me would only be whether I could get in trouble for allowing an uninsured driver to drive my car, as long as I used all due dilligence to ensure they were insured, I think I'd get a 'not guilty' or an 'absolute discharge'. So no problem.

Wig

mikey72 wrote: »

He doesn't suggest that anywhere though.
In fact more the opposite if you read #16 below.

Recommendation 1:

The current widespread practice of condoning any apparent grace period for renewal of lapsed motor insurance policies should be discontinued and insurance providers should enforce the insurance requirement on a continuous basis.

Recommendation 17:

Every motor insurance policy which is issued should contain information on both the insured driver(s) and the vehicle(s) they are insured to drive, in order to ensure that the relevant agencies can confidently use the MID to enforce insurance from the record.

Assuming we are both talking about the continuous insurance automatic penalty. You will find it is linked the two recommendations above. 1 & 17

dacouch

Wig wrote: »

AFAIK two (ad & swift) of those had the clause in for donkeys years, so who are the "large number" who have recently changed their policy in the last 12 - 18 months?

A call centre would be adequate to flag up any problems with someones insurance validity. And as the issue for me would only be whether I could get in trouble for allowing an uninsured driver to drive my car, as long as I used all due dilligence to ensure they were insured, I think I'd get a 'not guilty' or an 'absolute discharge'. So no problem.

Under the current rules there is case law that provided you have reasonable causes to assume the person is covered you cannot be prosecuted for aiding and abetting no insurance in these circumstances. Viewing a current insurance certificate showing the person is covered to drive would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement under current case law. (The case law from memory was along the lines of a friend borrowing a car and telling their friend they were covered to drive so viewing a certificate of insurance would be more than sufficient)

Note the exclusion that the other car must be insured under driving other cars is still relatively rare and tends to be the cheap and cheerful companies that impose it. The clause is not normally shown on the certificate, it is shown in the policy wording under the "Liability" section. If it is not expressly noted as an exclusion then it is not (Currently) enforcable.

paddedjohn

forgotmyname wrote: »

Not read anything where it says you need to return the tax disc to SORN the vehicle, Possibly worthwhile
if taking the car off the road for a couple of months.

Currently you need to sorn if not taxed but i dont see why you cannot leave the tax to run and SORN for no insurance?

Think of several reasons for not returning the tax disc. Only taking the car off the road for a week or two, Awaiting a garage or
the insurance to repair the car which is not currently in your possession. Not financially worth sending it back.

motor insurance

From early 2011 a new scheme is being introduced to make sure that all vehicles stay insured or a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) is made. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) are working together to reduce the number of uninsured drivers.
The fight against uninsured vehicles

Latest public estimates are that around 1.5 million of all UK motorists drive uninsured. These drivers cost the UK about £500 million annually, which adds up to an average cost of an extra £30 per car insurance policy.
The police already seize about 500 uninsured vehicles every day. To help combat uninsured driving even further, when the new law is introduced it will result in:

• fines
• prosecutions
• clamping of uninsured vehicles that have not declared Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN)

Records held by DVLA will be compared with those on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).
From early 2011, if it appears from the database comparison that a vehicle has no insurance or no SORN, a letter will be sent to the registered keeper.
If the keeper takes no action, the keeper faces:

• a fixed penalty fine of £100
• court prosecution and be fined up to £1,000
• having the vehicle clamped, seized and destroyed

What to do as a vehicle keeper

If you are not insured and use your vehicle on the road you are already committing an offence – get insured immediately.
If you are keeping your vehicle off the road, make sure that you have submitted a SORN declaration to DVLA. If the vehicle is taxed you need to return the disc (including nil value discs) to DVLA using a V14 form. You can make a SORN declaration at the same time as returning the disc on the V14.


This is what was on the DIRECTGOV site prior to last week.

Adams1

darich wrote: »

I'm with Flyboy on this one.
I don't see the "scam" element at all.

If the car is untaxed and sorned then it should be off the road. If it has no insurance it should be off the road.
As far as I can see all the DVLA have done is reiterate the point....if it's uninsured you must sorn it and remove it from the road....but it should be off the road anyway...so why not sorn it??
If it has no tax, then you must sorn it.....because it should be off the road. You can choose to continue the insurance if you please (ie for Third party cover, or more if expensive car).

Yes but, what is considered "off the road?" 80% of residents in London alone don't have a personal drive way or garage, so cars are kept on the street, in front of their homes. So in order to do this, you car needs to now be taxed AND insured?

THIS is the ridiculous part. And yes, this law was only pushed through to grab more money out of LAW ABINDING CITIZENS and not the CRIMINALS who don't care about the LAW seen as they are CRIMINALS.

Pfft.