We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I Thought Car Insurance Had Gone Up
Comments
-
You have your view, I have mine, and tbh, mine's the same as my insurer, so. I'll stick to what I said. You'll also note I said it applies to me, so no disrepect, I think having actually read my insurance details, something I am fairly sure you won't have done, I dare suggest I actually know what it says?0
-
No, it covers you against third party risks as required by the RTA.No, it covers you third party only in the event of an accident..
In the "contract" between you and the government. As far as DOC is concerned the car only needs to be insured if the policy stipulates it, as many are now doing.But in order for it to be used the other car has to be insured.0 -
Afaik you've NEVER been able to use DoC to get a car out of the pound, its always had to be a policy for that vehicle. The exception being trade policies, which is how I understand the usual uninsured scum get the car out - by having a mate with a trade policy.InsideInsurance wrote: »Well all cars that arent under a SORN now must have a valid certificate of insurance.
The main reason for the clause however is to avoid people using DoC to get vehicles out of a police pound for having no insurance etc0 -
No, it covers you against third party risks as required by the RTA.
In the "contract" between you and the government. As far as DOC is concerned the car only needs to be insured if the policy stipulates it, as many are now doing.
First part is true, albeit the difference between the two is usually on the amount of third party property damage covered (£1M if RTA, £20M in Third Party cover usually).
Even if the policy stipulates that you the other car must be insured and it isn't, my understanding (i am not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.) is that your insurer would still be on the hook for RTA cover. There is a limit to what can restrict RTA cover on a certificate and that is restricted drivers (named drivers only or any driver) and that's about it. Of course if you breached this they would legally be able to recover costs from you, but if you acted in good faith thinking the car was insured I'd guess the FOS would find in your favour.0 -
First part is true, albeit the difference between the two is usually on the amount of third party property damage covered (£1M if RTA, £20M in Third Party cover usually).
Even if the policy stipulates that you the other car must be insured and it isn't, my understanding (i am not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.) is that your insurer would still be on the hook for RTA cover.
Not under a driving other cars extension they wouldn't as they haven't issued a certificate for the vehicle - it would fall to the individual to settle the claim and in the absence of this the MIB would step in.
The third party driving other cars cover would simply be inoperative - it does not work in the same way as the RTA obligations which attach when a specified certificate is issued.0 -
Again, been done to death, driving certainly includes stopping to buy petrol, and certainly when you're talking to the police to show them it's insured. Even buying the paper is covered, as you're still driving it by the legal definition of driving, with includes short breaks in the journey.
Actually the relevant offence under s.143 of the RTA is "using" a vehicle which extends over and above driving.
If you drive a vehicle under "driving other cars" which is not insured in its own right, and leave the vehicle parked in a place falling under the RTA definition of a "road or other public place" then "driving other cars" does not operate (it provides cover for driving but not anything else) and you are liable to be prosecuted for the s.143 offence. Assuming that the police know what they are doing, which they probably won't.0 -
Not under a driving other cars extension they wouldn't as they haven't issued a certificate for the vehicle - it would fall to the individual to settle the claim and in the absence of this the MIB would step in.
OK, I was of the belief that the certificate for your own vehicle was extended to cover any vehicle you have permission to drive. Not arguing with you, just stating what my inference was. Also as you have to be able to produce proof of insurance if requested (ie within 7 days if you get a "producer") that proof of insurance would be the cert, no? I know not all car insurers have the other car must be insured anyway (I always presumed this owing to enforceability and potentially "fairness").
For the benefit of most other people, make sure you follow the T&Cs of the policy, this is a legalistic argument as opposed to what you should do to be in order regarding insurance.0 -
Assuming that the police know what they are doing, which they probably won't.
http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=173850 -
Cheers dacouch that was exactly the case that I was thinking of which led me to my thoughts (and the one which was the reason I was chatting to a colleague about this very issue recently).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards