car seizures by police for no insurance

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

Just for good measure -here is the policy booklet for my LV policy.

http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf

As you can see, LV do not specify that DOC cover is dependant upon the vehicle having it's own policy. Therefore the DOC cover still applies.

So if I want to borrow a friend's off-the road and uninsured car, I can drive it and still be insured as required by s143. I would not be committing any insurance related offences by doing so.

But you would be committing offences by driving a SORN'd vehicle on the road.

And you would be committing offences because in order for you to be insured the vehicle has to be legal on a public highway. Without it's own insurance it isn't.

System

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Without it's own insurance it isn't.

It is, providing there is tax and a current MOT then somebody with DOV on an LV policy driving that vehicle and doesn't leave it while on a public road then that is fine.

However there is the separate offence of not having a valid insurance on the vehicle when it is not SORN'd. The registered keeper of the vehicle will be guilty of this and not the driver with DOV.

This is where there there is a conflict

Aretnap

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Your insurance would cover you to drive your friends car, as long as their car was already insured (but without you being included on the policy).

And we continue to go round in circles...

Whether or not their car had to be insured would depend on the terms of my policy. As it happens my policy does require the other car to be insured, but some don't - eg thenudeone's.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

But you would be committing offences by driving a SORN'd vehicle on the road.

Not if it wasn't SORNed he wouldn't. And off the top of my head I can't remember if driving a SORNed vehicle means the keeper or driver is committing an offence.

The keeper might well committing the offence of keeping an unSORNed uninsured vehicle, but that's his problem, not the driver's. Additionally the keeper commits that offence whether the car gets driven or not - he doesn't commit a further offence when someone drives the car.

And you would be committing offences because in order for you to be insured the vehicle has to be legal on a public highway. Without it's own insurance it isn't.

Where does the policy document linked to say that?

photome

WOW 4 pages resonding to a troll :T:T

Tilt

Aretnap wrote: »

And we continue to go round in circles...

Whether or not their car had to be insured would depend on the terms of my policy. As it happens my policy does require the other car to be insured, but some don't - eg thenudeone's.


Not if it wasn't SORNed he wouldn't. And off the top of my head I can't remember if driving a SORNed vehicle means the keeper or driver is committing an offence.

The keeper might well committing the offence of keeping an unSORNed uninsured vehicle, but that's his problem, not the driver's. Additionally the keeper commits that offence whether the car gets driven or not - he doesn't commit a further offence when someone drives the car.

Small matter that if the car is SORNd (because it is uninsured in it's own right) then it's likely that it will be un-taxed and that would be equally the driver's responsibility.

Jamie_Carter

!!!!!! wrote: »

It is, providing there is tax and a current MOT then somebody with DOV on an LV policy driving that vehicle and doesn't leave it while on a public road then that is fine.

However there is the separate offence of not having a valid insurance on the vehicle when it is not SORN'd. The registered keeper of the vehicle will be guilty of this and not the driver with DOV.

This is where there there is a conflict

And the car would not legally be on the road, so any insurance would be void.

Jamie_Carter

Aretnap wrote: »

And we continue to go round in circles...

Whether or not their car had to be insured would depend on the terms of my policy. As it happens my policy does require the other car to be insured, but some don't - eg thenudeone's.


Not if it wasn't SORNed he wouldn't. And off the top of my head I can't remember if driving a SORNed vehicle means the keeper or driver is committing an offence.

The keeper might well committing the offence of keeping an unSORNed uninsured vehicle, but that's his problem, not the driver's. Additionally the keeper commits that offence whether the car gets driven or not - he doesn't commit a further offence when someone drives the car.

Where does the policy document linked to say that?

How many times do I have to explain it???

Your insurance is not valid if the vehicle isn't legal to be on the road. If it doesn't have it's own insurance, then it isn't legally on the road. So anybody driving it under DOV would find their insurance void, unless it is a trader policy.


And if we go back to the subject of this thread, there must be insurance for the vehicle in question. It doesn't have to be the keeper of the vehicle, but it needs to specify the vehicle. Otherwise you would not get the car released from a compound. If you don't believe me, then give it a try.

System

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And the car would not legally be on the road, so any insurance would be void.

Yes it would, it meets the requirements of having tax, having MOT if required and covered by a valid insurance policy while that driver is in the vehicle

However as said, the vehicle keeper is still committing an offence (not the driver) because there is no insurance explicitly against the vehicles registration. This does not make the vehicle illegal to be on the road however if the conditions above are met.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

That won't work. The vehicle has to be insured.

When insurance policies allow you to drive other vehcles it just allows you to drive vehicles that already have their own insurance, but you are not included on the policy.

Rubbish, (if you are talking purely about DOC cover)

However, (if you are talking about the police rules for releasing a vehicle) And you are saying the police impound rules require the released vehicle to be covered specifically named on a policy......... then have you got a link to the legislation that says that? As I did not know that.....In fact I think I did for a friend just a few years ago, I remember I had to be the one to say I would be driving the vehicle out of the lot, the only reason that would be the case is if I was using my DOC extension.

rev_henry

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Exactly. And put some cloned plates on from a dodgy ebay seller for a car you know is insured/taxed/mot'd and you'll only get rumbled if pulled over for speeding.... Doubt you'd stay behind to give details in an accident.

Just put 3rd party insurance included in price of fuel so it can't be avoided, perhaps 10p - 15p a litre, and all this nonsense will disappear overnight, insurance premiums will drop too.

A friend recently emigrated tells me this is how it works in NZ. The government provides basic third party personal injury cover. If you want anything else you can choose to buy it. Apparently cars are very cheap and seen as disposable over there, so the main thing is personal injury. I may well follow him in a few years (not just for that)!