Driving a Van on car insurance....what is the likely penalty??

Skinto_7

custardy wrote: »

So dont worry about being covered, as long as you dont hit anyone?
just say you though you were covered.
its all good

Aye, tha’ts what i said.

At the risk of indulging someone who appears to want a bit of an internet argument to brighten up their day.

What i am saying is, the OP has insurance that they have not cancelled and are still paying for, they fully believed this was valid to cover them on their trip back from getting rid of their car (which doesn’t appear to have been disproved as yet), and in these circumstances you would have thought the police would have used some common sense established that there was an insurance policy in place, and advised the OP of their possible oversights that they should clarify before driving the vehicle again, and moved on to deal with some proper criminals.

Skinto_7

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that you WANT the police to spend extra time at the side of the road doing insurance checks, rather than doing a quick stop then getting the motorist to show their documentation at the station. Surely that means that they would have even less time to be catching the 'real criminals'

what i am saying is that, in this case, it would have been pretty easy to establish whether the person involved was taking the mick, or being genuine.

Given the circumstances i personally would have thought it would be worth spending the few minutes on the phone it would have taken to establish this, rather than send them off down the nick where they could have their license taken off them due to nothing more than an oversight.

Losing a license can ruin people’s lives, and if it were me I would like to think I would make sure that the person was fully deserving of that punishment before I issued it, if that meant spending a few more minutes investigating it I would have thought that would be the correct way to go about it.

Yolina

It all really comes down to the wording of the policy - on mine (LV), some relevant bits under "driving other cars" say:

We'll insure you to drive a private motor car in the UK [...] as long as:
- the car/van doesn't exceed 3.5 gross vehicle weight
- it's not a van adapted to carry passengers
- you still have your car, it hasn't been stolen and it hasn't been damaged to an extent that it is a total loss
[...]

So although I would be covered for driving a van, I would need to still have my car for it to be valid

custardy

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Aye, tha’ts what i said.

At the risk of indulging someone who appears to want a bit of an internet argument to brighten up their day.

What i am saying is, the OP has insurance that they have not cancelled and are still paying for, they fully believed this was valid to cover them on their trip back from getting rid of their car (which doesn’t appear to have been disproved as yet), and in these circumstances you would have thought the police would have used some common sense established that there was an insurance policy in place, and advised the OP of their possible oversights that they should clarify before driving the vehicle again, and moved on to deal with some proper criminals.

unfortunately,in the grown up world.you are expected to make sure you are covered.
I know someone who suffered badly £££££ for just such an oversight, and another driver claiming from them.however they accept it was their fault
Or do you think we should forget enforcing trivial matters such as insurance until we are clear of 'proper criminals'?

Skinto_7

custardy wrote: »

unfortunately,in the grown up world.you are expected to make sure you are covered.
I know someone who suffered badly £££££ for just such an oversight, and another driver claiming from them.however they accept it was their fault
Or do you think we should forget enforcing trivial matters such as insurance until we are clear of 'proper criminals'?

Luckily as a fully qualified grown up, i am well aware of what the grown up world is like.

I am not saying people should not be held accountable for their actions, however there are occasions, like the one the OP has outlined, when common sense and a bit of human decency could be shown, rather than just pointing to the rule book.

What is classed as a "trivial matter" i suppose is a bit subjective, however if you are asking me would i prefer that more time and resource was spent on catching car thieves, drug dealers, rapists, murder's etc than on those who have perhaps not ticked the correct box on a form, then i would have to say yes.

custardy

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Luckily as a fully qualified grown up, i am well aware of what the grown up world is like.

I am not saying people should not be held accountable for their actions, however there are occasions, like the one the OP has outlined, when common sense and a bit of human decency could be shown, rather than just pointing to the rule book.

What is classed as a "trivial matter" i suppose is a bit subjective, however if you are asking me would i prefer that more time and resource was spent on catching car thieves, drug dealers, rapists, murder's etc than on those who have perhaps not ticked the correct box on a form, then i would have to say yes.

and theres the issue.
does that mean if you get cop A who see's it as a minor issue. its all good
I get cop B who follows the letter of the law and i get hit to the full extent

Sgt_Pepper_2

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that you WANT the police to spend extra time at the side of the road doing insurance checks, rather than doing a quick stop then getting the motorist to show their documentation at the station. Surely that means that they would have even less time to be catching the 'real criminals'

They should be spending the time at the roadside and production at a police station should be the last resort.

steve-L

custardy wrote: »

So dont worry about being covered, as long as you dont hit anyone?
just say you though you were covered.
its all good

I don't think anyone is saying that.....

There is a difference in being caught out in assuming since your assurance is still being paid and you can drive another car 3rd party to deliberately driving uninsured.

Sgt_Pepper_2

steve-L wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that.....

There is a difference in being caught out in assuming since your assurance is still being paid and you can drive another car 3rd party to deliberately driving uninsured.

No there's not, both will get you 6 points and a £200 fine.

maninthestreet

Driving without insurance is an 'absolute' offence - there is no requirement for the police to prove a driver was knowingly driving uninsured.