Am I insured??

rdwarr

Tony_ wrote: »

Nowhere on my certificate or in the policy does it state that the other car has to have insurance (and no policy I've ever had has said that either)

That's because it's implicit in the law. A car must either be SORN (in which case you can't drive it on the road) or insured in its own right. There is never a circumstance (outside the trade) where a car without insurance can be driven on the roads.

dacouch

rdwarr wrote: »

That's because it's implicit in the law. A car must either be SORN (in which case you can't drive it on the road) or insured in its own right. There is never a circumstance (outside the trade) where a car without insurance can be driven on the roads.

It's not implicit, if it does not state it in the policy or certificate that the car has to have it's own insurance for you to be covered under your DOC then it does not need to.

It's contract law and the RTA

redux

dacouch wrote: »

It's not implicit, if it does not state it in the policy or certificate that the car has to have it's own insurance for you to be covered under your DOC then it does not need to.

It's contract law and the RTA

There is no need to discuss this here, as it doesn't apply to this case, as the OP would own the car at the time of moving it.

Either ask the current owner to deliver it and then transfer ownership, or better just insure the new car temporarily on either the current or an extra policy.

Tony_

rdwarr wrote: »

That's because it's implicit in the law. A car must either be SORN (in which case you can't drive it on the road) or insured in its own right. There is never a circumstance (outside the trade) where a car without insurance can be driven on the roads.

Now your talking about "continuous insurance enforcement" rather what your insurance allws, which yes, states any vehicle on the road now, must have insurance, however CIE easn't around when my current policy started, so...

Gloomendoom

rdwarr wrote: »

That's because it's implicit in the law. A car must either be SORN (in which case you can't drive it on the road) or insured in its own right. There is never a circumstance (outside the trade) where a car without insurance can be driven on the roads.

In an ideal world this would be the case. However, according to the AA, there are around 500 uninsured vehicles seized every day by police, so it does happen. The owner/keeper of the vehicle has committed an offence. The driver, on the other hand, if driving with unconditional DOC cover, has not.

I have rarely had occasion to use DOC cover but if I should need it in the future, it is comforting to know that I will not be committing an offence whether the owner of the vehicle has insured the vehicle, or not.

dacouch

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I have rarely had occasion to use DOC cover but if I should need it in the future, it is comforting to know that I will not be committing an offence whether the owner of the vehicle has insured the vehicle, or not.

I would recommend people check the wording on their Certificate of Insurance and in their Policy. (It's easy to find in the policy as it comes under the "Liability" or Liability to Others" section where you will find a subsection about driving other cars.

If the policy does not state the other car must be insured then it does not need to be insured.

If you ring your Insurer to ask the question, it's fairly common for the customer service staff to not have mush insurance knowledge so they take a guess which normally means they say it must be insured.

Anyone who knows their policy does not require the other car to be covered can amuse themselves by ringing their Insurer and about 50% of the staff will give you the wrong answer. *

With regard to driving a Sorned car, the driver will not be committing an offence under the Continuous Insurance requirements, the registered keeper is the person who gets in trouble

*This and the car must have an MOT are the questions customer service staff get wrong the most as they assume the answer

shaun_from_Africa

Just for info and so that other people know what sort of wording may be stated in their insurance policy, this is from mine (AA insurance).

Driving other cars.
If Your Certificate of Motor Insurance permits You, the Insurer will also cover You, the policyholder, for Your liability to other people while You are driving any other private motor car which You do not own or have not hired or leased as long as;
a) the vehicle is not owned by Your employer or hired to them under a hire –purchase or lease agreement
b) You currently hold a valid and full UK or European Licence.
c) the use of the vehicle is covered under the Certificate of Motor Insurance
d) cover is not provided by any other insurance
e) You have the owners permission to drive the vehicle
f) the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and has valid tax, MOT and Insurance in its own right.
g) the vehicle stated on Your Certificate of Motor Insurance is still owned by You.

dacouch

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just for info and so that other people know what sort of wording may be stated in their insurance policy, this is from mine (AA insurance).

Here's the same section from Direct Line which omits the requirement for the other car to be Insured. Assuming they don't have a wording on their Certificate about the other car needing to be covered then it would not need to be covered.

"1b. Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides the
same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor
car as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under a hirepurchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same liability;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car;
• the car is registered in and being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland,
the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and
• you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond
cost-effective repair.
Note – There is no cover under clause 1b for damage, fire or theft to
the car you are driving."

http://www.directline.com/pdf/motor/car-policy-document.pdf
Page 12

It should be noted that the AA's requirement for the car to have an MOT and /or Road Tax is entirely unenforceable.

shaun_from_Africa

It should be noted that the AA's requirement for the car to have an MOT and /or Road Tax is entirely unenforceable.

Why?
I know that those requirements are unenforceable when you are driving your own vehicle which is covered by its own insurance, but as providing cover for driving other vehicles is an additional service which an insurer is under no legal obligation to provide, I can't see why they are not entitled to make these stipulations.

dacouch

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why?
I know that those requirements are unenforceable when you are driving your own vehicle which is covered by its own insurance, but as providing cover for driving other vehicles is an additional service which an insurer is under no legal obligation to provide, I can't see why they are not entitled to make these stipulations.

Driving your own car or someone else's car is not much difference in this context as both are covered come under your own Insurance and are governed by the FSA's ICOBS rules and the Ombudsman's rules.

Here's a recent case on MSE (There are plenty more), whilst the Insurer in question (Admiral) do not have a requirement for an MOT. The thread contains links and explanations as to why an MOT requirement is unenforceable. The same principles will apply to Road Tax (The AA should know better about Road Tax).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4374613