How can you drive home when buying a car from private seller?

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

This is the "legalised" part of legalised scam.


Why?
You've collected more than enough on every other policy to pay out, this is the very reason you have the money in the first place. To pay out in case of accidents.


And it's wrong. The liability to pay out is on the insurance company. That's why they exist - to provide cover. That's why they collect premiums.

so ... given that I've had (for example) 10 years of accident free motoring and made no claims and had none against me ... can I have my money back? If not, why not? Where is it?

And if "my" previous payments have been paid out elsewhere, why do you need to recover "your" payout? It wasn't your money. And where did all the company "profit" come from?

In the circumstances I describe who you're insured with, how long you've been insured and how much you pay / have paid make absolutely no difference.

You are no different to them to a third party who has had a liable accident with their insured. They will seek to recover their money from you.

The law making them pay out is thus

"(2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—
(a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or
(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The car only needs it's own insurance if the doc says it does.

Under the continuous tax/insurance rules, the RK must ensure that there is insurance relating to the car unless it is SORNd.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

UsernameAlreadyExists

dacouch wrote: »

"law"

So I'll say again ... that's the legalised part of "legalised scam". Now can you answer the questions? The "law" isn't the answer - the "law" is the "law" and that changes all the time. Can I have my money back from all my previous years payments?

Tilt wrote: »

Under the continuous tax/insurance rules, the RK must ensure that there is insurance relating to the car unless it is SORNd.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

More rules forcing people to pay into the insurance companies. Hurrah!

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Under the continuous tax/insurance rules, the RK must ensure that there is insurance relating to the car unless it is SORNd.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

That has nothing to do with it being driven on third party cover does it?

Do try and keep up.

Timay

Aretnap wrote: »

Putting it in capital letters and bold type doesn't make it any more true. When the sale took place and whether you were the owner at the time would be a question of fact which would ultimately be for the court to decide, not for you to decide. If you'd handed over the money and driven off with no intention of returning it, it would be open to them to decide that you had become the owner, in spite of your protestations that you and the seller had uttered some magic words which stopped you becoming the owner. So the insurers would likely be entitled to refuse you cover in the circumstances, and the magistrates would be entitled to convict you of driving without insurance.

Plus how would you say you were on a test drive if you crashed or got pulled over 100 miles from the 'owners' house? as there is no way you would be able to convince anyone that is a test drive

Stooby2

Mr Username - you're wrong. You weren't insured on your "test drive" - if you want to know for certain, ring your insurer and ask them.

Regardless of your attitude to the law and insurance, consider this - if you did crash into someone and injure them, you would make it very difficult for them to recoup losses. For the self-employed, not being able to get back lost income, sick pay and so could have serious implications for their life - mortgage payments, bills etc.

if you're buying the car, just get a quote beforehand that you are happy to with, go to pick the car up - if all is well with it just ring the insurance co and start the insurance there and then - sorted.

Quentin

Timay wrote: »

Plus how would you say you were on a test drive if you crashed or got pulled over 100 miles from the 'owners' house? as there is no way you would be able to convince anyone that is a test drive

Why?

You can test drive a car for a day/2 days etc., depends on the seller how long you can test it for.

A test drive doesn't have to be within a certain radius of the policyholder's house.

If the car is covered by a DOC extension, then it's covered, no matter how long the journey.

Chopper_Read

Stooby2 wrote: »

Mr Username - you're wrong. You weren't insured on your "test drive" - if you want to know for certain, ring your insurer and ask them.

Regardless of your attitude to the law and insurance, consider this - if you did crash into someone and injure them, you would make it very difficult for them to recoup losses. For the self-employed, not being able to get back lost income, sick pay and so could have serious implications for their life - mortgage payments, bills etc.

if you're buying the car, just get a quote beforehand that you are happy to with, go to pick the car up - if all is well with it just ring the insurance co and start the insurance there and then - sorted.

And if someone died in that crash, regardless of blame he'd be down the steps.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

That has nothing to do with it being driven on third party cover does it?

Do try and keep up.

No, you keep up!

You claimed that the car only needs it's own insurance if 'the doc says so' which is not the case. The car must have it's 'own' insurance to comply with the continuous tax/insurance regs which is the RK's responsibility.

Of course in addition to that, the driver of said car needs adequate cover as well (if it isn't the RK of the car).

colino

Could the mods develop a marking for threads like this? Perhaps a piece of popcorn to indicate if you had loads of time on your hands you could sit back and read through how a couple of people can actually believe they are completely correct and will continue to battle over the most trivial opinions?
Like two bald men fighting over a comb.