Best way to transport uninsured car

Joe_Horner

The confusion seems to come from the difference between the continuous insurance requirements under the RTA S.144A and those for the driver to be insured under S.143

The (relatively new) CI rules make it an offence to be the keeper of a vehicle that isn't insured in its own right unless it's notified SORN.

The (older) S.143 requirement is for the driver to be insured for use of a car he's driving.

The power to seize a car for no insurance, given by S.165A of the RTA, only applies to "driving without insurance" (S.143). It does not[/i] apply to "keeping without insurance" (S.144A)

So, if you have DOC cover that permits driving cars not otherwise insured (as mine does) then, it's perfectly legal for you to drive a car that's otherwise uninsured and it can't be seized.

But the keeper of that vehicle might be fined if it's noticed.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The confusion seems to come from the difference between the continuous insurance requirements under the RTA S.144A and those for the driver to be insured under S.143

The (relatively new) CI rules make it an offence to be the keeper of a vehicle that isn't insured in its own right unless it's notified SORN.

The (older) S.143 requirement is for the driver to be insured for use of a car he's driving.

The power to seize a car for no insurance, given by S.165A of the RTA, only applies to "driving without insurance" (S.143). It does not[/i] apply to "keeping without insurance" (S.144A)

So, if you have DOC cover that permits driving cars not otherwise insured (as mine does) then, it's perfectly legal for you to drive a car that's otherwise uninsured and it can't be seized.

But the keeper of that vehicle might be fined if it's noticed.

Exactly my point, thankyou.

specialboy

anotheruser wrote: »

While you guys sort out whose knob is bigger, why not take it to the PM system.

OP: Just drive it. While not legal, I doubt the police or any one else will care if it's only a couple of miles away. The amount of cost and hassle organising another way to transport it (skateboards?) won't be worth it.

Stupid advice, the police will mind and they will seize the car even if its acouple of yards from the house

Joe_Horner

specialboy wrote: »

Stupid advice, the police will mind and they will seize the car even if its acouple of yards from the house

If he has (or can find someone with) appropriate DOC cover then seizure isn't an option for them. You may have a hard time convincing them of that at the roadside though because it seems to be one of the most misunderstood areas of motoring law even amongst the Police.

It would help to have your certificate of insurance and policy booklet with you at the time so you could show conclusively that the insurance covered you. They may still seize it but you'd have a cast-iron case for release in that case and could possibly even push for them returning it to your driveway

dacouch

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If he has (or can find someone with) appropriate DOC cover then seizure isn't an option for them. You may have a hard time convincing them of that at the roadside though because it seems to be one of the most misunderstood areas of motoring law even amongst the Police.

It would help to have your certificate of insurance and policy booklet with you at the time so you could show conclusively that the insurance covered you. They may still seize it but you'd have a cast-iron case for release in that case and could possibly even push for them returning it to your driveway

Indeed always best to carry a "relevant" Certificate...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html

Well worth Jamie reading this

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

Indeed always best to carry a "relevant" Certificate...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html

Well worth Jamie reading this

Thankyou for that. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this case before section 144a came into force requiring continuous insurance?


The OP states that the vehicle was SORN'd, and therefore didn't require CI. But this means that the vehicle wouldn't be taxed.

You can only drive an untaxed vehicle on a public road if you’re driving it to or from a licensed station for a pre-arranged MOT, vehicle identity check, or weight or emissions test.
Penalties

You’ll automatically be fined £80, will need to get a new tax disc and must pay any tax arrears if you don’t make a SORN when you have to.
You could also get a County Court Judgement against you, be fined a minimum of £1,000 and be liable to prosecution.

https://www.gov.uk/register-sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

Dden

Either run the risk or if you really can't face any of the hassle then pop it on a flat bed trailer.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Thankyou for that. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this case before section 144a came into force requiring continuous insurance?

It makes no difference. The CI requirements are entirely separate and apply to the keeper, not the driver. They are also NOT grounds for seizure of the vehicle by police.

The OP states that the vehicle was SORN'd, and therefore didn't require CI. But this means that the vehicle wouldn't be taxed.

True, and the driver and the registered keeper can both be fined for that. But it's non-endorsable and also not grounds for a roadside seizure.

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Thankyou for that. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this case before section 144a came into force requiring continuous insurance?


The OP states that the vehicle was SORN'd, and therefore didn't require CI. But this means that the vehicle wouldn't be taxed.





https://www.gov.uk/register-sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

I assume you're referring to 143a as per your previous posts.

143a was in effect before the requirement for continuous insurance, it's basically the main part of the RTA requiring relevant motor vehicles hold third party liability cover.

Not having Road Tax does not invalidate an insurance policy.

The OP gives the impression the car is not owned by him, thus if the was subject to continuous insurance requirements it would be the registered keeper who was liable.

The continuous insurance law would have had no effect on the case I linked to as it would be the registered keeper who would have breached this law. Mr Burton produced a "Relevant Certificate" showing he had driving other cars. His Insurers wrongly advised the police the policy was subject to the other car having it's own insurance. The court in effect ruled that as Burton produced a correct / valid (Relevant) Certificate that the towing of the vehicle was not lawful. Burton producing said Certificate had no bearing on whether the car was subject to continuous insurance.

In my (Non legal) mind, it could be argued that if you produced a (current) Certificate of Insurance showing you had driving other cars even if the (Separate) policy wording (It was not expressly stated on the Certificate) stated it was subject to the other car holding insurance and the police towed the car. I think there's reasonable chance that a higher court of law would deem you had produced a relevant certificate of insurance. This is because the Certificate is a legal document which conforms to the RTA and confirms what you are covered for in respect of third party liabilities. The policy wording is a separate contractual document.

Obviously the Insurers could ultimately not end up paying a claim under the driving other cars and / or the police may be able prosecute for having no insurance but I think there's a reasonable chance due to the Pryor case that towing said vehicle would be deemed unlawful.

As stated I'm not a legal professional so I could be wrong on this, it's not the sort of case a lower court may rule correctly on (Hence Pryor making it to the Court of Appeals).

Mark_Mark

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Thankyou for that. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this case before section 144a came into force requiring continuous insurance?


The OP states that the vehicle was SORN'd, and therefore didn't require CI. But this means that the vehicle wouldn't be taxed.





https://www.gov.uk/register-sorn-statutory-off-road-notification

When in a hole some keep digging, why is it always you?