It's my football and I'm going home...

Yellabowley

The reason Police tend not to tow uninsured vehicles at the roadside is because it's quite difficult to prove that it's uninsured without someone there to question about it. The Police National Computer cannot say that a vehicle is uninsured. It will either say it's insured or it won't carry a record for it, which could be due to a number of reasons.


The big issue with parking it up is should the handbrake fail and it rolls away and causes damage to something else who will be liable? If the 3rd party driver who has parked it up speaks to their insurance company and tells them that the accident is due to the handbrake failing while parked I can't imagine they'd pay up on the basis that he was the last person to drive it. The issue is where do you draw the line? Parking to put petrol in, parking to get the weekly shop, parking to do a days Christmas shopping. I agree if someone has been done for no insurance and find that they were covered then fantastic and its always worth checking things like this.


As for the owner reporting it stolen it's not as far fetched as you think. In fact it happens regularly in such situations. The Police turn up at the door (and lets face it this is someone who has allowed someone to use their uninsured and therefore quite possibly untaxed vehicle) and ask them if the vehicle's insured and did whoever have permission to take it, they will quite regularly say no. Rather the driver be done than them.


You're correct in what you're saying though, not all policies require the other vehicle to be insured. But in practice I would never take someone else's vehicle knowing it wasn't insured, whether I was covered third party or not.

dacouch

Yellabowley wrote: »

The reason Police tend not to tow uninsured vehicles at the roadside is because it's quite difficult to prove that it's uninsured without someone there to question about it. The Police National Computer cannot say that a vehicle is uninsured. It will either say it's insured or it won't carry a record for it, which could be due to a number of reasons.


The big issue with parking it up is should the handbrake fail and it rolls away and causes damage to something else who will be liable? If the 3rd party driver who has parked it up speaks to their insurance company and tells them that the accident is due to the handbrake failing while parked I can't imagine they'd pay up on the basis that he was the last person to drive it. The issue is where do you draw the line? Parking to put petrol in, parking to get the weekly shop, parking to do a days Christmas shopping. I agree if someone has been done for no insurance and find that they were covered then fantastic and its always worth checking things like this.


As for the owner reporting it stolen it's not as far fetched as you think. In fact it happens regularly in such situations. The Police turn up at the door (and lets face it this is someone who has allowed someone to use their uninsured and therefore quite possibly untaxed vehicle) and ask them if the vehicle's insured and did whoever have permission to take it, they will quite regularly say no. Rather the driver be done than them.


You're correct in what you're saying though, not all policies require the other vehicle to be insured. But in practice I would never take someone else's vehicle knowing it wasn't insured, whether I was covered third party or not.

Your example of the hand brake failing is not the greatest example for obvious reasons. Apart from the obvious reason and assuming there was negligence then a complaint to the Ombudsman that you were driving the car under DOC with no restrictions on the car being insured. That you had parked the car up as part of a genuine overall journey and there had been an accident whilst parked. The Ombudsman would rule in the drivers favour.

I agree a visit to the shopping mall to do Xmas shopping is unlikely to be classed as part of an overall journey. But popping into the shop to buy a packet of fags whilst driving the car to a garage would almost certainly be deemed as part of an overall journey.

Are you trying to tell me that I borrow my friends car and drive it on my Direct Line policy with no restriction on other car having insurance. That I get stopped by the police who after showing them I'm insured by DOC discover the friends insurance has been cancelled by his insurers. Bearing in mind I'm insured to drive the vehicle and that the police do not enforce the continuous insurance law as it's carried out by the DVLA. That the police would then try and catch my friend out by trying to get him to say i did not have permission.

I can imagine it does occassionally happen, but in the circumstances of what I've been describing it must be really really rare as there is no benefit to the police.

If your example does happen then it's a good reason to ensure there is information that not all insurers require the other car to hold it's own insurance under DOC. As if the driver was falsely accused of stealing the car (Technically it would be TWOC) then having correct information about DOC is important as it could help him see correct justice.

Yellabowley

Obviously if you're driving the car it's another matter entirely. I'm trying to play devils advocate here and the handbrake failing is a good example. If you ring your insurance company and say "my mates car was parked up and the handbrake failed and it rolled down a hill and crushed someone, but I was driving it" faced with a potential £10m bill they're just going to turn round and say "how were you driving it if it was parked up?"

It's at that point when the Police become involved and speak to the owner and questions start being asked about him allowing his mate to use his uninsured, untaxed vehicle. When these sort of questions start being asked it's very easy for the owner to turn around and say he never gave permission for you to take it. Straight away he's absolved from the blame of it being uninsured whilst in the road (although he may have to lie in court) and you're in big bother. This happens all the time when people find themselves in a corner. And while it may be enforced by DVLA they are often guided by evidence provided by the Police.

As I said I'm playing Devil's advocate but it's still a risk you're taking. If you're desperate enough to need to use someone's car knowing it's supposed to be off the road can you be sure you won't need to leave it parked in public for any length of time.

Personally I wouldn't risk it but ultimately I'm agreeing with what you said on the CAG website.

PS Theft or TWOC depends on whether or not the driver intends to return the car.

iainscomputer

I've always liked to have the DOC cover on my policy, but I really don't think I would risk using it these days due to the complications involved in a claim.
The other car being driven should be insured in its own right, as a car with no policy should be declared SORN & have no tax, so it can't be driven. I think the continuous insurance law is unnecessary as there was already a law in place to ensure vehicles had insurance when being driven.
Why can't the UK have car insurance that covers any driver as certain other EU countries have? Restrictions could still be in place eg only drivers over 30 years & with no more than 3 points.
My wife is Polish, when we visit Poland, I can drive my relatives cars as I have a license, this is the only requirement. When they visit, I can't even put them on the insurance as they are not UK residents.
The whole system in the UK needs updating.

System

This question came up on the boards a while back with somebody here insisting that the car must have its own insurance. I argued that my insurance (with LV) makes no stipulation. I actually emailed my insurer to confirm and now have an email from them stating quite clearly that the other vehicle does NOT require its own insurance.

dacouch

Yellabowley wrote: »

PS Theft or TWOC depends on whether or not the driver intends to return the car.

I understand the difference between theft and twoc, hence why I mentioned your example of borrowing a friends car which they said you had stolen would be TWOC as the intention would be to return it

dacouch

!!!!!! wrote: »

This question came up on the boards a while back with somebody here insisting that the car must have its own insurance. I argued that my insurance (with LV) makes no stipulation. I actually emailed my insurer to confirm and now have an email from them stating quite clearly that the other vehicle does NOT require its own insurance.

If you look on the CAG thread, you can see the moderator tried to catch me out by contacting Direct Line. As is typical with front line insurance staff they do not always understand the small details and told him the other car needed cover.

I had previously tried the same thing and was initially told the same thing eg the car needed it's own insurance. When I pushed the lady she eventually contacted someone who understood their policy and confirmed that with that particular insurer the other car did not need it's own cover.

Both transcripts are posted on that thread, amusingly the moderator decided to close the thread at that point.

You did well to be given the correct answer to your question as it's really common to be given the wrong answer to that question. I'd lay good money if you rang LV a significant proportion of the staff would give out the wrong answer. Although they're a pretty good Insurer so they may have actually taken the time to educate their staff on their own policy

Yellabowley

dacouch wrote: »

I understand the difference between theft and twoc, hence why I mentioned your example of borrowing a friends car which they said you had stolen would be TWOC as the intention would be to return it

Ah but you never presume the intent before investigating all avenues

On a side note the other issue you will come across is if you're stopped by the Police and they ring the insurance company to clarify and they get that call taker who states that the other car must also be insured, then the car is getting seized and you're getting reported or a ticket for no insurance. Obviously you'd win when you appeal it, but by then you've been charged recovery costs and to get the vehicle back the owner would have to insure it for a year which will cost a fortune. Good luck getting those costs back from the insurance company.

Ultimately you are correct. If your policy does not state that the other car needs to be insured then it's legal for you to drive it. I personally would never take that risk.

OnanTheBarbarian

Shocking advice on the CAG forum recommending a bit of hit & run action.

dacouch

Yellabowley wrote: »

Ah but you never presume the intent before investigating all avenues

On a side note the other issue you will come across is if you're stopped by the Police and they ring the insurance company to clarify and they get that call taker who states that the other car must also be insured, then the car is getting seized and you're getting reported or a ticket for no insurance. Obviously you'd win when you appeal it, but by then you've been charged recovery costs and to get the vehicle back the owner would have to insure it for a year which will cost a fortune. Good luck getting those costs back from the insurance company.

Ultimately you are correct. If your policy does not state that the other car needs to be insured then it's legal for you to drive it. I personally would never take that risk.

Just carry the Certificate of Insurance with you and refer the police to Pryor v Greater Manchester Police which covers the exact situation you describe.

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