Can i drive another car on my insurance?

Billy_Bullocks

unforeseen wrote: »

you missed the bit where I said about the VED. If the VED is still in force I.E. has not run out then it is licenced to be on the road.

Not the ops problem but it shouldn't have any ved.

unforeseen

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Not the ops problem but it shouldn't have any ved.

Only if it has been sorned. If it has not been then it can still have valid VED.

It is the keepers problem if if he is not complying with the continuous insurance rules

Apodemus

unforeseen wrote: »

Only if it has been sorned. If it has not been then it can still have valid VED.

It is the keepers problem if if he is not complying with the continuous insurance rules

I think we are going round in circles here, but I would have thought that my insurance would only cover me to drive another vehicle that was completely road legal - which would include all aspects of the owners responsibilities for VED/SORN, MOT, insurance etc. If the status of any of these were wrong, while the immediate liability would be on the owner, I would expect that my insurance would refuse to cover me. I would be the one driving without insurance.

Billy_Bullocks

Apodemus wrote: »

I think we are going round in circles here, but I would have thought that my insurance would only cover me to drive another vehicle that was completely road legal - which would include all aspects of the owners responsibilities for VED/SORN, MOT, insurance etc. If the status of any of these were wrong, while the immediate liability would be on the owner, I would expect that my insurance would refuse to cover me. I would be the one driving without insurance.

They couldn't refuse cover for no ved.

You've been told the legal way to do it.

unforeseen

Apodemus wrote: »

I think we are going round in circles here, but I would have thought that my insurance would only cover me to drive another vehicle that was completely road legal - which would include all aspects of the owners responsibilities for VED/SORN, MOT, insurance etc. If the status of any of these were wrong, while the immediate liability would be on the owner, I would expect that my insurance would refuse to cover me. I would be the one driving without insurance.

I agree. But (to the best of our knowledge since it hasn't been mentioned) it has tax and MOT which is a fair assumption as the owner has just got a new car and transferred his insurance across to it. If the ops insurance allows him to drive other vehicles without it needing its own insurance (L&V policies are one example of this) then the vehicle is fully legal to be driven on the road by the OP. He may get pinged by ANPR for no insurance but when stopped, the police will be able to ascertain that his insurance covers the vehicle and no offence has been committed.

As I said, the keeper will fall foul of the continuous insurance rules and may get chased by DVLA for that but the OP is in the clear.

If the vehicle has been SORN'd then it is not road legal as the VED has either expired or been surrendered so OP cannot drive it for that reason primarily. The same would apply if the the MOT had expired

George_Michael

unforeseen wrote: »

If the vehicle has been SORN'd then it is not road legal as the VED has either expired or been surrendered so OP cannot drive it for that reason primarily. The same would apply if the the MOT had expired

Unless as already mentioned by others, the car is being driven to a garage for an MOT (providing that it is insured and the MOT has been booked).
If this is the case, the lack of MOT or VED don't make it non road legal nor does the fact that it may be on SORN.

unforeseen

George_Michael wrote: »

Unless as already mentioned by others, the car is being driven to a garage for an MOT (providing that it is insured and the MOT has been booked).
If this is the case, the lack of MOT or VED don't make it non road legal nor does the fact that it may be on SORN.

I don't think the OP would be doing that for the owner though. He wants to test drive it with a view to buying. That's why I didn't mention it. I was trying to clarify things for the OPs query not a general thing about SORN

George_Michael

unforeseen wrote: »

I don't think the OP would be doing that for the owner though. He wants to test drive it with a view to buying. That's why I didn't mention it.

But he also stated that he was considering taking it to a garage for them to check it over and getting a cheap MOT would be one way to make sure that the car is in a reasonable condition.

unforeseen

If he drives it DIRECTLY to the MOT test garage and straight back then fine. BUT he also wants to test drive it. Once that is thrown into the equation then it is no longer a drive for MOT. It does not change the insurance aspect one iota. In fact I would think that it makes it worse if it has no MOT. Some policies allow DOV with no insurance but the best of my knowledge no policy allows you to drive a vehicle under DOV if either there is no VED and/or no MOT.

An MOT doesn't prove it is in reason able condition only that a subset of parts on the vehicle meet the requirements of the test. It tells you nothing about the engine etc. If he wants to check it out then take a mechanic.

A cheap MOT? Let's not check a few things to speed up the test and squeeze more in.

Billy_Bullocks

unforeseen wrote: »

If he drives it DIRECTLY to the MOT test garage and straight back then fine. BUT he also wants to test drive it. Once that is thrown into the equation then it is no longer a drive for MOT. It does not change the insurance aspect one iota. In fact I would think that it makes it worse if it has no MOT. Some policies allow DOV with no insurance but the best of my knowledge no policy allows you to drive a vehicle under DOV if either there is no VED and/or no MOT.

But you're not required to have ved or an mot driving to a prebooked mot. So the insurance would cover.

There's nothing in law preventing him taking it for a test drive on the way to or from the mot.