Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause"

Wig

PAUL15 wrote: »

You are legally insured all the while you are driving the vehicle but if you park on the street, the minute you walk away from the car it is an unisured vehicle on the road and can be towed and crushed. Therfore untill the tax runs out you are legal as long as it is always on private property when you are not driving it. As soon as the tax runs out, you cant retax it without vehicle specific insurance.

It cannot be towed and or crushed. S165A ONLY applies to cars being driven without insurance or licence. There is a risk of a S143 offence for the owner, if it is left unattended on the public road or public place. But there may be a defence that the car should still be insured on the drivers DOC, as it was still within his charge.

housesitter

PAUL15 wrote: »

As soon as the tax runs out, you cant retax it without vehicle specific insurance.

You can also tax it with a trade policy which isn't vehicle specific.

The Post office just check the insurance document.
If you were so inclined, you could just tax it with a piece of paper knocked up on a PC with the rgistration and correct dates.

The PO do not check the MID database in any way.
Don't believe they check the MOT database either.

raskazz

eXOBeX wrote: »

* An uninsured vehicle parked on the road = not being used on a road, so surely not falling foul of 143(1)(a)?

It may not be being driven, but it is being 'used' in the eyes of the law. Google 'Plumbien v Vines'.

Wig

eXOBeX wrote: »

* An uninsured vehicle parked on the road = not being used on a road, so surely not falling foul of 143(1)(a)?

Yes, that's how it should be, but the reality is not like that. The law takes a different view. The law doesn't like smart alecks who push the undefined boundaries too far. e.g. Pumbien V Vines (never found out who/what Vines was) If it wasn't for that idiot who parked a rusting heap of crud on the street until it decayed into a neighbourhood nuisance, we could all theoretically park our vehicles uninsured when not in use, and have very little risk of prosecution. In the Pumbien case he forced the court to realise that if it was not deemed a 'use' of the vehicle, then the state would either have to change the law or put up with rusting wrecks fouling our communities.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the VERA 1994 says
S.29 (7) Where in the case of a vehicle kept (but not used) on a public
road that annual rate differs from the annual rate by reference to........bla bla bla...

So we have here in this Act, a distinct difference between keeping and using a vehicle on a public road - exactly as common sense would have it. But I have been advised (perhaps wrongly) that because it is a different Act it cannot have any relevance to being used as a defence against RTA 1988 S.143

As another aside, I also have never discovered exactly what VERA 1994 S.29 (7) is all about either, I mean you don't have different rates of VED depending on whether the vehicle is merely kept (on a public road) and not used....do you?

Jakg

john539 wrote: »

What might happen if I drive a car that is no longer insured by its owner, under my policy which includes the "can drive cars not owned" 3rd party cover clause ?

It depends. If your policy says the car has to be insured, the car can't be driven on the road as your policy doesn't cover it. If your policy doesn't state it must be insured then you can drive it but the odds are low.

LittleTinker wrote: »

The car needs to be insured independently of you. Then you can drive it 3rd party on your own Comp cover.....but as far as I know, it MUST be Comp cover.

What do you mean? My TPF&T covers me to drive other cars, as long as they have valid insurance (and only states valid insurance - not a specific type)

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Insurered by someone other than you I think is the answer, otherwise what's to stop you insuring a fiesta then driving a porsche that your mate has bought for you, but holds in his name without insurance

Nothing to stop you. I considered doing it with my Dad getting cheap insurance on a decent car and then using my policy to drive it. Would of worked out cheaper - but my Dad refused to actually read my policy and instead claimed it would have to be fraud.




I'm with Quinn on TPF&T, and I can drive any car (restrictions being it must be a car, not a commercial vehicle etc) as long as it's validly insured and not owned by me, and my own car could be economically repaired if needs be. There are no limits on max milage I can do etc, I even emailed Quinn explaining what I planned on doing and told them over the phone twice and they all said it was perfectly legal to buy a car for my Dad, get him to ensure it and then me drive it...