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

scbk

Just as an aside when I was reading through my TPO policy document (trying to find something else..) I noticed it says I'm covered to drive vehicles which are blocking my own access to the public road, or something along that lines

Tucker

Haha - can you imagine "it was blocking my route officer, so I drove it 200 miles to get it out of the way............."

skyflyer

sorry to resurrect this, but it has become an issue for me now. We have been missing something:

It appears that the issue is the Road Safety Act 2006 which amends the RTA w.r.t. insurance to make a de-facto offence of (my paraphrasing) being the owner of a vehicle on a public road without it having proper insurance, where proper insurance is defined as insurance that specifies the vehicle registration number, or specifies ANY registration number but names the owner of the vehicle.

Thus, I think you would be insured (subject to wording of policy) and could escape prosecution PROVIDED you dont’t ever get out of the vehicle on a public highway, which would be fine for a drive from private driveway, round the block and back to private driveway etc.

(By the way there is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the internet from people who have had this confirmed in writing, recently, by their insurers)

However, the owner of the car would be committing an offence under the above Road safety Act and would be liable to prosecution.

Rolandtheroadie

skyflyer wrote: »

sorry to resurrect this, but it has become an issue for me now. We have been missing something:

It appears that the issue is the Road Safety Act 2006 which amends the RTA w.r.t. insurance to make a de-facto offence of (my paraphrasing) being the owner of a vehicle on a public road without it having proper insurance, where proper insurance is defined as insurance that specifies the vehicle registration number, or specifies ANY registration number but names the owner of the vehicle.

Thus, I think you would be insured (subject to wording of policy) and could escape prosecution PROVIDED you dont’t ever get out of the vehicle on a public highway, which would be fine for a drive from private driveway, round the block and back to private driveway etc.

(By the way there is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the internet from people who have had this confirmed in writing, recently, by their insurers)

However, the owner of the car would be committing an offence under the above Road safety Act and would be liable to prosecution.

Both this and the original quote (a quote from The Guardian) say to me that the car MUST have it's own insurance policy for you to be covered to drive it.

MarkyMarkD

Yes, but no but. The driver would be legit, driving it under "driving other cars". But the owner would be committing an offence.

There is loads of scope here for abuse. The owner could be - for example - dead. Then they are pretty safe from prosecution. So you could drive your dead granny's car using a "driving other cars" extension, even though it wasn't insured in its own right. Maybe?

Wig

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Yes, but no but. The driver would be legit, driving it under "driving other cars". But the owner would be committing an offence.

There is loads of scope here for abuse. The owner could be - for example - dead. Then they are pretty safe from prosecution. So you could drive your dead granny's car using a "driving other cars" extension, even though it wasn't insured in its own right. Maybe?

You'd have to ask your granny for written permission before she died. Then there would also be the question of who owned the vehicle. After she died the ownership would pass to someone else.

Wig

skyflyer wrote: »

sorry to resurrect this, but it has become an issue for me now. We have been missing something:

It appears that the issue is the Road Safety Act 2006 which amends the RTA w.r.t. insurance to make a de-facto offence of (my paraphrasing) being the owner of a vehicle on a public road without it having proper insurance, where proper insurance is defined as insurance that specifies the vehicle registration number, or specifies ANY registration number but names the owner of the vehicle.


However, the owner of the car would be committing an offence under the above Road safety Act and would be liable to prosecution.

Are you saying, you allowed someone to drive your uninsured car...and you are being done for allowing your vehicle onto the road?

Pssst

john539 wrote: »

Why does the owner need to insure a car they are longer going to drive ?

Simple. any car used on the public highway needs to be insured. If it isnt and you pass an ANPR checkpoint,it will flag as not insured.

Bob63

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

There is loads of scope here for abuse. The owner could be - for example - dead. Then they are pretty safe from prosecution. So you could drive your dead granny's car using a "driving other cars" extension, even though it wasn't insured in its own right. Maybe?

Wrong. The policy expires with the owner (if you'll pardon the pun). This is exactly what happened when my dad died. I was a named driver on his policy - something we did to allow me to ferry him around when he was ill. When he died I wasn't insured to drive any more, despite being a named driver, because he was the policyholder. Technically I broke the law driving my mum home from the hospice on the day he died. In that specific case I cannot imagine that even the most heartless police officer would take issue, but insurance companies are lower than a snake's backside so would find this the perfect excuse to wriggle out of a payout should anything have happened.

Treadway1

Wig wrote: »

Are you saying, you allowed someone to drive your uninsured car...and you are being done for allowing your vehicle onto the road?

If you owned a car and let someone drive it knowing they were not insured to do so, then you would be committing the offence of permitting the vehicle to be used by an uninsured driver.

However, if you were to get a phonecall from the Police in the middle of the night, saying they have arrested a friend driving your car, and that friend says you knew they were uninsured to drive it, Id think carefully about your answer, because if you were to think "Aha, Ill just tell them I didnt know he had it, therefore Im not permitting him knowingly", then your friend would be getting further arrested for Taking a vehicle Without the Owners Consent (TWOC). Obviously it all depends on how good friends you are with the person, but believe me, Ive seen this happen many times, and someone will always get prosecuted, whether it be you, or your friend is up to you....

Also, just to clarify, every vehicle driven on the road has to have its own policy of insurance, regardless of any other policy someone may have entitling them to drive any other car. I understand what people are saying about driving from private property, to private property and as long as you are in the car, you are covered, but there are many situations that could (Apart from the T&C's of the insurance policy) nullify the cover. The most obvious one that springs to mind is, if you were to be pulled over by a Police Officer (As your vehcile is showing as having no insurance, which it would) and they required you to exit the vehicle, then your car would be on a public road, without insurance as soon as you get out. It could then be seized.