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

MarkyMarkD

cheesy.mike wrote: »

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.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.

You are missing my point. I wasn't suggested that you (a named driver on your elderly relative's policy) were covered once they died - of course you aren't.

I was suggesting that if your elderly relative had their own car, and you drove it using your "driving other cars" extension, then you could possibly still do so after they had died, as long as you had their permission (as another has wisely posted).

The point about someone else becoming responsible for the vehicle upon the elderly person's death is a good one - I suppose that there is always someone responsible, and that in fact the permission to drive would need to be from that person not the deceased.

Bob63

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I was suggesting that if your elderly relative had their own car, and you drove it using your "driving other cars" extension, then you could possibly still do so after they had died, as long as you had their permission (as another has wisely posted).

And my point was that the car ceased to be insured at the point of death and therefore would not have been legal to drive it on either the original policy or my own "driving other cars" extension. I did have my dad's permission to drive the car but it was no longer insured.

The law, Section 144a of the Road Traffic Act 1988 amended by the Road Safety Act 2006, makes it clear that the car must be insured by a policy which either states the car's registration or is covered by the car owner's any-car policy.

MarkyMarkD

I don't disagree. But I think that the 2006 law change rather passed most people by. And that it would have been legal to exploit the "DOC" extension in the way suggested by some in this thread, prior to that law change.

Wig

Treadway1 wrote: »

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.

I disagree, The vehicle can be legally driven if it uninsured in its own right, but being driven under DOC section of the drivers own policy. It can be legally driven because it satisfies section 143 RTA.

Even if you are stopped by police and exit the vehicle the vehicle cannot be seized. I suspect you are referring to the police powers under S 165A RTA to seize vehicles being driven without insurance and or licence. The reason the vehicle could not be seized is because whilst the vehicle was being driven it was insured. If the driver exits the vehicle there is a grey area as to whether it is still insured (since it is still being used by the driver), however S165A can only be used to seize vehicles being driven in contravention of S143. S165A references ONLY S143, does not mention S144A

Having said that, I do believe the owner or RK of the vehicle will be committing an offence under RTA 144A (as mentioned above) by allowing his vehicle -not insured in it's own right- onto the highway. He commits the offence the moment the vehicle leaves private property, there would be no exemption from the offence just because it was being driven by the insured driver (from private property to private property). Nonetheless the police, would not have any power to sieze the vehicle.

S143 says the vehicle must be insured to the requirements of the part of this act. S145 is titled "Requirements in respect of policies of insurance" and does not mention the need for the insurance to mention the vehicle specifically. only S144A makes this requirement.
S144A also states
"2) For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—"
However, S145 states:
"145 (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must satisfy the following conditions."

Conclusion,
S143 & S145 refer to the part of the Act in this case "Part VI Third Party Liabilities". And S144A refers to the Section of the act, which limits the requirements to only apply to a S144A offence.

pianeet

not quite the same ,but my father in law recently got 6 points on his liscence for letting someone he knows drive his car ,the person then scraped another car and drove off ,my father in law knew nothing about it until 3 months later and because the person could not be traced and the certificate they had showed him (fully comp) was not valid he was charged with knowingly letting someone drive his car without insurance,very harsh i think........but a lesson to be learned

Wig

pianeet wrote: »

not quite the same ,but my father in law recently got 6 points on his liscence for letting someone he knows drive his car ,the person then scraped another car and drove off ,my father in law knew nothing about it until 3 months later and because the person could not be traced and the certificate they had showed him (fully comp) was not valid he was charged with knowingly letting someone drive his car without insurance,very harsh i think........but a lesson to be learned

This is another case of guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Which is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. To protect himself he should have taken a photocopy, or jotted down all the details on the certificate, and telephoned the insurer to double check he was insured to drive other cars.

bryanb

cheesy.mike wrote: »

Wrong. The policy expires with the owner (if you'll pardon the pun).

If true what happens when someone is killed in a road accident whilst driving their own fully insured car?

jammin_2

bryanb wrote: »

If true what happens when someone is killed in a road accident whilst driving their own fully insured car?

They were alive when the accident happened, and so were insured at the time.

bryanb

jammin wrote: »

They were alive when the accident happened, and so were insured at the time.

And the insurance company cancels the policy? Pays the claim?
Either the policy dies with the holder or not. Cheesy mike's statement not mine.

jammin_2

bryanb wrote: »

And the insurance company cancels the policy? Pays the claim?
Either the policy dies with the holder or not. Cheesy mike's statement not mine.

I guess so, yes. Insurance company pays the claim then closes down the policy. Seems simple enough to me.