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

pianeet

Wig wrote: »

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.

i totally agree wig ,but when you think its someone you can trust its not something you do,it just smacks of hypocrisy when you see kids on road wars or police interceptors get caught without insurance and get a £50 fine or community service yet a 65 year old man who tried to help them as much as he could gets 6 points and a £100 fine.

kemp1e

It should be pointed out that all references to the section of the Road Safety Act 2006 (namely S.22) amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of statutory insurance requirements for vehicles are somewhat premature.

The majority of sections (S.22 included) which comprise RSA 2006 have yet to receive the necessary Commencement Order to make them legally enforceable. It is actually the case that the DfT have only recently started consultation on the likely impact of the commencement of S.22, part of the policy titled Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/motor/letter

freecarforum

well, in that scenario you need to take help from an insurance sector.

New Cars

Used Cars

Bob63

freecarforum wrote: »

well, in that scenario you need to take help from an insurance sector.

:spam:
Spammer! (reported)

welshlil

Tight_Old_Git wrote: »

Don't expect to get the correct answers to your questions on a chat forum. Myth 1: You don't have to have Comprehensive cover to get the 'drive other cars' extension. Myth 2: You won't get done by the cops if the other car has no insurance in its' own right whilst you are driving it as by definition, your insurance allows you to drive other cars not owned by you etc.

However there will be no insurance on the vehicle when parked and you won't be able to buy a tax disc for the vehicle unless it has its' own insurance.

First coment I read that makes sense and is right!

Wig

kemp1e wrote: »

It should be pointed out that all references to the section of the Road Safety Act 2006 (namely S.22) amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of statutory insurance requirements for vehicles are somewhat premature.

The majority of sections (S.22 included) which comprise RSA 2006 have yet to receive the necessary Commencement Order to make them legally enforceable. It is actually the case that the DfT have only recently started consultation on the likely impact of the commencement of S.22, part of the policy titled Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/motor/letter

Agreed. except to say, I'd say half of the Act has received commencement orders (see below). I was going to read the commencement orders when I looked it up after the other user brought the subject up, but I just assumed the user knew that it was in force, and there were a few commencement orders listed for this act, so again, just assumed the relevant section was in force.

Reading the commencement orders I can find, I have found that these sections are active 3, 11, 12, 14, 17(1)SI, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45EW, 46SI, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59(part),
4,5,6,7,59(part) come into force March 31st 2009
8,9,59(part) come into force 1st April 2009

Some of the above only apply to England and Wales, and some only to Scotland and N.I. I have put a few of them in there, but I'm not going to spend the time ammending the whole list. In any event these sections have not yet been commenced (excluding the ones above which are coming in a couple of months.)
1,Road safety grants
2,Application of surplus income from safety camera enforcement
10,All drivers
13,High risk drivers medical enquiries following disqualification
15,Alcohol ignition interlocks
16,Experimental period for section 15
17(possibly partof, possibly all ready in force),- Penalty points
18,Speed assessment equipment detection devices
19,Exemptions from speed limits (fire and rescue)
22,Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements
34,35, Attendance courses, penalty points & reduced dsq period
37,Dsq until test is passed
38,Granting of full licence
39,Compulsory surrender of old-form licences
42,Driving instruction - Schedule 6
46 Extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland

Information
47 Particulars to be included in vehicles register
48 Records of goods vehicle examinations
49 Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information Level crossings
50 Safety arrangements at level crossings
51 Delegation of power to make level crossing orders

Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles
52 Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences
53 Abolition of "contract exemption"
54 Private hire vehicles in London

Miscellaneous
55 Trunk road picnic areas
56 Vehicles modified to run on fuel stored under pressure - inspections of

I don't see any need for 144A anyway, because S143 covers this area already.

143 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act— (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and...............

Which means any vehicle on the road or public place MUST have a policy or security cover.
* An uninsured vehicle parked on the road = ticket for the owner
* An uninsured vehicle being driven by an insured person will be totally legal
* An uninsured vehicle having been driven by an insured person subsequently parked, while that user goes to a shop, is IMHO a grey area of whether or not it is insured.

Section 144A seems to be a complete waste of time, why not just ammend the requirements of S145?

Oh and BTW the link provided by kemple to the DfT, is to a consultation page on S144A, and it is open to us -members of the public- If you don't see any point to this section 22 of Road Safety Act 2006, and disagree with it's implementation TELL THEM, send them an email, saying that RTA S143 already makes it an offence to have an uninsured vehicle on the road, S22 will only have the effect of stopping people being able to lend their otherwise uninsured car to an insured person to drive it perfectly legitimately and legally. It will also be ANOTHER BIG BROTHER hammer to automatically fine us by computer if we decide to take our car off the road for a few days before renewing the insurance. I will be sending in my own objection very soon.
.

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.

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.

This post was the first to mention S22 RSA, the poster implied in the first line that he has been affected by S22 RSA. I find this now hard to believe, because S22 is not yet in force, i.e. there is no RTA S144A officially. So he can't have been done by the cops for this.

KayDappa

I would not advice anyone to drive without insurance, or take the risk of possibly being liable for charges if police stop you. The fines are ridiculous and can sometimes be 10 times more expensive than paying for the insurance itself:

http://www.noclaimsdiscount.co.uk/news/art_display.php?show=200811301

mcjordi

well ive got this cover for other cars on my next policy (march) and i asked my insurer about this and they said it has to be insured by the owner of the car, the cover will only cover me to drive it third party. it also has to have tax and mot

PAUL15_3

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.