Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause"
Comments
-
Wig
Have a look here, I've not read all of it this yet, but it looks to give you the general gist...
http://www.fearofcrime.co.uk/Appendix.pdf0 -
Asking people on here only really tells you what they believe their insurance company gives, even though its a good indicator they are all different Your best bet is to ask yours rather then find out the hard way that your insurer is one of the tight ones![FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it
[/FONT]0 -
If plod is shown the certificate with the above wording, they have no reason to question it, unless they decide to contact the insurer direct.I suspect that some of the insurers who have the exclusion clause refferred to in this thread would not have that clause on the certificate. It is because of this fact that not all the exclusions are printed on the certificate that the certificate alone is not good enough.
If I was the plod dealing with you, I would not accept your certificate as proof positive, I would possibly (depending on your manner with me) confiscate your vehicle and ask you to provide your policy to the police station and a letter from your insurer.
I think that you do not intend to drive another car, you only asked your OP for a debate, but in the event that you did actually want to do this I gave you good advice on what you should do to minimise the risk of having your car confiscated. If you want to ignore my advice that's up to you, but don't be surprised when you get your car confiscated.
The wording is clearcut.
If they do anything further they are obviously acting illegally.
Plod are not above the Law.
The certificate is clear cut.0 -
Wig
Have a look here, I've not read all of it this yet, but it looks to give you the general gist...
http://www.fearofcrime.co.uk/Appendix.pdf
I see what you are saying, but all insurers are required to provide RTA cover (as you call it), AFAIK they are not required to provide cover for private property, and I have never noticed anything in my policies about private property. So I would question that there is in practice any difference between what you call RTA only and the TPO policies that everyone has.
An example illustrating this was a case, where a car driven in a car park by the policy holder (TPO) struck a girl who was sitting on a fence. The insurance company (Eagle Star I believe) challenged the case on the grounds that the policy did not include private property damages. The claimant argued that "public road" as given in the RTA included a road through a car park, the defendant subsequently argued that as the car park was not made (i.e. hardcore) that no road existed. The judges ruled that a "road way" through a car park whether made or not is a "public road" they also ruled that the "road" extended to any parking spaces whether marked or not. The claimants appealed and the higher court overturned the decision. This was the case which led the way for the law to be changed to require insurance for cars in car parks or any public place.0 -
If plod is shown the certificate with the above wording, they have no reason to question it, unless they decide to contact the insurer direct.
The wording is clearcut.
If they do anything further they are obviously acting illegally.
Plod are not above the Law.
The certificate is clear cut.
I have just told you for a fact, that the wording on a certificate does not necessarily list all the exclusions. We know for a fact that some policies require the car to be insured in its own right (post #21). It is therefore not too much of a leap of imagination to think that it is possible that such policy certificates would have wording on the certificate similar to yours and mine. It is therefore obvious that the certificate is not clear cut and would be even less clear cut on policies such as that given in post #21
If plod suspects a car is possibly uninsured they can confiscate it, if you cannot prove to plod (by showing the full policy) they might confiscate your vehicle. The fact that you later prove to plod the vehicle was driven lawfully does not entitle you to a waiver or refund of the release fee (£150) or any costs incurred, you would have to take the police to court and try to create a bit of history by proving they are liable.
If you want to take that risk, just for the sake of taking your policy booklet with you along with your certificate that's up to you.0 -
All Police want to do is confirm the driver has insurance, not a major crime investigation.If plod suspects a car is possibly uninsured they can confiscate it, if you cannot prove to plod (by showing the full policy) they would be within the law to confiscate your vehicle (because they know the vehicle is likely to be not insured in its own right).
If you show a certificate with the above wording, they can see it is genuine, I'm sure they will be more than happy.
That's probably the reason why the driving other cars clause is on the certificate itself, so that anyone who needs to see it, can see you are insured.
I'm sure Police are fully aware of various circumstances cars are driven & insurance cover applies. The fact a car is not shown as insured does not mean the driver is not insured, which plod will fully understand.0 -
Not sure what you mean by 'RTA only' if you mean Road Traffic Act only, well that is "third party only" the minimum insurance cover required by law in the EU is cover of third party risk.
There are differences - off the top of my head:
RTA only cover provides cover for legal liability for third party injury/death (unlimited); third party property damage (to £1 million); emergrency treatment fees; defence/claimant's costs; and foreign use to comply with the EU directives. All is only given when the incident occurs in a public place.
TPO cover extends this to being operative in any place within territorial limits; the third party property damage limit is usally increased to £20 million; and it provides for passenger indemnity and indemnity to your estate.
RTA only cover is usually only offered to those with a very poor claim or conviction history or where an insurer awaits proof that a vehicle has been satisfactorily repaired after an accident.0 -
I'm afraid John as you continue to totally ignore the point that I have repeatedly made to you, I can do no more.0
-
No, it is not good enough, The certificate does not say it all, it gives a brief outline. As it happens my certificate says exactly the same as yours does, but my certificate does not list all the exclusions that apply....which are as follows:
This cover only applies IF:
# There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim
# The car is being driven in Geat Britain , N.I., Isle of Man, the Chanel Islands and
# You still have the insured car and it has not been damaged beyond economical repair
I suspect that some of the insurers who have the exclusion clause refferred to in this thread would not have that clause on the certificate. It is because of this fact that not all the exclusions are printed on the certificate that the certificate alone is not good enough.
This is true. The full information on DOC cover is included in the policy booklet under the section on third party liability.0 -
All Police want to do is confirm the driver has insurance, not a major crime investigation.
If you show a certificate with the above wording, they can see it is genuine, I'm sure they will be more than happy.
That's probably the reason why the driving other cars clause is on the certificate itself, so that anyone who needs to see it, can see you are insured.
I'm sure Police are fully aware of various circumstances cars are driven & insurance cover applies. The fact a car is not shown as insured does not mean the driver is not insured, which plod will fully understand.
Usually the Police will utilise the MIB's Police Helpline Project, who will liaise with the purported insurer to confirm cover whilst the police are at the roadside. So it is usually very straightforward to confirm cover is in force from the certificate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards