Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • john539
    • By john539 27th Mar 08, 10:12 AM
    • 14,798Posts
    • 10,460Thanks
    john539
    Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause"
    • #1
    • 27th Mar 08, 10:12 AM
    Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause" 27th Mar 08 at 10:12 AM
    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 ?

    Anyone know what might happen in this situation.

    Car is no longer insured by the owner.
    I drive the car occasionally under my own insurance on the "can drive other cars not owned by you clause".

    On TV we now constantly see Police stopping cars showing as uninsured & seizing them because they are not down as insured.

    What will happen if I drive this car & Police stop me ?
Page 3
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 6:40 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    I don't think insurers will write under any circumstances additional letters qualifying your policy. They will refer you to your policy.
    Originally posted by john539
    Of course they would.

    My policy is not same as post #21.
    Which was my point - not all policies are the same - plod knows this and will require proof
    Mine says:


    The certificate says it all & is good enough.
    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.

    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.
    • Tucker
    • By Tucker 27th Mar 08, 6:45 PM
    • 1,020 Posts
    • 513 Thanks
    Tucker
    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
    • mistyarthur
    • By mistyarthur 27th Mar 08, 6:58 PM
    • 429 Posts
    • 142 Thanks
    mistyarthur
    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!
    A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it
    • john539
    • By john539 27th Mar 08, 7:04 PM
    • 14,798 Posts
    • 10,460 Thanks
    john539
    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.
    Originally posted by Wig
    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.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 7:14 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    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
    Originally posted by Tucker
    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.
    Last edited by Wig; 08-02-2009 at 11:32 AM.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 7:26 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    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.
    Originally posted by john539
    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.
    Last edited by Wig; 08-02-2009 at 11:35 AM.
    • john539
    • By john539 27th Mar 08, 8:05 PM
    • 14,798 Posts
    • 10,460 Thanks
    john539
    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).
    Originally posted by Wig
    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.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 27th Mar 08, 8:30 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz

    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.
    Originally posted by Wig
    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.
    Last edited by raskazz; 27-03-2008 at 8:36 PM.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 8:32 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    I'm afraid John as you continue to totally ignore the point that I have repeatedly made to you, I can do no more.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 27th Mar 08, 8:32 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    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.
    Originally posted by Wig
    This is true. The full information on DOC cover is included in the policy booklet under the section on third party liability.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 27th Mar 08, 8:34 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    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.
    Originally posted by john539
    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.
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 8:35 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    There are differences - off the top of my head:

    RTA 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 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.
    Originally posted by raskazz
    Then perhaps you can answer why in the case I highlighted above, that Admiral tried to argue that as it took place on private property they were not liable, and it was only because the car park was deemed to be "public road" that Admiral was found to be liable?
    • MarkyMarkD
    • By MarkyMarkD 27th Mar 08, 8:43 PM
    • 9,795 Posts
    • 4,216 Thanks
    MarkyMarkD
    I think, Wig, that the reason John is not listening to what you are saying is that you aren't making a very convincing case.

    The entire point of a legally-required certificate of insurance is that it's all that is required to show that you are insured, under UK law.

    The only exception you've highlighted in your own policy which is relevant is the one which requires your existing vehicle to still be roadworthy (or words to that effect).

    I don't believe, for a second, that your insurer would refuse to meet a third party claim because of the exception that you refer to. I believe that they would meet the claim - as the certificate of insurance requires them to do - and then claim the expense back from you. Insurance policies include terms to enable insurers to recover costs from the insured under such circumstances.
    • Tucker
    • By Tucker 27th Mar 08, 8:43 PM
    • 1,020 Posts
    • 513 Thanks
    Tucker
    You would probably struggle to find a current day insurer that offered RTA only cover as most do a minimum of TPO, but many Driving other car extensions are RTA.

    I can't say I know the definition of a public road and what constitutes private land, but if driving on your DOC part, you could find yourself in a difficult legal position should you have an accident on private property.

    But that's not the only difference between RTA and TPO, there are others as the link shows with regard to passenger liability and the like.

    I was sad enough to have studied the exact details when I was doing a Chartered Institute of Insurance qualification along with other useless facts about marine policies and things that I have thankfully forgotten..
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 27th Mar 08, 8:50 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    Then perhaps you can answer why in the case I highlighted above, that Admiral tried to argue that as it took place on private property they were not liable, and it was only because the car park was deemed to be "public road" that Admiral was found to be liable?
    Originally posted by Wig
    I haven't read the case but I suspect that the situation was something like this:

    The incident occurred but on investigation the insurer found out that there was some breach of policy conditions.

    Therefore they could then exclude all but RTA liability as a matter of course (as RTA liability cannot be avoided for certain stipulated breaches, even if the policy is void). Then in an attempt to avoid RTA liability as well, they argued that as the incident happened outside a public place, there was in fact no RTA liability either.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 27th Mar 08, 8:53 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    I was sad enough to have studied the exact details when I was doing a Chartered Institute of Insurance qualification along with other useless facts about marine policies and things that I have thankfully forgotten..
    Originally posted by Tucker
    I know the feeling - something like implied warranties are only found in marine policies, and concern the seaworthiness of the vessel? Zzzzzzzz
    • Wig
    • By Wig 27th Mar 08, 9:31 PM
    • 13,643 Posts
    • 7,362 Thanks
    Wig
    I haven't read the case but I suspect that the situation was something like this:

    The incident occurred but on investigation the insurer found out that there was some breach of policy conditions.

    Therefore they could then exclude all but RTA liability as a matter of course (as RTA liability cannot be avoided for certain stipulated breaches, even if the policy is void). Then in an attempt to avoid RTA liability as well, they argued that as the incident happened outside a public place, there was in fact no RTA liability either.
    Originally posted by raskazz
    A good answer.

    I have just read a policy booklet and have found no exclusions to private property, therefore I can only agree that TPO cover does extend to private property.

    The long and short of it is that I now agree with Tucker, that insurers give cover for private property for their policy holders and named drivers, and this cover is sometimes removed on the "driving other cars" section.


    Here is a link to the case
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd981022/clarke01.htm
    And this confirms that it was as you suggested, and I was wrong, it was his friend driving. His friend though was not insured, so General Accident, tried to avoid their statutory duty to compensate by arguing that it was not a "road". So you were right.
    Last edited by Wig; 08-02-2009 at 11:45 AM.
    • Tucker
    • By Tucker 27th Mar 08, 9:36 PM
    • 1,020 Posts
    • 513 Thanks
    Tucker
    Nice one. Sorted............

    I've found bits of info that were still embedded in my head today, that I didn't know where still there!!!
    • vaio
    • By vaio 27th Mar 08, 9:49 PM
    • 11,895 Posts
    • 8,840 Thanks
    vaio
    "The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a car not
    owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire
    purchase or annual leasing agreement and is not used in connection with
    the motor trade. This is provided the owner of the car has valid insurance
    in force on that car but which does not cover the policyholder of this Policy
    to drive that car."

    The above taken directly from my own Certificate of Insurance. This clause might be different with other insurers but I've never known that to be the case. Hopefully answers the question fully?
    Originally posted by oldagetraveller
    Just looked at mine and the wording is identical EXCEPT that mine doesn’t have the last sentence. The debate rumbles on and on and on
    Last edited by vaio; 27-03-2008 at 10:34 PM.
    • vaio
    • By vaio 27th Mar 08, 10:21 PM
    • 11,895 Posts
    • 8,840 Thanks
    vaio
    …….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……...
    Originally posted by Wig
    Makes you wonder what is the point of a certificate of insurance.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,408Posts Today

8,503Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Pownerpuff: @MartinSLewis thanks to your guidance, my monthly outgoings (bills) are £400 cheaper PER MONTH than they were 2 years ago!!?

  • The programme is primarily aimed at parents not kids. But I think mid teens upwards is likely fine https://t.co/SIJczfKJW8

  • Even if u don't have kids, Id love u to watch my 10 things ur kids need to know doco tonight ITV 9pm. It mixes mone? https://t.co/YIqNbllX8h

  • Follow Martin