Caught for driving with no insurance....check your small print!

Jonny

Jonny

Jonny

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
743
Location
The Sticks
Please read before I get the obligatory replies branding me as the spawn of satan etc :)

I have been borrowing my sisters car for the last week or so due to my own car having a heap of problems of it's own. I have (or at least I was under the impression I had) been driving this under my entitlement to drive other cars third party. The wording on my insurance certificate is along the lines of 'The policy holder may drive other cars not belonging to him/her and not hired to him under a hire purchase agreement' with no further mention of checking my policy docs etc. Because my insurance company is 'green' they don't post me a policy schedule instead they simply email a link to an online PDF file....which upon further reading states the other car must have insurance in it's own right in order for mine third party cover to be valid. I'm sure you can see where this is going...

On my way back to work after lunch today I broke down in lane one of a dual carriageway and I tried to limp it to the parking bay but ended up stopping about fifty yards short. As I was blocking a busy road I phoned 999 and the police came and closed lane one whilst we pushed the car off the road. As a par for the course they ran the usual checks and they speak to my insurance company who advise of this technicality. As a result, despite being very helpful / sincere the police have to carry out their obligations and seize the vehicle and issue me with an fpn for £200 and six points.

Now I know that I am in the wrong here and yes I should have checked the policy document/phoned the insurance company perhaps but obviously we all make mistakes and the police agree that it's pretty harsh that it doesn't mention this requirement on my insurance certificate itself. I'm simply looking for some advice from anyone who may have had experience with this in the past or have any knowledge of previous case law.


I'm not disputing the black and white facts but querying is it worth me taking this to court due to the genuine belief/mitigating circs that I was insured alongside the wording on my certificate and that I called it in myself (i.e. I wouldn't have phoned 999 if I blatently knew I wasn't insured), have previously been of good character (no crim record, no points) or should I simply take the 6 points and £200 fine?

Your thoughts please - thanks in advance
 
All cars driven as third-party under fully comp insurance MUST have insurance of their own, thought this was common knowledge?
 
Agreed this is pretty obvious. Otherwise you could have 5 cars in someone else's name and drive them without anyone insuring them.
 
acemastr said:
All cars driven as third-party under fully comp insurance MUST have insurance of their own, thought this was common knowledge?
Click to expand...

Thankfully this is not common knowledge because it is incorrect.

It depends entirely on the wording used in your policy documents.
 
acemastr said:
All cars driven as third-party under fully comp insurance MUST have insurance of their own, thought this was common knowledge?
Click to expand...

untrue, with Bell the policy just stated must not be owned by you, it didnt need to have insurance on it already, ( it was last year though)

*edit* you got burrnnneedd :P
 
acemastr said:
All cars driven as third-party under fully comp insurance MUST have insurance of their own, thought this was common knowledge?
Click to expand...

Same here, thats always the impression I've had.

Edit: well you learn something new every day
 
Incidentally I drove my sisters car this weekend for the first time and Swift car insurance state that you can drive other vehicles that that vehicle is insured too. I double checked before I drove :)
 
acemastr said:
All cars driven as third-party under fully comp insurance MUST have insurance of their own, thought this was common knowledge?
Click to expand...

Sorry for being thick but are you saying, to drive another persons car, you must have their permission, and they must have fully comp insurance on their car, so you can drive it third party?
 
Vita said:
Sorry for being thick but are you saying, to drive another persons car, you must have their permission, and they must have fully comp insurance on their car, so you can drive it third party?
Click to expand...

No, usually it must have an insurance policy on it, not necessarily FC. It's to prevent people putting the V5 in someone else's name and using the car regularly, essentially as their car.
 
Vita said:
Sorry for being thick but are you saying, to drive another persons car, you must have their permission, and they must have fully comp insurance on their car, so you can drive it third party?
Click to expand...

No, he is saying before you do anything read YOUR policy documents, don't head to the internetz for information which may not be correct and risk getting 6 points/dry humped by the man.
 
[TW]Fox;18222226 said:
WRONG.

It is completely dependant on the policy in question. Some require the car is insured in its own right, others do not.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever though. Surely, you could go out and get one of these policies that allows you to drive any other car that isn't insured, on a cheap to insure car. Then go out buy a different car that you wouldn't have been able to afford to insure and drive that 3rd party... It seems like a gaping loop hole and I'm sure it can't be dependent on policy wording. Surely any car that is driven needs to be covered by its own insurance (outwith trade and what not).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom