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

MikeHiow said:
That is slightly different, as the law states you may drive a car to a pre-booked MOT. The fact he stopped en-route can be argued to have no additional risk, and is no deviation from what the law allows (It does not state that you may not stop on the way).

With insurance, a car is either insured or it isn't and there are no exceptions here. So when a car that does not have its own policy is driven somewhere under DOC cover and left unattended it is not insured, and thus breaking the law.
Click to expand...

The case was decided as the judge deemed the car wasn't unattended (even the through the driver wasn't in the car), so it was still on the way to the pre-booked MOT.

If the DOC cover doesn't require the car to have it's own policy, then the same case could be used for somebody popping into a corner shop for milk, the car is deemed not to be unattended.
 
ubersonic said:
You do get people abusing it tho (ruining it for those of us who don't :() like that chav who made the papers the other yeah after he bought his 7 year old daughter a skyline "for when she learns to drive" and used it DOC on the policy for his 18 year old Fiesta ^^ (said chav crashed said skyline ofc hence news story)
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding this right, then insuring a cheap-to-insure car and driving someone else's expensive-to-insure car under that clause would mean driving around in an expensive car with third party only cover. The insurance company would only be liable if you hit someone else, not if they hit you, not if the car's stolen etc....
 
Sounds like she has been lucky the police have not charged her for permitting someone to drive her car without insurance. That would also land her with 6points and a fine.:eek:
 
But what's the legality of having said car parked on the road but not insured by the owner? Surely the sister could have been fined if the police had found it there and done a random check on it?

To me that's the part that makes no sense. Otherwise what's to stop people from buying multiple cars and leaving them strewn around in insured?
 
Finglonga said:
Sounds like she has been lucky the police have not charged her for permitting someone to drive her car without insurance. That would also land her with 6points and a fine.:eek:
Click to expand...

Surely she'd have to have known that the car wasn't insured to be liable? The OP telling her his DOC covered the insurance obligations should be sufficient.
 
Interesting just called admiral who I havepolicy with. They say I have doc cover and the other car doesn't have to be insured by someone else.

So my dad could buy a skyline for instance with 12 month not and tax and I drive it 3rd party as a weekend car. True if it got stolen I'd lose out. But given the insurance quotes I was getting for myself this would be ideal and very cheap!
 
Nickg said:
Interesting just called admiral who I havepolicy with. They say I have doc cover and the other car doesn't have to be insured by someone else.

So my dad could buy a skyline for instance with 12 month not and tax and I drive it 3rd party as a weekend car. True if it got stolen I'd lose out. But given the insurance quotes I was getting for myself this would be ideal and very cheap!
Click to expand...

I would double-check that.
I have a policy with Admiral and it quite clearly says in the policy handbook that the other car DOES need to have its own insurance policy in place.

Read Page 13 at the following link:

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116 0610 Policy Booklet.pdf
 
Last edited:
Nickg said:
Why must they lie on the phone. I was on hold for over ten minutes just to ask the question. How dissapointing.
Click to expand...

Maybe they didnt. Usually (i think) Admiral are the insurance broker and the policy will be underwritten by a third party. Me and the gf both have a policy from KwikFit, mine is underwritten by lloyds hers is by Axa (i think?) and we have different terms. They may have different terms as the insurers will have different templates to work from.

/Edit from Admiral website:

Motor insurance policies purchased on this website are underwritten by the insurance carriers listed on your Certificate of Motor Insurance.
 
Joshy said:
Thankfully this is not common knowledge because it is incorrect.

It depends entirely on the wording used in your policy documents.
Click to expand...

It will however become a moot point once it becomes law that a taxed vehicle must always be insured. Whilst it is easy to drive another vehicle uninsured as the small print is easily overlooked, most won't knowingly drive an untaxed vehicle.
 
There are a lot of ****** out there in uninsured cars. When they get caught, the car is taken and scrapped.

Usually another ***** will come along and claim they can drive the car as it is covered by a policy.

To prevent this insurance companies are claming down and changing the rules, shame that someone has fallen victim of this as it seems that all was generally in order.
 
I would take this to court tbh as if you can prove to the judge you was under the genuine misapprehension you was insured then you got a case.

I had a similar problem happen to me. To cut a long story short my policy was canceled without my knowledge. I changed bank accounts and my bank failed to change over my Direct Debit from my old card to my new card. I was not sent letters because my insurance company had taken wrong details. My car was registered at a "20a" but my address was at "28". My correct address being 20a i never got any letters so I thought I was still insured. The court saw this and aquitted me of all charges even though I did plead guilty to driving without insurance which is what you have to do as it is a absolute offence.
 
Nickg said:
But what's the legality of having said car parked on the road but not insured by the owner? Surely the sister could have been fined if the police had found it there and done a random check on it?
Click to expand...

There is talk of a change in the law requiring people to SORN uninsured cars. So I wonder if it's still legal as long as the car isn't being driven.

If it is illegal then the change in the law seems pretty pointless, although it might mean a few more jobs at the Swansea fines office.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jan/12/motorists-register-uninsured-car
 
adam cool dude said:
I was not sent letters because my insurance company had taken wrong details. My car was registered at a "20a" but my address was at "28". My correct address being 20a i never got any letters so I thought I was still insured. The court saw this and aquitted me of all charges even though I did plead guilty to driving without insurance which is what you have to do as it is a absolute offence.
Click to expand...

But this is the reason why you got away with it, as the insurer screwed up you did everything correctly, this is just the same as an insurer taking the reg number down wrong. However this guy just didn't read the T&C's on his documents, he'd not have a case at all, this is why insurers (at least the one i work for does) always state over the phone to "check your documents carefully and ensure that the policy meets your needs".

When i had DOC in the past it clearly stated in the T&C's that the car must be owned by someone else and must be insured elsewhere, the one i have now just states must be owned by someone else, the issue with this is as soon as you get out of the car if it's parked on the road the car becomes uninsured and therefore illegal.
 
Iamzod said:
.... the issue with this is as soon as you get out of the car if it's parked on the road the car becomes uninsured and therefore illegal.
Click to expand...

That's already been corrected further up the thread.

edit to clarify. Getting out of the car for 3-4 minutes to pay for petrol, fags, mil, etc is fine, Getting out of the car for 30 minutes to drink a cup of tea at a friends house isn't.
 
Last edited:
West said:
No you're not.
Click to expand...

Whilst the obvious answer was to move the car himself - lets face it, how hard can it be - if he really was convinced he couldnt move it and it was in the carriageway in a dangerous position at risk of causing an accident, he did the right thing and his call was appropriate - there was risk to life if you have a stationary vehicle sitting in the carriageway on a dual carriageway with no way of moving it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom