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

Nick1881 said:
Wait, you called 999 because your car broke down? Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?
Click to expand...

He's blocking a lane on a dual carriageway, he would have been wrong not too call them.

And I think it's a bit nieve on your part, although I think a lot of people would have done it without checking, I bet there is plenty of people out there doing it without realising.
 
[TW]Fox;18222323 said:
It isn't a gaping loop hole at all because you can only drive cars you DONT OWN under the drive other car extension. Whether these other cars are insured in their own right or not is entirely down to each individual insurer.

If you bought a Ferrari and a Panda and insured the Panda you couldnt drive the Ferrari because it belongs to you.
Click to expand...

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)
 
I think the important lesson here to EVERYONE is to check the exact wording of your own insurance policy.

Some require the 3rd party car to be insured itself, some don't.

There's an alarming number of people who do not know what their own policy states, and, if you do not check, you could end up in the unfortunate position the OP has found himself in.

OP - it sounds like you've made a genuine mistake, however, I don't think you'd get anywhere by pursuing it any further, probably best to pay what they're asking, and not worry too much about it.
 
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...

NOT TRUE

That ENTIRELY depends on the company and policy, some do not specify that clause


This topic has been discussed to death on PH over the years, and plenty of people there have policies that do not have that clause written in it
 
MikeHiow said:
Of course, besides the issue of you owning the car, if the car in question is not insured its self then you cannot leave it unattended on the road (or anywhere with public access that is covered under the RTA), as your insurance will usually only cover you whilst you are with the vehicle. So you could drive your car around, but could only park it on your driveway.

This is, at least how my policy worked with Quinn many years ago.
Click to expand...

Not so, there's been a case where a judge decided that leaving the car for a short period of the journey was ok.

The case in question was a guy on the way to a prebooked mot (with no mot in force) and stopping off for a packet of fags at a corner shop. Car was spotted and paperwork issued for the offence (it was parked at the side of the road with no mot after all), but the judge deemed a few minutes wasn't enough for him not to still be in control of the car.

Obviously that's mot not insurance, but the case law is there.
 
Nick1881 said:
Wait, you called 999 because your car broke down? Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?
Click to expand...

Car broken down on a busy road and causing a traffic snarl up. No problem calling 999 for that.

The golden rule of insurance is are you insured to drive that particular car at that particular time and in the absence of insurance on your sister's part and a check on your policy revealed you weren't.

It is one of those scenarios where the cops have no discretion.
 
Must admit up until a few years ago i thought that the other car needed insurance, but watching one of those TV cop shows they pointed out you needed to check the small print of your own policy to determine whether or not the insurance on the other car was required for DoC
 
SB118 said:
Not so, there's been a case where a judge decided that leaving the car for a short period of the journey was ok.

The case in question was a guy on the way to a prebooked mot (with no mot in force) and stopping off for a packet of fags at a corner shop. Car was spotted and paperwork issued for the offence (it was parked at the side of the road with no mot after all), but the judge deemed a few minutes wasn't enough for him not to still be in control of the car.

Obviously that's mot not insurance, but the case law is there.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What would have happened if he was insured to drive the car on his DOC policy without the need for insurance from the registered keeper/owner and while out of the car waiting for recovery it was hit by a 3rd party?
 
If you are with the car, I'd guess insurance would be valid as the car is "attended". The issue comes when you leave the car.

But your example just goes to show what a grey area it can be, and not really worth the risk IMO.
 
MikeHiow said:
If you are with the car, I'd guess insurance would be valid as the car is "attended". The issue comes when you leave the car.

But your example just goes to show what a grey area it can be, and not really worth the risk IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats what I'm thinking. If you were doing the right thing and stood safely at the side of the road then the car isn't attended I'd guess!
Crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom