Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cousin

For help finding/discussion about good insurance rates.

Moderators: theelanman, Sy V, Elanlover, muley, Enright, GeoffSmith, algirdas, nitroman, clemo, dapinky, Dave Eds, Specky, Nige, DaveT

Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cousin

Postby GeoffSmith » Sat 14.06.2014, 22:42

Long story but..... I normally arrange for one day cover when I'm testing/buying a car, but because it was all a bit hectic, today I didn't. So we went up to Croydon to pick up a car that Peter bought on eBay. :evil:

Now, my understanding was that my comprehensive policy allows me to drive another car as long as it is not mine or Sarah's (I've checked and I am over 25 so it is still on my policy) with third party cover. The seller however claims that the law has changed and that the car also needs insurance and that a friend of his was done for it. He was decent enough to say he'd keep the insurance going for a few days but this is all news to me. Mind you, he also claimed that my green paper driving license needs replacing but the only reason for doing that is if I move (unlikely) or if I want my ugly mug on it (very unlikely) or if I wish to donate to Her Majesty's coffers every 10 years for a new one (even less likely).

Anyone more knowledgeable in these matters care to elaborate - no names, no pink drill. :wink:
Calypso Red S2 #417

USB ElanScan interfaces @ £50 incl. P&P UK
http://ElanScanInterfaces.onmypc.net
User avatar
GeoffSmith
Kitty Fiddler
 
Posts: 13755
Joined: Fri 03.02.2006, 21:57
Location: S2#417 in Tytherington, Gloucestershire

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby niall » Sat 14.06.2014, 22:53

I have noticed that my insurance policy only provides third party cover for driving other cars
if they are insured. This may be a common condition these days.
I thought, like you, that a new driving licence was only required if you move.
niall
Fanatic
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue 26.08.2003, 22:16
Location: Malvern

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby theelanman » Sat 14.06.2014, 23:15

Mine also states 3rd party cover on any other vehicle with permission of the owner
I’m normally not a praying man, but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
User avatar
theelanman
Moderator
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Fri 30.04.2004, 15:52
Location: peak district

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby theelanman » Sat 14.06.2014, 23:17

Ré reading o suppose it assumes that the owner has their own insurance......
I’m normally not a praying man, but if you’re up there, please save me, Superman.
User avatar
theelanman
Moderator
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Fri 30.04.2004, 15:52
Location: peak district

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby RayD » Sun 15.06.2014, 07:44

I'm not sure about the law changing Geoff, it was always my understanding a the car needed to be insured by the owner before a non-owner could drive it on third party.

Sometimes the transfer of ownership has been delayed a few hours to allow time to get home.

Ray
User avatar
RayD
Forum Member
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon 20.03.2006, 19:45
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby Andy_J » Sun 15.06.2014, 09:10

:agree: I am sure we will have Dapinky along to confirm the law.

When I check you can only drive a car 3rd party on your own insurance if that car is insured in it's own right and your insurance allows you to drive a car 3rd party.

You don't have to change your licence for a photo card, but if you do ever need to make a change to it then you will be required to 'upgrade' to a photo card licence
90H BRG SE 48,000 Miles
90H Red SE 161,000 Miles - Breaking
56 Range Rover TDV8 Vogue SE Black 83,000 Miles
Andy_J
Fanatic
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 22.04.2003, 17:17
Location: Inverness,

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby epipete » Sun 15.06.2014, 10:21

I think the Insurance 'game' is a complete scam and this is another merely another example to sit along side the 'no claims bonus' exemption on 2nd cars.

Come the revolution 'Insurers' alongside 'Bankers', 'Payday loan sharks' and several other social miscreants will be foremost against the wall.
:smt068 :smt068 :smt068
You know more than you think you know, just as you know less than you want to know. ... Oscar Wilde
User avatar
epipete
God
 
Posts: 2345
Joined: Wed 17.08.2011, 11:03
Location: Episkopi, Cyprus

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby dapinky » Sun 15.06.2014, 13:31

Okay, lets start with the easy one first (and I thing Geoff knows what my opinion already is) - The bloke in Croydon is a bit of a twunt. (not just because of these questions, but it's a longer story)....

.... Driving Licence - if you are mature enough to still have a 'paper' licence (issued before 1st Jan 1999 - when we could make our own laws, NOT have to comply with EU Bureaucracy), and it still bears your current address, then it will remain valid until it's expiry date (70th birthday), or unless you get disqualified in a British court, or you chose to update it to a photocard.

Obviously, if you move house, lose it, dog eats it etc, you will HAVE to get the 'new' style - but in the meantime, it remains a valid document (and I'm keeping mine!)

Insurance - This is one of those subjects where the goal posts keep changing due to "interpretation" (usually by the insurance companies) - but the actual English Law remains as it always was...

Section 143, Road Traffic Act 1988:-

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

Now, to go much further means a bit of a boring legal history lesson with definitions, so feel free to skip this bit if you want

The Road Traffic Act written in 1988 was basically just a re-write and updating of the Road Traffic Act 1972 - no major upsets/changes were necessary.

In 1972 Insurance was already a requirement for drivers, so the legal wording remained 'as was' (Insurance became necessary in 1930) - so therefore, the wording in Law hasn't changed since before 1972..... I don't know if the wording was still as per 1930, or if it got changed along the way, and I have no reference other than t'interweb to find out, so it may be no more accurate than you can find yourself!!!! - but when I started work, the 1972 Act was the 'current legislation', and the explanations are as given to me.

The law ONLY refers to Third Party Risks - this is the bare minimum insurance cover, and only provides for bodily injury to persons other than the driver of the vehicle.

ie, if you crash and lose an arm, you get nowt - but if you hit another car and the driver of it breaks a fingernail, you have to give them money. It will cover passengers in your vehicle, but no amount of damage to property - so don't hit a Bentley when you're driving other peoples' cars on your own insurance - it'll cost YOU a lot of money!!!!

No-one in the UK will sell just a Third Party Risks insurance policy - you get either Thrd Party, Third Party, Fire and Theft, or Comprehensive. TP, TPF&T, and C all cover damage to other peoples property, whilst TPF&T and C also cover the extra 'losses' for property, and C covers YOU as the driver.

BUT - it is the minimum TPR which is covered if you drive another vehicle on you own insurance policy (subject to you having that endorsement on your own policy)....

...so (as in this case) you are covered for the legal side of it, but for no more than the bare minimum - all other considerations are at your own risk.

And, to be honest, even if you don't have it specifically on your policy, you will still be covered, as the Insurance companies HAVE to provide the cover, but they will then claim any money back from you in a Civil Court - all designed to protect the inocent victim of any incident.

However, the legislation was amended in 2011 under what is known as the 'Continuous Vehicle Insurance' scheme - you know the one, where every car now has to be either insured, or declared SORN.

So, in Geoff’s case (or Peters!), I am assuming that the owner had no insurance for the VW Golf (transferred to his new car?), so in order for him to comply with the law, the car should be declared SORN....

....a quick check on the DVLA website at https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ - (free to anyone who wants to use it!) shows:-
golf sorn.png


If the owner had declared it as SORN, then it would say so in the red circled area.... it doesn't!

So, he hasn't complied with his requirements :twisted:

Obviously, Geoff had consulted the above website before making a long journey to see the car (and I know that's true, 'cos i did it for him whilst we were on the phone), and was therefore under the impression that the car HAD got insurance in its own right, and that therefore his own policy was sufficient to allow him a 'test drive' (subject to accepting the obvious risks of the minimum insurance cover).....

.... anyway, back to the theoretical bit.....

.... Geoff’s insurance WOULD cover him to 'use' the vehicle (as a driver or passenger) for TPR.

As the vehicle does not have it's own insurance, the issue would be "what happens if i'm not actually USING it".... ie, if you park it up to go for a comfort break at the services on the way home - at that point it is an uninsured vehicle, and Peter would be liable!

During a 'test drive' the owner would (quite reasonably) say you are using it, and wouldn't expect you to stop off at Tescos (other retailers are also available :D ) and leave it unattended, so no great worry on that one.... all is good!

So, basically, the man is (as I said to start with) a Twunt - he has failed to comply with his own requirements, and either doesn't understand what the 'requirements' actually are, or is deliberately choosing to ignore them - he is either Malicious or Negligent in his intent - and liable either way... he is then trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies.

Bottom line is:-

Seller was (is?) wrong, Geoff is right, the use of the vehicle by Geoff as the driver is (was) legal - all rights transfer once the car is sold.

As a bit of free advice to everyone out there, please consider a few things when/if you ever buy/sell ANY vehicle, and my own way of doing things is listed here......

As a seller (Owner is NOT the same as Registered Keeper)
1 - make sure the car is either insured or declared SORN (can be done instantly online at the above linked website).
2 - Same for VEL (but is due to change in October 2014).#
3 - If you take the prospective buyer for a drive, make sure you are insured.
4 - if he is driving, make sure HE is insured - all policies require the driver to 'Hold, or have held, a valid licence and not be disqualified from driving' a vehicle of that class.
5 - non UK driving licences MAY be valid, or MAY NOT - depending on length of stay in the UK - another subject, but worth bearing in mind!
6 - if he is insured TPR only, have an agreement (signed, on paper!) as to who is responsible for what - I use a 'standardised' letter which I keep on the computer and print-out as required - consider taking a cash deposit!
7 - You may have seen adverts from sellers who demand full payment for a car before a test drive and thought "That aint reasonable!" - YES IT IS.
8 - if you accompany the tester on the test drive, YOU are still 'Using' the car in law, and may be liable if he turns out to be uninsured. Even if you don't go along with him, you are still 'Permitting' him to drive, so will be liable if you can't show that you've made the right checks!
9 - don't take anyone’s word for it that they are insured - ask to see the paperwork (Insurance AND Licence) - it isn't unreasonable - it's the only way to protect yourself - grab a copy of them if you can.
10 - how would you feel if someone came to Test Drive your elan (or even your old shed of a Vectra!) and crashed it on the test drive then went home..... You'd be a bit upset, but if you haven't done the checks, and got the money and/or deposit and/or written agreement you could be in a whole heap of Financial and Legal trouble.
11 - it is NOT unreasonable to refuse to allow someone a Test Drive if they can't produce the documents - but maybe consider the next point before losing the sale....
12 - I have regularly made an agreement with the 'buyer' (on a receipted invoice) to transfer liability. This CANNOT be done if you are still the owner, but only once the car is sold..... As such, if they are serious about the car, and still want to drive it (as most would!) then they will probably have brought the right paperwork with them - but if not, then to cover yourself, they need to OWN the car, so make them out a receipt for the sale of it, sign, date AND time it!!!! They are then the legal owner, and the pressure is off you. Many people don't like to play this game, but once the necessity is explained, they will comply if they are reasonable. They don't even have to pay you in full - a small deposit, or even a written agreement to pay in the future is enough - with an obvious 'buy-back' clause to cover them in the event of a bad experience during the test drive (even though they will be covered under the Consumer Credit Act and the Road Traffic Act for all conceivable eventualities, it doesn't hurt to have them written into the receipt!).
At this point, DO NOT give them the Registration Document, MOT (even though the paper bit is worthless these days!) or Service History of the car, and even consider putting a time limit on it, something like "This transfer of ownership will be revoked/rescinded at 1630 hours on Sunday 15th June 2014 unless full payment is made prior to that time".
13 - the double-edged sword to the above paragraph is for the 'buyer' to consider, really, but it doesn't hurt to mention it here - if his insurance covers him to drive other vehicles, it will probably say "Not owned by yourself, or Hired under a Hire Purchase agreement" - as such, if he is now the owner, he may not be insured to drive it for the test drive :cry: :cry: - Not totally YOUR problem, but morally wrong, and if he is a clever Civil Littigator, he'll get out of it! - Many Insurance Policies use the term Registered Keeper instead of Owner, - but check what YOURS says!
(Obviously, the way round it is to do what Geoff had done - the owner becomes Peter, so Geoff can still drive the car 'owned' by someone else).
14 - assuming everything goes well and the guy buys the car, give him a full receipt AND KEEP A COPY. Include payment details, personal details and TIME of sale. Now he can have the V5c, MOT etc - but keep the bits yourself which you need to send to Swansea - NEVER allow the new owner to "Do you a favour" and offer to send it for you - he may not do so, and YOU will be liable - the Law is clear - it is YOUR responsibility to send it, NOT to give it to the new owner - just think how happy he'll be driving his new purchase at 60mph through all those speed cameras on the way home, knowing that YOU will be liable!!! - On the V5 (which you both sign), put the TIME as well as the date (so he will be liable for the speeding tickets!) - and by all means give him a photocopy of it.

Okay then, as a buyer:-
1 - Speak to the seller before you go to see the car to see what his views are on a Test Drive (if he says, "You aint driving my motor, I'll take you round the block" - consider making an offer as paras 7 & 12 above - if he's a sensible seller, he'll understand and accept these things, if he doesn't then he may be another Twunt who's trying to have you over!)
2 - take your proof of insurance and Driving Licence with you (you'll already have checked what the Tax, SORN & MOT status is!)
3 - be prepared to offer a cash deposit (if they ask for it).


For both buyer and seller - don't be pressurised by the other party, and don't accept what you're told without documentary proof - keep yourself covered :D

Obviously, the rules are slightly different if you're buying from or selling to a Trader - their insurance cover will be different (probably Comprehensive for use in connection with the business) so it is a lot easier.

Alternatively, there is nothing to stop anyone setting up as a 'Trader' and getting a similar Trade Policy for themselves - the rules keep changing, but the easiest way into the business is to have your wife own a car valletting business, and you (and your kids over the age of 21) as employees. (Obviously, there will be Company registration, Taxation, National Insurance issues to consider as well, and it can be a bit of a minefield!

As such, I have all of 'my' cars covered under seperate policies, but still have a Trade Certificate for if I want/need to drive anyone elses vehicle, or if anyone else wants to drive mine.(In accordance with my Business).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Dave

Just the one now, but this one's mine! - and it will be finished eventually.....

go on - click this link - you know you want to!
User avatar
dapinky
Moderator
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun 15.10.2006, 12:54
Location: As far west as you can get in West Wales before you become Irish (Pembroke Dock).

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby epipete » Sun 15.06.2014, 18:05

That's interesting, not steeling Geoff's thread but can you fathom this for me? My nephew (24yrs & 11mths with a full clean licence for 5yrs) has been declined insurance on his fathers Nisson Qashqui which, of course, they are entitled to do. (They will offer cover next month when he turns 25)

Now he could go to his own insurers and request they cover him on his dads vehicle for a short period but given your explanation above how is he fixed if he just uses his current policy.

If I've missed something obvious then give me a metaphorical kick but otherwise.... ?
You know more than you think you know, just as you know less than you want to know. ... Oscar Wilde
User avatar
epipete
God
 
Posts: 2345
Joined: Wed 17.08.2011, 11:03
Location: Episkopi, Cyprus

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby dapinky » Sun 15.06.2014, 18:17

Pete,

It all depends on his current insurance policy, and the 'risk' that he (and his dad) are prepared to take.....

...many policies only allow the 'driving other cars' endorsement upon reaching a certain age usually either 21 or 25 - so he may or may not have the entitlement....

....if he HAS got it, then he is covered for the legal minimum, but if he were to be involved in a collision (fault or otherwise), then they will not pay out for injury to him, or damage to any property - so it can get expensive.

Personally, for the sake of a month, I'd suggest waiting!
Dave

Just the one now, but this one's mine! - and it will be finished eventually.....

go on - click this link - you know you want to!
User avatar
dapinky
Moderator
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun 15.10.2006, 12:54
Location: As far west as you can get in West Wales before you become Irish (Pembroke Dock).

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby GeoffSmith » Sun 15.06.2014, 18:26

epipete wrote:That's interesting, not steeling Geoff's thread...


Feel free.... I'll just steal it back and take it tangentially (but at least I can update the title to reflect it! :lol:

Right. New car requires a cam belt change which Peter wants to do himself after his last A level exam on Tuesday so may get it done before the end of the month at which time his Polo will be scrapped or sold to a friend to drive around a field. So, he could SORN it (by post as a new RK can't do it online), get a refund for July-September (minus DVLA fee no doubt) but then have to re-apply for when it's fixed: if it's before the end of the month then he'll have to get a new license from the beginning of June, otherwise it will be from July which he already had before it was SORNED. He can't swap the insurance from the Polo as he still needs to get to work so he could get additional temporary insurance for a car that's sat in a private garage with its engine in bits. FFS are this country's leaders incapable of solving the real problems rather than fücking up everyone elses lives. :evil:

epipete wrote:Come the revolution 'Insurers' alongside 'Bankers', 'Payday loan sharks' and several other social miscreants will be foremost against the wall.
:smt068 :smt068 :smt068


Sign me up!
Calypso Red S2 #417

USB ElanScan interfaces @ £50 incl. P&P UK
http://ElanScanInterfaces.onmypc.net
User avatar
GeoffSmith
Kitty Fiddler
 
Posts: 13755
Joined: Fri 03.02.2006, 21:57
Location: S2#417 in Tytherington, Gloucestershire

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby RayD » Sun 15.06.2014, 18:45

Also Pete ...

To get your nephew driving the Qashqui only involves his Dad's insurance ... whether or not he is allowed to drive other vehicles on his own insurance is quite separate.

The thing to consider is the time between now and the renewal date ... generally it might cost £40 a year to add his son when the renewal is due, but it may cost proportionally, or even actually, more to do it in mid term.

And Dave ... thanks for the extra info on third party insurance etc ... I thought if someone was using third party insurance and damaged someone else's Bentley it would be covered? or have I mis-understood you?

Ray
User avatar
RayD
Forum Member
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon 20.03.2006, 19:45
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby epipete » Sun 15.06.2014, 19:49

Thanks guys, the heist is over now!
You know more than you think you know, just as you know less than you want to know. ... Oscar Wilde
User avatar
epipete
God
 
Posts: 2345
Joined: Wed 17.08.2011, 11:03
Location: Episkopi, Cyprus

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby dapinky » Sun 15.06.2014, 21:12

RayD wrote:And Dave ... thanks for the extra info on third party insurance etc ... I thought if someone was using third party insurance and damaged someone else's Bentley it would be covered? or have I mis-understood you?

Ray


Ray, the difference is in the single word "Risks".....

....True Third Party insurance WOULD cover damage, but Third Party Risks only covers personal injury - it's all down to the exact wording on the individual policy (this is/was a common missconception which I've had to explain to many people, unfortunately it was usually too late to help them as the incident had already occurred).

It's all down to the Government ensuring that Insurance companies comply with the minimum legal requirements, and the Insurance companies giving away as little as possible.

...still, as Pete says, come the revolution........
Dave

Just the one now, but this one's mine! - and it will be finished eventually.....

go on - click this link - you know you want to!
User avatar
dapinky
Moderator
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun 15.10.2006, 12:54
Location: As far west as you can get in West Wales before you become Irish (Pembroke Dock).

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby Simon_P » Sun 15.06.2014, 23:13

Cor that was a big one Dave!

Some interesting stuff which I hadn't considered.

A couple o things though
1. I doubt that you could make your sale document stick, It would be easy to argue that the sale never actually existed.
The road traffic act is explicit: "a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle..." and explicitly accepts as a defence "that the vehicle did not belong to him" so it strikes me as a very bad idea to write such a letter.

In simple terms the car must be insured in its own right and the driver must be insured to drive it. The owner of the vehicle is responsible for the former and the driver the latter. If we all behave as reasonable people that is what happens.

2. There are:
a. the Minimum requirement under the Road Traffic Act
b. Third party only insurance - Which covers damage to other peoples person and property - but not your own (or the vehicle you are driving) Difficult to buy as a stand alone policy, but what you get as insured to drive other vehicles
c. Third party Fire and theft - as above but your own vehicle is covered in the event of fire or theft (but still not in a collision)
d. Comprehensive

I think you may be confusing the minimum requirement under the Road Traffic Act with Third Party insurance. You could under the law provide a "Security" and "an undertaking to make-good" , rather than an "Insurance". The insurance must cover damage to 3rd party person and property.

I'm not a Lawyer!
Please read your insurance policy!
Simon_P
God
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri 06.08.2004, 12:33
Location: St Albans UK

Re: Driving another car third party

Postby Simon_P » Sun 15.06.2014, 23:42

epipete wrote:Now he could go to his own insurers and request they cover him on his dads vehicle for a short period but given your explanation above how is he fixed if he just uses his current policy.

If I've missed something obvious then give me a metaphorical kick but otherwise.... ?


First question on a proposal is : Is the Vehicle owned by you......
Second question is : Are you the registered keeper......
It's his Dad's car so I'm guessing that is a NO!

If the vehicle is owned and insured by his Dad, and his insurance covers 3rd party with the owners permission - There shouldn't be a problem, but they should both phone their respective insurers to check.

Geoff,
No the law hasn't changed, you have always had to have insurance for a vehicle to Tax it and to use it on a public highway and that is a separate requirement from the insurance for the driver who drives it - What has changed is that big brother will now fine you if you don't.

Regarding the Tax/Insurance the easiest way is to ask his current insurer to cover it as a temporary additional vehicle but that is probably more expensive than reclaiming the tax - Provided you don't use it, the computer won't even know who you are until you have the V5. Besides it is Taxed even if it is not insured, you are not using it on the road....That is most of the offences covered, leaving continuous insurance and according to the MIB (you couldn't make it up!) they will send you a letter requesting that you comply before you get a fine. If it were me I would ignore it for a couple of weeks and get the cambelt done PDQ, it is pretty low risk, they sent me a letter for not insuring a laid-up car after about 3 months.

Apathy is far better for the blood pressure than revolution - The wheels of government aren't that quick!
Simon_P
God
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri 06.08.2004, 12:33
Location: St Albans UK

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby dapinky » Mon 16.06.2014, 10:01

Simon,

I hear what you say about 'proving' that a sale has taken place, but the intention of such a letter is to show that you have done everything REASONABLE to comply with the law....

...it is very much a 'last resort', and (as you say) if you are dealing with reasonable people, unlikely to ever be an issue - the thing to bear in mind is that the burden of proof is the 'lower standard' as per Civil law"On the balance of probabilities' (more likely than not), and NOT the higher standard for a Criminal conviction ('Beyond reasonable doubt).

It is no different than any other receipt for a sale, and should hold good.

There is a LOT of confusion on Third Party insurance, and if your policy DOES cover proper Third Party (as opposed to the minimum Third Party Risks), then you are probably in the minority as most insurance companies changed their wording a number of years ago to save money.

As you say - CHECK YOUR POLICY.

Bottom line - there are different considerations for an owner and a driver - you need to know that you are covered (legally), and that any damage will be sorted by the person at fault (or their insurance company).

If it were really simple, then I'd only need one insurance policy - but as I stated, I keep each car seperately covered anyway, and still have a Trade policy to cover anything else which may be encountered under as many circumstances as I can foresee.

The issue of having a "security" seems a simple way round it - but it isn't quite that simple - Firstly, it can't be done quickly, you need to prove that you are a 'Person of financial and moral standing' - once that has been agreed, you have to deposit a large sum of cash with the High Court, along with a promise to make good 'any and all liabilities'.

Back in 1982 it was a simple case of giving the court a cheque for £15,000, which they cashed and then you were allowed to do what you wanted - nowadays it is far harder to set up (and more expensive!) - I suspect that the only people currently having such a sytem are the likes of the Royal Family - even big corporations dont tend to bother.

A&S Constabulary used to play that game, but it became cheaper to have insurance after about 1990......

....so, yes, it's a 'legal possibility', but I didn't mention it because of the impracticalities for most of us.
Dave

Just the one now, but this one's mine! - and it will be finished eventually.....

go on - click this link - you know you want to!
User avatar
dapinky
Moderator
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun 15.10.2006, 12:54
Location: As far west as you can get in West Wales before you become Irish (Pembroke Dock).

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby Simon_P » Mon 16.06.2014, 12:11

Dave,

As I mentioned I am no Lawyer!

dapinky wrote:It is no different than any other receipt for a sale, and should hold good.

No, no different - I think it is down to intent - The sale didn't actually happen, you do not actually own the vehicle, and the receipt isn't worth the paper it is written on. Besides which you are as you point out then technically not insured to drive it and specifically responsible for having an insurance policy that covers it.

I believe the Road traffic act specifically requires Insurance to cover Third party liability for "People, Property, and Animals. So I don't think an insurance company can offer you anything that doesn't.

I only mentioned the security aspect as it is the only way you can drive without having Third party insurance, and what I believe is considered the minimum under the Road Traffic Act. It was the means that the uninsurable could drive - They put the security up to half a million quid which seems to discourage most people.

I like the idea of a trade policy, but surely that would preclude me from getting normal insurance when I have to answer the "are you a member of the Motor trade" question.
Simon_P
God
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri 06.08.2004, 12:33
Location: St Albans UK

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby dapinky » Mon 16.06.2014, 12:56

Simon,

Basically, I think we are in agreement on all points, but my lengthy explanation got in the way of the purely intended information :oops:

The RTA 1988 (Sec 143) specifically states "Third Party Risks", not "Third Party".... but then it gets very complex.....

...there is no definition of the difference(s) in the 1988 Act, but S145(3) DOES state :-
(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, the policy—

(a)must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] in Great Britain, and

[F2(aa)must, in the case of a vehicle normally based in the territory of another member State, insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain if,—

(i)according to the law of that territory, he or they would be required to be insured in respect of a civil liability which would arise under that law as a result of that event if the place where the vehicle was used when the event occurred were in that territory, and

(ii)the cover required by that law would be higher than that required by paragraph (a) above, and]

(b)must [F3 in the case of a vehicle normally based in Great Britain] insure him or them in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the use of the vehicle and of any trailer, whether or not coupled, in the territory other than Great Britain and Gibraltar of each of the member States of the Communities according to

[F4(i)the law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles of the State in whose territory the event giving rise to the liability occurred; or

(ii)if it would give higher cover, the law which would be applicable under this Part of this Act if the place where the vehicle was used when that event occurred were in Great Britain; and]

(c)must also insure him or them in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them under the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to payment for emergency treatment.


However - there is Case Law from 1947 which sites "Public Policy" which gives different definition of liability - and it has never (yet) been overturned......

...it's a real buggers muddle (as is most English Law) - but it all helps the poor lawyers to earn a crust, I suppose.

No doubt, the insurance companies will do everything possible to avoid paying out, and I suppose that if you merely get pulled in by the Police on the way home, they may agree that you were covered, but if you try to claim, they'll fight tooth and nail.

On the principle of Trade insurance, then, yes, you would have to declare it on your own car policy (and if you rarely drive other vehicles, wouldn't be worthwhile).

However, gone are the days when you needed to 'prove' that you were a Trader (selling more than 6 vehicles in a financial year) in order to get a policy... there are lots of different types.
The easiest to get is if you (or a 'friend') set up as a vehicle valleter, and anyone 'employed' can use the insurance in the course of their business - but as stated, you do actually need to be 'employed' and pay relevant tax/NI etc.... hence, if your wife owns the business, then you still have to declare it on your own insurance as 'being in the motor trade'. I have never had a premium loaded because I tell the truth - like most vehicle Modifications, if you tell them, they're happy - it's only if you hide stuff they get upset.
As long as i tell them I'm 'in the trade' it just pulls up a flag to check that I have a seperate Trade policy.... if you think about it, it's in their interest to insure you, because if they didn't, you'd be covered anyway - and this way, they will merely pay out in event of a claim and then seek a proportion of the money back from the other policy issuer, as in effect, the liability is shared.
It's no different to having Holidy insurance, breaking you leg in Vietnam, and the holiday Insurer claiming some of the fees back from my private medical insurance (after the incident)....

Mine covers me (and any employee over the age of 21) in the course of my 'business' - which includes repair/recovery/buying/selling/testing etc etc (Comprehensive) for any vehicle in my 'Custody and Control' - so in theory, the whole familly COULD drive on the same policy, but if they had an incident, MY policy would go up - there is no NCD on such a policy.

There are still 'grey' areas - like what happens if you arrange for a customer to collect his car from outside the workshop after 'office hours' - at what point does it leave my Custody and Control? What if it gets stolen/damaged whilst unattended - who is liable? etc - hence i won't do these things - but many other people do.....

.....
Dave

Just the one now, but this one's mine! - and it will be finished eventually.....

go on - click this link - you know you want to!
User avatar
dapinky
Moderator
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun 15.10.2006, 12:54
Location: As far west as you can get in West Wales before you become Irish (Pembroke Dock).

Re: Driving 3rd party, temp. insurance, SORN and Pete's cous

Postby Simon_P » Mon 16.06.2014, 13:42

Dave,

The detailed legal case law exceeds my bandwidth!

But section 145 states
The Policy Must
....."....must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] in Great Britain, and"

So if Ray prangs your Bentley on his third party insurance, his insurance will pay to fix it..... and the neighbours fence. Certain classes of third party are specifically excluded eg the vehicle that Ray borrowed is the property of a third party, but is specifically excluded - I expect that is why they define third party risks rather than third parties.

I have checked all of my policies and they specifically do cover damage to property.
Simon_P
God
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri 06.08.2004, 12:33
Location: St Albans UK

Next

Return to Insurance and Breakdown

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest