My latest car insurance certificate has the usual "The policyholder may also drive a motor car or motor cycle not belonging to him ...........", but this year now adds that "This does not include securing the release of a motor vehicle which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority".
In layman's language what does this addition mean?
|
|
It means it isn't proof of insurance to get back a car that doesn't belong to you that was seized for having no insurance.
|
It means you're not insured to collect a car which has been siezed by the cops. The reason for this so many drivers were having their car taken off them then they would get their mates to collect it on their own policy. The car would remain uninsured.
However my insurance also states.
Any car I do drive on my insurance not belonging to me but also be insured by its main driver.
In otherwords I can drive any car in the world with the owners permision but that car must also be insured.
|
>> Any car I do drive on my insurance not belonging to me but also be insured by its main driver
Is that an industry-wide thing?
I have a acquaintance, B, who has a Peugeot 206. Her friend, C, has a Punto. C has lost her licence for 12 months so has lent B the Punto to drive, whilst B's husband uses the 206 for work. C has cancelled her insurance policy on the Punto so B assumes she can drive it whilst being covered by the "other cars" part of her own insurance. I think she's wrong. The Punto comes up red on ASKMID, so she'll get a tug sooner or later.
|
|
Not all insurers specify that the car must be insured - Elephant doesn't for instance. However, you are open to getting a tug from an ANPR car, and my understanding is that the car is only insured when being drive, so if you leave it on a public road it is effectively uninsured and liable to be removed by the authorities....
|
|
Acquaintance B is wrong. It's one thing being covered to drive another car but she is assuming a policy on her car covers both and her husband at the same time. I think not. Even if there was a policy on the Punto she is in the wrong.
|
Acquaintance B will at best only have minimal cover. Other conditions in her policy may also be invoked either by her husband's use of the Pug or the recurrent nature pf the Punto's use. These could invaldate cover. The 'other vehicles not owned by policyholder' thing is meant for emergencies and usage such as shuffling cars on/off the drive.
And if hubby's now main user of the Pug there might be some issues there as well!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 23 Jul 10 at 14:58
|
>> The 'other vehicles not owned by policyholder' thing is meant for emergencies
>> and usage such as shuffling cars on/off the drive.
I do not agree with this. No such restrictions on use are in my documentation.
However, I do agree that she's likely to have the minimum third-party insurance for this vehicle. If she bends it, she will have to pay for it (although not, of course, if someone else insured bends it for her).
I do not know whether her "original" policy has anything in it to say that her "normal" car insurance is suspended whilst she drives this other car. I slightly doubt it, however it would be worth checking.
|
|
I'm fairly sure mine (Elephant) include something about such usage but I've not gotthe conditions to hand at present.
|
Insurers usually have some sort of catch all condition that obliges you to disclose any relevant facts. I think permanently diving another car, while the insured car is being used almost solely by someone who is not the main driver, is relevant.
From the last lot of insurance paperwork I received...
"...withholding relevant information is illegal...can make insurance invalid...This may result in any claim not being paid and us seeking repayment of any amount we are obliged to pay to third parties, from you. ...If you are not sure whether you need to tell us about certain facts, you should provide the information regardless...".
A large third party claim could result in someone losing their house.
|
>>I do not agree with this. No such restrictions on use are in my documentation.
There's a catch-all;
Its the question of non-disclosure of a material fact.
There's loads of waffle abouy this, but actually its very simple. If, at the point you took out or renewed your policy, you had told them of how you were intending to behave, would this have affected the way they dealt with the matter? If so, then it is a material fact.
If one is not sure whether or not a fact is material, then one must disclose it anyway and let them decide.
Consequently, if you were intending to use your DOC extension as a means of regularly driving another vehicle, then that is material and must be disclosed. At that point they will decide how to treat the risk.
|
Sorry, that's rubbish. I called my insurer to verify, IIWY I'd do the same to save arguing in circles.
"You are allowed to drive any car not owned by or hired to you, with the owner's permission. It's basic third-party only, so if you're driving it frequently you may want to upgrade to a new policy"
- D.L.
|
>>Sorry, that's rubbish
1) No need to apologise.
2) I do not make mistakes, seemingly whoever you spoke to does.
|
>> It means you're not insured to collect a car which has been siezed by the
>> cops.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
>> "does not include securing the release of a motor vehicle which has been seized
>> by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority".
It's a "statin' the bleedin' obvious" clause so that you cannot actually get someone's car out of a compound where it's been taken when because of their lack of insurance (in case you hand it back to them and they *still* haven't insurance). Once it's outside the gates, though, you can drive off in a cloud of dust, there's nothing to stop you.
|
> I can drive any car in the world with the owners permision but that car must also be insured<
I'm not so sure about the 'in the world' bit.
|
I'm not so sure about the 'in the world' bit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>its ok he never ventures further than madcher-ster in rafferties motorcar
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qovk67yMiFI
|
;-)
Long live Val Doonican...
|
|
And on most policies the entitlement to drive other vehicles is as said on the policy-ie. JUST the policyholder-it does NOT include others shown as "entitled to drive".
|
Nothing would induce me to go to a police pound to try and pick up someone else's uninsured car.
It would be a bit like walking into a lion's den trying to pretend that my name was Androcles.
|
Wrongful seizure could lead to an interesting position.
Supposing I am legitimately driving on my 'any car policy,' another persons vehicle which is not otherwise insured. ANPR results in a pull, stroppy copper, I do not have my certificate with me, he decides to seize the car. The owner cannot recover the car, and I cannot because of the restriction mentioned above.
Car then destroyed, but no law has actually been broken!
PU to comment?
|
>>I do not have my certificate with me, he decides to seize the car
I would expect the BIB to contact your insurance company to confirm you're insured.
I recently got an untaxed car MOT'd and drove it on my insurance under these circumstances. I took a copy of my certificate with me 'just in case'.
|
>> >>I do not have my certificate with me, he decides to seize the car
>>
>> I would expect the BIB to contact your insurance company to confirm you're insured.
Thats OK untill its 11pm and computer says NO to a jobsworth copper. I keep a copy of my driving licence and insurance certificate well hidden in my car.
|
|
If the car you're driving has NO insurance other than your "any car",then you're guilty.The other car owner must have at least third party insurance.Don't just read the certificate;look at the policy.
Last edited by: jc2 on Sat 24 Jul 10 at 19:26
|
>> If the car you're driving has NO insurance other than your "any car",then you're guilty.The
>> other car owner must have at least third party insurance.Don't just read the certificate;look at
>> the policy.
>>
This has been discussed at length previously, and is NOT true unless it is a policy requirement.
However once the vehicle is not being driven, ie parked not on private property, no cover may not be in place.
|
jc2 -If I've read your post properly you're confusing law with insurance company policy. If you have 3rd party cover (the legal minimum requirement) then it matters not a jot to the law if there is other cover on the car. In UK law, the driver must be insured, not the car itself.
The question is: Is this person insured to drive this car, at this time, for this purpose? If all answers are yes, then it matters not that the lawful owner does not have a policy on the car.
And for pmh - you're right. The owner could not recover the car without purchasing insurance. That's the point, albeit that you the driver may have had cover at the time, but were unable to satisfy the officer. It would fly in the face of the whole point of the legislation to release a car to an uninsured driver. The seizure itself, in your given scenario, becomes somewhat separate.
|
You might, arguably be covered for driving the car, but once you get out to discuss the matter of insurance with the police officer, you surely leave behind an uninsured car?
Interesting idea Old Navy to keep a "copy" of your driving licence and insurance certificate with you. But copies don't have any force, surely?
|
>>>You might, arguably be covered for driving the car, but once you get out to discuss the matter of insurance with the police officer, you surely leave behind an uninsured car?<<<
That had occurred to me , but if acting under the instruction of a police officer? Can you commit an 'illegal' act when acting under instruction?
PU where are you?
|
...Interesting idea Old Navy to keep a "copy" of your driving licence and insurance certificate with you. But copies don't have any force, surely?...
Driving licence, no, but insurance certificates are a greyer area.
I believe some online insurers tell you to print a certificate if you want one, so there is no original.
The motor insurers' database has come to be regarded as the authoritative record - the position of a paper insurance certificate is increasingly marginalised.
No harm in keeping a copy of your driving licence with you, although I don't.
It gives an indication to a police officer you are who you say you are, and you have a licence to drive the vehicle.
I always carry my work photo identity card, which has proved useful in reassuring the odd constable over the years.
|
which has proved useful in reassuring the
>> odd constable over the years.
>>
>>
>>
Are we to assume that normal constables need no such reassurance? ;-)
|
...Are we to assume that normal constables need no such reassurance? ;-)...
You could, or you could assume I was using the word 'odd' as in 'occasional' - a meaning which appears in two of the two dictionaries I've just checked.
|
>> ...Are we to assume that normal constables need no such reassurance? ;-)...
>>
>> You could, or you could assume I was using the word 'odd' as in 'occasional'
>> - a meaning which appears in two of the two dictionaries I've just checked.
>>
Pedantry was left in the other place.
|
>> You might, arguably be covered for driving the car, but once you get out to
>> discuss the matter of insurance with the police officer, you surely leave behind
>> an uninsured car?
No, you don't. It's in the course of your driving of it.
|
>> Interesting idea Old Navy to keep a "copy" of your driving licence and insurance certificate
>> with you. But copies don't have any force, surely?
>>
Probably not, but it adds to the overall "picture" presented to an inquisitive plod. Identity, address, photo, car reg No, all matching the databases (hopefully). Not that I would ever be stopped anyway being an upright honest looking chap. ;-)
|
>> Interesting idea Old Navy to keep a "copy" of your driving licence and insurance certificate
>> with you. But copies don't have any force, surely?
>>
Neither do the originals, IF the computer says NO!
Yes, I know that the insurance company can be called to confirm, but in this scenario, you are guaranteed to be stopped put of office hours - same as you never get a puncture on a dry sunny day, in an unloaded car, next to a tyreshop............
|
>> In UK law, the driver must be insured, not the car itself.
If this is true, I am no legal expert, does this mean ANPR is operating outside UK law as it checks the vehicle not the driver ?
I would also conclude from the above that a motor vehicle requires no insurance when parked on a public highway as it is not being driven - which we know is not true.
|
...In UK law, the driver must be insured, not the car itself......is this true?...
I thought that was an odd statement.
To me, the driver must be insured to drive the vehicle he is driving.
It's no good me saying to a polis I'm insured to drive the CC3, if he's stopped me while I am driving something else.
My insurance policy specifies both - the policy holder - me - and the vehicle - my CC3.
As we have seen, things get complicated when the 'any other vehicle' clauses come into a play.
|
>> >> In UK law, the driver must be insured, not the car itself.
>>
>> does this mean ANPR is operating outside UK law as it checks the vehicle not the driver ?
No. The ANPR check is (or is supposed to be) an indicator that checking is required. Just because an ANPR insurance check says the car is not insured does not mean this is true, for several reasons which have been mentioned here.
|
>> I would also conclude from the above that a motor vehicle requires no insurance when
>> parked on a public highway as it is not being driven
I am not sure how you arrive at your conclusion.
|
>> >> I would also conclude from the above that a motor vehicle requires no insurance
>> when
>> >> parked on a public highway as it is not being driven
>>
>> I am not sure how you arrive at your conclusion.
>>
When a car is parked it is not being driven. The original quote was the driver must be insured not the car.
|
gmac
The driver of the car is responsible for how a car is parked. Just because he is no longer in the car does not absolve him of any responsibility that negligent parking might cause
|
ANPR is not operating outside of the law. Consider it a screening process. No-one ever said that ANPR provides proof of an offence.
The 'this' test is correct. Is THIS person insured to drive THIS car for THIS purpose?.
You could be driving a car that belongs to someone else, under the terms of your own policy, regardless of whether the owner has the car insured.
That was my point in response to a previous post.
If the car is then left on the highway, yes, the owner commits an offence of keeping it on the highway without insurance.
But the general point about driving remains the same - the person is insured. Perhaps this is a question of semantics. Put it this way - you can't take the driver out of the equation when considering the offence of 'no insurance', except when keeping a vehicle on a road. That's then the owners liability. But an owner can exempt themselves from liability if they lend a car to someone by expressly requiring them to have the insurance. There's a stated case.
|
>> an owner can exempt themselves from liability (allowing & permitting) if they lend
>> a car to someone by expressly requiring them to have the insurance. There's a
>> stated case.
There certainly is, as I said previously in another place, to howls of denial from ?. All you need to do when lending uour vehicle is to say "as long as you have the appropriate insurance". Add other strictures as you feel fit, but that's the main one.
|
>>
>>
>> The driver of the car is responsible for how a car is parked. Just because
>> he is no longer in the car does not absolve him of any responsibility that
>> negligent parking might cause
>>
That's a new concept I have never heard before. You appear to be saying that responsibility for a parked car rests with the last person to drive it, rather than the registered keeper?
How long after parking does the responsibility remain? 5 minutes, an hour, a week, a month while the tax and MOT expire?
|
Of course it's the drivers responsibility if a car is negligently parked. He is the the one who has been negligent not the owner and why should there be a time limit? What has the tax an MOT got to do with it?
|
>> Of course it's the drivers responsibility if a car is negligently parked. He is the
>> the one who has been negligent not the owner and why should there be a
>> time limit? What has the tax an MOT got to do with it?
>>
We are talking about insurance. It has been asserted that insurance is needed only for the driver, not the car, so a DOV policy can be legal. The question was raised, what happens when a DOV driver parks and gets out, and it has now been suggested that the driver remains responsible for the validity of the "parked-up" insurance because it is ancillary to his recent driving.
So my question was, for how long does the vehicle remained covered by its last driver's insurance? Isn't the registered keeper responsible for insuring his parked car on a public highway, as with tax and MOT?
|
I suspect there are two things at work here.
The driver is forever responsible for the legal actions of his parking the car (e.g. the thread recently about the woman who avoided going to jail following the death of the motorcyclist).
However, just because the driver is thus responsible perhaps doesn't mean that he is "driving" the car, and therefore covering it insurance-wise.
So, if an accident occured that was the fault of the driver, the insurance would cough up, whensoever the accident might occur.
HOWEVER, it is a legal requirement that a car on the public highway is insured, and it isn't, so it is up for crushing.
I understand that if you're pulled and the car isn't on the MID, then they'll ask you the details of your own insurance which will be shown to cover you third party.
|
|
Agree with you Mapmaker. If you are driving a car under the DOV estension the coverage ceases when you are no longer driving the car. However if you leave the car on the public highway and as a result of negligent parking you cause an accident you are liable for your negligence but have no insurance to cover you. If there is no other insurance in force an offence has been committed and the car may,as you say,be crushed.
|
>> If you are driving a car under the DOV estension the coverage ceases when you
>> are no longer driving the car.
No it doesn't. If it did, then you wouldn't legitimately be able to get out of the thing, or even park in it. You can.
|
>>No it doesn't.
When do you think it ends then ?
|
>> >> If you are driving a car under the DOV estension the coverage ceases when
>> you
>> >> are no longer driving the car.
>>
>> No it doesn't. If it did, then you wouldn't legitimately be able to get out
>> of the thing, or even park in it. You can.
of course it does. If I didnt I would be responsible for every car I had driven in the last 12 months. I aint.
|
>> >> >> If you are driving a car under the DOV estension the coverage ceases
>> >> >>when you are no longer driving the car.
>> >>
>> >> No it doesn't. If it did, then you wouldn't legitimately be able to get out
>> >> of the thing, or even park in it. You can.
>>
>> of course it does. If I didnt I would be responsible for every car I had driven
>> in the last 12 months. I aint.
Why do you think that you would be responsible for every car you've driven in the last year? Pretty obvious to me that you are not (necessarily).
|
>> gmac
>>
>> The driver of the car is responsible for how a car is parked. Just because
>> he is no longer in the car does not absolve him of any responsibility that
>> negligent parking might cause
>>
I don't know where the negligent parking comes from. If I borrowed a car and drove under my DOV then I would expect the owners insurance to become the active policy again when I hand the keys back.
I'm not in the habit of abandoning a car at a jaunty angle for someone elses misfortune.
|
>> If I borrowed a car and drove under my DOV then I would expect the owners
>> insurance to become the active policy again when I hand the keys back.
So. You park and walk away. You give the key back. After this, your parking results in a claim. The "owners" insurance coughs up? No. Yours does.
|
|
No it doesent. The DOV only applies while driving.
|
|
Sigh. This is like wading through treacle. If you care to believe that, it's no skin off my nose.
|
well ok, lets make it simple for you.
The DOV allows you to drive, third party, another car. Responsibility for that car on your insurance ceases when you park it and step out. Now that cant be hard for you to grasp surely?
|
>> The DOV .. Responsibility for that car on your insurance ceases when you park it
>> and step out. Now that cant be hard for you to grasp surely?
I read your repeated and wrong statements to that end. It can't be hard for you to
telephone your insurance people and find out, surely?
|
|
Ok well when does it stop then? 24 hours, a week? a year?
|
New condition for "persons entitled to drive". - teabelly
