Mr Pryor had a car but no insurance. He gave a friend permission to drive his car - the friend could drive the car a he was covered for driving other cars with hi sown policy.
GMP seized the car as uninsured (according to their system) - Court of appeal ruled car nneed not be insured but the driver has to insured.
GMP will need to rethink their tactics!
|
In defence of GMP, most car insurance companies state you only drive another car which is not yours third party providing that car is insured.
E.g although I can drive any car which is not mine under my policy, if I wanted to drive my dads car, the car itself must still be insured.
I am surprised at this though, didn't think GMP had any coppers left.
|
>> In defence of GMP, most car insurance companies state you only drive another car which
>> is not yours third party providing that car is insured.
>>
In 25 years I've never seen that on my policies, the only common DOC conditions have been not hired by me, 3rd party cover only etc.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Tue 20 Sep 11 at 22:22
|
|
It says it on mine. It is also the law, as a car without insurance can no longer be parked on or be used on the public highway.
|
|
Well it can be used on the public highway, if the driver is insured under DOC; that's the point of the ruling isn't it?
|
|
I thought the point was also in case the car sets on fire, hand brake fails etc etc when parked up. If nobody is driving it who pays the insurance?
|
>> I thought the point was also in case the car sets on fire, hand brake
>> fails etc etc when parked up. If nobody is driving it who pays the insurance?
>>
I did wonder about that, you can drive it but not park it (in a public place) it would seem.
|
>> In 25 years I've never seen that on my policies, the only common DOC conditions
>> have been not hired by me, 3rd party cover only etc.
Me neither - I'm pretty sure that's never been a stipulation for any policy I've held, and our current policies don't require this. I expect that'll change on renewal though with the new Continous Insurance Enforcement legislation that, I think, came into effect earlier in the year.
Strange one really, this legislation. I don't own anything else that the State insists that I insure, and yet I can't now keep a taxed, mot'ed but un-insured car on my own drive unless I SORN it which, for the sake of saving a couple of hundred quid road tax, isn't worth the hassle
Peter
|
"which, for the sake of saving a couple of hundred quid road tax, isn't worth the hassle"
What exactly is the hassle? All you have to do is spend a minute filling out an online declaration.
|
>> What exactly is the hassle? All you have to do is spend a minute filling
>> out an online declaration.
>>
Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. The hassle is that, once I've SORNED it, I lose the ability to use it at the drop of a hat. If I un-sorn it I need to re-tax and wait for the tax disc to arrive. I don't think its worth SORNing a car for that reason. If however I have let the insurance lapse, which if I'm not using the car is at my risk in terms of theft and fire if the car is off-road, I can renew on-line or over the 'phone and drive off in minutes!!
|
|
If you are prepared to risk driving without the insurance certificate in your hand (which is technically illegal) don't see why you are not prepared to drive before receiving the tax disc. If you have arranged the tax and insurance it will show up on the relevant data bases and you are very unlikely to have any problems with the police for failing to display the tax disc.
|
Simply because it's an offence not to display a tax disc, so leaving a car that doesn't display one parked in public is, IMO, asking for trouble. Particularly when the car in question is a 25 year old BMW estate that is, quite frankly, a little frayed around the edges - it's more likely than average to attract the attention of a passing policemen!! And since, despite it's 2.5 litre petrol engine that manages 24 mpg at best, the VED is just £215 I'd rather just keep it taxed - we're only talking £4 a week.
As I've never carried an insurance certificate in the car, not having one (though in reality many insurers email them now anyway) that bothers me less, and it's not something that a passing policeman can do anything about (as you say, the MID should have the detail on). Perhaps it shouldn't... Now I realise that I am taking a slightly contrary approach, and in reality the car is usually insured all year. But sometimes I do renew a little late; if the car's not in use why rush? Why should I have to insure my own property if I don't want to?
Peter
|
"But sometimes I do renew a little late; if the car's not in use why rush? Why should I have to insure my own property if I don't want to?"
Because there are a million or so scroats who don't insure and then drive.. which by your statement seems to be your intent as well..
"Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. The hassle is that, once I've SORNED it, I lose the ability to use it at the drop of a hat"
(Being pedantic of course.. I know you did not).
Law keeping is simpler if the rules are simple....
|
"GMP seized the car as uninsured (according to their system) - Court of appeal ruled car nneed not be insured but the driver has to insured."
They must have seized it then with the friend actually inside it.
If he had left it parked then I don't think anyone would argue that it was still covered by his DOC insurance, because he wasn't driving it.
There must have been lots of other parked cars he wasn't driving either, but that wouldn't have made all the uninsured ones legal.
|
>> Because there are a million or so scroats who don't insure and then drive.. which
>> by your statement seems to be your intent as well...
>> (Being pedantic of course.. I know you did not).
Just to be clear, I'd never drive without insurance; however I am happy to take the risk that a car parked on my drive (which is worth £500 tops) is uninsured when not in use...
If I need to use it then its MOT'ed and taxed and, if not insured then that can be sorted in minutes. As I said, the lack of insurance is only ever because of a gap between expiry and renewal when the car is not being used :-)
Peter
|
|
If a car is taxed, but you SORN it online to cover a few days off the road during an insurance change, and do nothing about sending in the tax disc, is the tax still valid?
|
>> If you are prepared to risk driving without the insurance certificate in your hand (which is technically illegal)
It has been discussed earlier that having insurance certificate is not necessarily proof of insurance (theoretically you could cancel insurance and still have certificate).
Police will only check for entries in MIB database. If no entry is there, then car is not insured.
>> I thought the point was also in case the car sets on fire, hand brake fails etc etc when parked up. If nobody is driving it who pays the insurance?
Er... no one then? If a tree falls over you whom do you ask the compensation from? So same analogy should apply. If a car is driverless (e.g. handbrake failed while parked) it is not much different from being hit by falling tree or lightning etc.
Last edited by: movilogo on Wed 21 Sep 11 at 13:53
|
...So same analogy should apply...
Not quite, the point here is third party damage.
If handbrake fails and the car runs into and damages someone else's property - might be another car, might be something else - the third party can claim from the owner of the runaway car.
Routinely, the owner of the runaway car would refer the matter to his insurers, although there's nothing to stop the owner paying for the damage from his own pocket.
|
|
Trees don't have a habit of showering burning debris for hundreds of metres if they catch fire. Nor is a burning tree full of toxic and highly corrosive chemicals.. (see burning wiring).
|
>> Trees don't have a habit of showering burning debris for hundreds of metres if they
>> catch fire. Nor is a burning tree full of toxic and highly corrosive chemicals.. (see
>> burning wiring).
>>
Completely irrelevant. Trees can kill as well. And if a tree on your property falls and kills a pedestrian, you may end up in court (even for manslaughter). But even so HM Gov't does not require you to insure for that.
|
>> If handbrake fails and the car runs into and damages someone else's property - might
>> be another car, might be something else - the third party can claim from the
>> owner of the runaway car.
I believe the third party can only claim if the owner/driver has been negligent.
|
...I believe the third party can only claim if the owner/driver has been negligent...
May be, but a properly maintained handbrake shouldn't release itself.
The third party could further argue the car should also have been left in gear, or chocked, or with one of its steering wheels pointed towards the kerb.
So I don't think proving negligence in the case of a runaway parked car would be difficult.
Seems to me insurers take an expedient view, preferring to pay a smallish claim (and load the premium, of course) rather than fight it.
Might be a different matter if the runaway car wrote off a Veyron.
|
>>
>> Might be a different matter if the runaway car wrote off a Veyron.
The real problem is when the runaway meets a person. Compensation for the death of a breadwinner can be a lot. Loss of earnings plus lifelong care for a promising medic or IT specilalist runs to many millions.
|
...The real problem is when the runaway meets a person...
OK, OK, the runaway car hits a Veyron, which explodes, killing the entire Manchester United first team squad, which happened to be passing in a coach.
|
>> If a car is taxed, but you SORN it online to cover a few days
>> off the road during an insurance change, and do nothing about sending in the tax
>> disc, is the tax still valid?
I ' insurance sorned ' the old Vitara a couple of months ago. I wanted to keep it taxed ;cos I was doing a reg. transfer onto the new one.
I sorned it on-line, using the document number on the V5C.
To date, they have never asked me to send the tax disc back.
I don't know if it's actually taxed, though.
I suppose I could check on it's ' status ' but I haven't fitted the new plates yet so I can't remember the new number 'til I get into the garage, where they are.
Ted
>>
|
The question is, does SORN trump tax, or is it the other way round? Or can you have both at the same time?
Bear in mind that tax only runs in complete months, but SORN starts on the day you declare it.
|
|
An actual tax disc these days is just an indication of whether a car may be taxed. VEL expiry is flagged on PNC as is an invalid tax for instance when purchased with a cheque or credit card that subsequently "bounces".
|
|
This is all irrelevant now - under the Continuous Insurance Regulations all cars now have to have their own insurance, or be SORN'd.
|
How accurate is the Police database ?
Yesterday it was MoT time again, 2nd week in a row @ a local indie.
Recently garage driver out to pick up a car, stopped by police for no insurance. After 10 minutes he was told to produce documents at local Police Station.
Car is insured under block policy of garage. Owner had documents and also looked up MID which was up-to-date and had the Corsa showing as insured.
Off to the Police Station with docs + print out from MID.........matter closed but no explanation and no follow-up on the omission.
The driver was 2/3 miles from garage and the police asked for docs to be shown...........
What if he had been hundreds of miles away, on holiday and the car was confiscated?
|
|
Falkiry - it's not a Police database, it's an insurers database which the police can access certain information (there isn't total access). It hasn't changed the law about producing insurance at the time a person is stopped or the 7 day grace period under which a driver can be required to produce at a station of their choice. But, sec 165 has now added on the power of seizure where an officer reasonably suspects a car to be uninsured. 'Block' or traders policies can leave a car off the database because a specific car may not be insured. Whilst said trader may be rightly insured, he still has to prove it. An officer may suspect that none exists and seize, or may equally believe the driver and require production within 7 days.
|
>> But, sec
>> 165 has now added on the power of seizure where an officer reasonably suspects a
>> car to be uninsured.
The case mentioned in the OP may cause forces to review how they act where a certificate is produced but they are supicious about its provenanace or the extent of cover provided. See para 26 of the judgement and the words of Stanley Burton LJ.
To be fair the coppers in that case went to some lengths including contacting the driver's insurer, Saga, to ascertain what cover applied under a 'driving other cars' extention. Saga's agent told them, erroneuosly, that 'doc' cover would only apply if Mr Pryor's car were specifically insured on its own policy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 22 Sep 11 at 14:56
|
>> This is all irrelevant now - under the Continuous Insurance Regulations all cars now have
>> to have their own insurance, or be SORN'd.
>>
But Ted's point was that he wanted to keep his car taxed for possible instant use even though its insurance had expired. So under the new regulations he had to declare SORN.
But if he didn't send back the tax disc and so didn't receive a refund, surely it was still taxed?
Therefore it was presumably both taxed and SORNed at the same time??
|
>>
>> Therefore it was presumably both taxed and SORNed at the same time??
>>
You're not supposed to SORN a taxed vehicle without returning the tax disc.
From: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696
"The change in the law means, you will only be able to take your vehicle off the road and cancel your insurance by returning your tax disc to DVLA.
It must be returned on a V14 (application form for a refund of a tax disc) and SORN declared at the same time."
What hasn't been made clear is whether SORNing the vehicle somehow automatically cancels the tax. Really, it should do, as you un-SORN a car by re-taxing it. I wonder how Ted unSORN'd his car?
|
Having trawled through the Stated Case it highlights what has been discussed on here before. The Certificate of Insurance should be more specific as to the terms of 'drive' a vehicle not belonging to the policy holder etc etc.
I would suggest that it be phrased something along the lines of:
The police holder is provided with third party cover only to drive a motor vehicle not belonging to etc. The policy holder may use a motor vehicle not belonging to etc providing that the person/s granting permission to use the motor vehicle is/are covered for third party risks by other persons using the vehicle and that they have in force a Certificate of Insurance allowing them to do so. The vehicle must be of the same licencing category as that of the policy holder. The terms 'drive and 'use' are as defined within the Road Traffic Act.
Simples. Missed my vocation. :-)
|
>> Really, it should do, as you un-SORN a car by re-taxing it. I wonder how
>> Ted unSORN'd his car?
>>
I haven't unsorned it...it's been sat down by the garage since then waiting for me to get my ass into gear and do some work on it.
It's on a free , disabled tax so there was no financial gain in cashing it in.
I had to take it on the road today to get the caravan out..I only parked it in next door's drive.
There was no chance of an ANPR capture...it hasn't got any plates on !
Ted
|
Police seized car illegally - Court of Appeal Rule - RattleandSmoke
