Safe Speed Forums

If the following text from a well respected Police forum is to be believed, then this is a truly outrageous state of affairs.



xxxx

I seem to be coming unstuck here at the moment in regards to insurance cover, here is a typical scenario so please tell me if i am right or wrong.

A man owns a car fully comprehensive covered, the same man gets into another car on the assumption he can drive it third party as his policy says so but there is no policy at all on the second car by anyone.

is he insured to drive it ?.

my initial thinking is that if this was the case we would all buy one lot of fully comp cover for one car then buy any other amount of cars, stick them on our drives and drive them all third party only and say "we dont own them honest and register them in the wifes name".

one last thing, if i am right would a summons be the best practice for this offence.

cheers for any advice
_________________
xxxxx

Back to top


xxxx
Site Moderator



Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Posts: 386

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the mans policy allows him to drive another car 3rd party then yes he will be insured.

Of course if said man crashes into another driver the 3rd party is covered but not the car the man was driving.

His 3rd party cover may not be shown on PNC so be careful and ensure you issue a HO/RT1 to view the document.
_________________
Cambs Probationer
Stage 6
Forum Moderator

Back to top


xxxxx
New User



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disagree.

Every vehicle must have a policy somewhere. If the owner/ reg.keeper of the second vehicle has no insurance, then nor does the man driving it from vehicle 1.

Evidence.

Loads seized by this method and found guilty in court.

Back to top


xxxxx
New User



Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxxx wrote:
Disagree.

Every vehicle must have a policy somewhere. If the owner/ reg.keeper of the second vehicle has no insurance, then nor does the man driving it from vehicle 1.

Evidence.

Loads seized by this method and found guilty in court.


Are you sure? My father worked as a mechanic for many years and has told me that as he drove so many different vehicles at work, he'd got a special policy which covered him when driving any road legal car.

Back to top


xxxx
Regular User



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 99
Location: UK
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the RTA 88

143.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road 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 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.

The important word is "use."

However, if a vehicle is to be kept on the road, it must be displaying a valid VEL. In order to obtain it you have to produce a valid insurance certificate for that vehicle. So in effect at some point you must have an insurance policy for each vehicle, although it could expire just after you obtain the VEL.
_________________
http://www.policememorial.org.uk

Back to top


xxxxx
Junior User



Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: inurance on vehicles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been seizing vehicles in this manner as i was under the impression through common logic all vehicles have to have there own policey in place unless covered by a motor trader with a traders policy.

if a person 1 has fully comp cover on vehicle 1 then vehicle 2 has to have a policy for person 1 to drive vehicle 2 third party only.

if this wasnt the case we would all just cover one of our cars fully comp and buy 10 cars and drive them all third party on one policy third party only.

i will carry on seizing and reporting for summons in this manner unless someone knows if i am doing something wrong.

thanks

_________________
xxxxx

Back to top


xxxx
Experienced User



Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Posts: 224

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I may clarify.

My insurance policy covers me to drive, with the owners permission and a relevant driving licence, any vehicle NOT registered to me.

Therefore, If I owned two vehicles, I would have to have a policy for both, either seperate policies, or both specified on the one policy.

If I wished to drive my mates car, such as when we share the driving on long jaunts, I have to have his permission to do so, and am then only covered for third party risks (the minimum standard required by law)

The cover for driving other vehicles is a reasonably standard clause in comprehensive insurance, however, if you intend to do so, it is definately worth checking, as in this world of 'competetive' insurance quotes, many extra's are cut away from the policy in order to save money!

Of course, as already mentioned, traders policies are available, which pretty much means a designated person may drive anything, as long as the owner has given permission to do so.

We don't seize uninsured vehicles as standard procedure in my force (traffic do it) so for my money, if somebody says they have insurance on another car, they get a producer to make them prove it (and of course that car gets pnc'd to check too!). If they don't have insurance, they get reported for the offence, and can deal with it at court.

Hope this helps.

xxxx
_________________
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf'

George Orwell

Back to top


xxx
Experienced User



Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 206

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: inurance on vehicles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxx wrote:
I have been seizing vehicles in this manner as i was under the impression through common logic all vehicles have to have there own policey in place unless covered by a motor trader with a traders policy.

if a person 1 has fully comp cover on vehicle 1 then vehicle 2 has to have a policy for person 1 to drive vehicle 2 third party only.

if this wasnt the case we would all just cover one of our cars fully comp and buy 10 cars and drive them all third party on one policy third party only.

i will carry on seizing and reporting for summons in this manner unless someone knows if i am doing something wrong.

thanks


Currently, though it may be set to change, the user is the insured, not the vehicle.

If a person is insured on his own policy to drive someone else's car, although the owner has no insurance for his own use of the vehicle, then that person is insured.

What right have you to take the car from him?

If people have power to seize vehicles they really need to know what they are doing.

If we as police officers are getting the basics wrong by taking vehicles from people who say they are insured, and are insured then we may as well throw the power in the bin now, because it will be removed by parliament.
I wouldn't like to have to explain to my superintendent why I seized a vehicle when I didn't know that the driver's true account was entirely plausible.

Check his story, get the drivers own vehicle details, check that on PNC, see if his story checks out that he has insurance to cover him. Let's get the basics right.

After all this is police sanction and punishment. It is a very useful tool for getting uninsured and unlicenced drivers off the road.

But if we get it wrong, we are dealing with people's human rights. It will come back to haunt us.
_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Back to top


xxxxx
Experienced User



Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 482
Location: South Wales.
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:02 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may sound really pedantic, but what about when the person who has cover to drive the vehcle third party, stops at traffic lights and is not driving the vehicle as per definition (stopped at traffic lights with handbrake on for example). I would argue that at this point if the vehicle did not have specific insurance, it is on the road without insurance as the person in the drivers seat, covered to drive it, is not actually doing that.

I seize vehicles if there is no insurance policy in relation to the use of the car, only someone driving it 3rd party, from another vehicles policy. Hasn't caused a problem to date.

This has to be right or i'm going buy and insure a mini and drive my 'brothers' ferrari!!!
_________________
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Any views or opinions expressed are those of the originator and not those of the South Wales Police.

Back to top


xxxxxx
Experienced User



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 283

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:00 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only pedantic - utter tosh.

Of course he is driving how could he not be if he is control of the speed and direction of the vehicle.

You obviously got taught a different definition to the rest of us.

Back to top


xxxxx
Experienced User



Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 206

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxx wrote:
This may sound really pedantic, but what about when the person who has cover to drive the vehcle third party, stops at traffic lights and is not driving the vehicle as per definition (stopped at traffic lights with handbrake on for example). I would argue that at this point if the vehicle did not have specific insurance, it is on the road without insurance as the person in the drivers seat, covered to drive it, is not actually doing that.

I seize vehicles if there is no insurance policy in relation to the use of the car, only someone driving it 3rd party, from another vehicles policy. Hasn't caused a problem to date.

This has to be right or i'm going buy and insure a mini and drive my 'brothers' ferrari!!!


And if you were to seize my sister's vehicle when I was driving it on my insurance at traffic lights, I'd sue the pants off your chief constable, who would at the very least want to know why you were wearing the uniform when you didn't know what you were doing.

This is an opportunity for us to take cars off the road that are uninsured.

You cannot play games with law abiding members of the public.
_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Back to top


xxxxx
Experienced User



Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Posts: 224

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxx wrote:
This has to be right or i'm going buy and insure a mini and drive my 'brothers' ferrari!!!


which you can quite lawfully do! as long as the car is not yours, and you have the owners permission, you have the minimum level of insurance cover required.

From the way you describe the seizure of uninsured motors, If I'm unlucky enough to get stopped by you, driving my dads car, for which I am no longer a named driver on his insuramce policy, you will seize that car, despite the fact that I will have identification documents with me, can provide you with details of my vehicle, which will reveal it is registered to me, is comprehensivley insured, has an mot and tax, and also a little line on the PNC record stating 'allowed to drive other vehicles: yes'

You need to be very VERY careful with this power - get it wrong, and it will cost your force a fortune.

I have been involved in the seizure of insured motors under this scheme, but only when another factor is considered, such as drving otherwise in accordance, or disqual, which immediately renders any insurance null and void.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I don't want to have a dig at you, but please, for your own sake, get a brush up on the insurance legislation, and the force policy in relation to the application of the seizure of motor vehicles!
_________________
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf'

George Orwell

The trouble is it's so complicated that even the police can't agree what the law is.

I particularly worry about the circular logic of some police officers when they say, "I must have been right because he was found guilty", because the courts seem to apply pretty much the same reasoning and accept whatever the police say.

There is definitely a breakdown in reasoning somewhere. Seizing a car for no insurance even though the driver is insured to drive it? Why would anyone want to do that? Is it jusy bloody mindedness or do they really believe they are doing a useful job?

But then what happens when the driver leaves the car? It is then uninsured and we're back to square 1.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I'm fairly certain that the car must have insurance as well as the driver in these cases otherwise the vehicle would be uninsured as soon as the driver got out. He could not park on as street as the vehicle needs insurance to even be parked.

No, I don't think so.

Suppose the car was causing an obstruction - last driver responsible.

Suppose the last driver didn't set the handbrake properly. After a couple of hours the car rolls away and causes a crash. We couldn't possibly suggest that anyone other than the last driver was responsible and the last driver's insurance remains to cover the outstanding consequences of the last use.

'Use' clearly covers more than the act of driving.

I would have no worries about borrowing a car that was otherwise uninsured. Driving it, parking it, driving it again and all covered under the clause in my motor insurance that says 'The policyholder may also drive a car not belonging to him blah blah...' It doesn't say 'provided that the car otherwise has insurance in force'. It doesn't say 'may drive, but may not park'.

The provision of motor insurance is made as a contract and governed by the terms laid out in the policy. The terms must be reasonable.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The "car" cannot be a policy holder therefore it's not the car that is the insured. The insured, is the policy holder ie the person holding the policy.

In many cases, insurance companies do not insist on one being the registered keeper being the 'insured' party, therefore the owner may be insured to drive the vehicle, yet because the owner is not the registered keeper, the Police will not know the owner is insured. The registered keeper needn't be insured to register a car and vice versa with the owner. As such, the DVLA database will be lacking certain pertinant information that is required by the Police in making their decisions to sieze a vehicle.

If the owner parks the car and I work on that car, say fitting a radio or windscreen. I might have the keys but not ever intend to start or drive the car. I would not be insured to drive the car as I do not have the owners permission to drive it.

Similarly I would expect a parked car to be insured if the handbrake fails.

I recently drove , with the owners permission a sorn car to the MOT station and back. Did I break the law?

Or would these coppers have confiscated and crushed the car.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

From the posts above, I should be inclined to say that that would be an affirmative.

Correct - on the old Insurance Ombudsman's site there were several decisions about what vehicles were covered under what polcies. I can't recall it exactly, but one was where a vehicle was borrowed, used under 3rd aprty cover and then returned. It was then stolen and the insurer tried to argue that the vehicle was still being "used" by the other driver and hence not covered. The decision was that the "use" started with them taking the keys and ended when the posted them through the letter box.

You can imagine that only being insured when the vehicle is driven is ludicrous, it would mean that you would be uninsured when stopping to fill with petrol, check luggage security etc.

Gareth

I believe they can check 3rd party entitlement on the system, you would give the reg. of your vehicle and they would check that.

I have also heard that many forces only seize when the driver admits the vehicle is uninsured, giving the rest a producer.

However unfortunately for many, their view of the law is based on the opinions of others and they don't seem fit to check the facts.

Another example - on traffic-answers.com an American woman posted. She was in her 11th month of driving in the UK and had been stopped by the police. She showed them her US licence and Uk provisional. She was told she would be summosed for driving without L plates, whilst accompanied and (I believe) without insurance. However being a foreign driver she wasn't subject to those restrictions, I found a leaflet from the DVLA and told her to find the officer and clip him round the ear with it.

Gareth

But how long does "use" last, then?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Don't know if this applies to to other firms ,---

At work, our vehicles are pool vehicles --i take keys from key cabinet, drive vehicle ,fill in log book and return keys. If i dent it , i am required to report it.
The fly in the ointment happens when i return the van , park it in the yard, return keys. Before the next driver can use it and log miles, someone backs into it - the attitude taken is - last driver logged is responsible - to date my personal insurance companies have said that this is not held against me.

Point is that my "use " , according to our insurance stance, is that it is my use untill another driver uses vehicle.

Another view of use , perhaps ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

How can you all be so dumb? If only the driver is insured and not the car, why do insurance companies want deatails of the vehicle you are insuring, and why does the amunt you pay vary according to age of vehicle, size of engine, model, modifications etc??? Please if anyone has an answer to this do let me know!

Being of superior intelligence you'd have of course realised that you've answered your own question. Because it is a means of identifying risk. The policy holder/main driver is the "insured" yet the risk to the insurance company is measured by certain factors such as age of driver, vehicle type, modifications etc. Unfortunately intelligence is neither a measure nor a bar to driving a vehicle.

PS,

dumb ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm)

Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.

I guess that's why we're all writing then ;including you

simple, most comprehensive insurance includes 3rd party use of another vehicle not owned by you with the owners permision. The insurance company basicly assume that the car you are insuring will be the one you use the most and given that the other vehicle is only insured 3rd party it is your hard luck should you crash the £40k car you have borrowedm they will pay for others damage but not for fixing the car you where driving.

The most important bit is the fact that if you own the other vehicle then it is unisured,

Because the risk is a combination of the driver and the vehicle, and in pretty much all cases the vehicle is not insured for anybody to get in and drive.

For example a 17 year old student wanting insurance on a Mitsibishi Evo will be a massive risk and pay £5k+, but a 65 year old bank manager will be more like £500, and most of that will be theft risk.

Actually I believe you can still get "any driver insurance" and "family insurance" but it is probably v.expensive.

Gareth

I am now on a dual vehicle insurance, where I have two vehicles insured on one policy, my own, and my wife's vehicle.
I believe it is in response to the common "trick" of insuring one car, with the partner as a named driver, then driving the "partner's" vehicle as 3rd Party only, while he/she drives the principle vehicle as the named driver.

The biggest problem was getting to grips with the different start times for the insurances, being transfered from older expired policies.
It's a lot cheaper, and includes all the usual add ons.

A bit different to Norwich Union, who three years ago, told me I could not insure two cars with the same company!!
I suggested to my wife it was just in case she ran into me as we raced to get to the parking spot on the drive first!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Indeed you can Gareth and they're not too much; again much of it depends on the level of cover. I know trader's policy's are different, but my brother's just started out on his own with regards to car servicing etc and a traders policy with benefits of SDP is just 90 quid more expensive than the fully comp cover he paid for his Honda Prelude, how does that's figure?

A trickier senario:
At work we have fleet insurance for any car or van or truck owned by us or hired to us.

I ring up hertz and they delivr a hire car, park it in the street and put the keys through the letter box : The hire is for 24 hours

at the end of the hire they pick up the car the keys are "hidden " under a flower pot.

Sometimes they take a week to pick up the car.
So say the car catches fire, burns 3 cars, melts the road and the flyover it is parked under. cost £6m?

At what time A: did the fire start B: did the damage occur.
was it out of my care A:when I hid the keys, B:at the end of 24 hours hire, or C:when they pick it up?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'm please to see my comments provoked some intelligent debate, apart from the first one who obviously thinks they are the superior intelligence. Wayne"o" (?!), need I say more! Anyway, the point was that some of the previous comments had, in effect, answered their own questions. If the car is not insured as some of the contributors suggest, why do insurance companies pay out for vehicular damage?