no tax
11 May 2008, 10:33 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no tax
Hi
i'm in process of buying a car from a friend and the car has no tax or mot, i was told that when i get insurance on the car and booked the car for the MOT i am able to drive it to get MOT'd, this being that the car's distributor has gone and it's a fair trek of 70 miles to my area where i can book it for a MOT, it's mainly as i dont want to trouble my friend.
Also i would like to know if the car has no insurance and you have just bought the car and have fully comp on another car can you drive it? Or the other scenerio is that if i want to buy daily insurance to just get the car to my area do es the car need to have it's own insurance policy before i can use my other insurance to drive it third party?
Any clues?
Thanks in advance.
i'm in process of buying a car from a friend and the car has no tax or mot, i was told that when i get insurance on the car and booked the car for the MOT i am able to drive it to get MOT'd, this being that the car's distributor has gone and it's a fair trek of 70 miles to my area where i can book it for a MOT, it's mainly as i dont want to trouble my friend.
Also i would like to know if the car has no insurance and you have just bought the car and have fully comp on another car can you drive it? Or the other scenerio is that if i want to buy daily insurance to just get the car to my area do es the car need to have it's own insurance policy before i can use my other insurance to drive it third party?
Any clues?
Thanks in advance.
11 May 2008, 10:40 PM
#2
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Slowly rebuilding the kit of bits into a car...
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are covered (probably !) if the vehicle isn't hired.... so borrow it till you get it home (to the MOT !) and then buy it once safely tucked up in bed.
HTH
DunxC
HTH
DunxC
12 May 2008, 12:40 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third party cover only applies if the vehicle is insured. I.e. The vehicle would need to be insured by your mate for you to be able to use your insurance.
Basically a vehicle has to have a policy in force on it before anyone can drive it under third party cover.
This is to prevent people buying one car, insuring it, buying several other and driving under the original car's policy
Basically a vehicle has to have a policy in force on it before anyone can drive it under third party cover.
This is to prevent people buying one car, insuring it, buying several other and driving under the original car's policy
12 May 2008, 01:12 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 May 2008, 08:28 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't just jump in to any car and drive it under your own policy. If that car isn't insured your policy won't cover it, unless you have some sort of trade cover/multi car policy.
I lent a mate my spare car which was not insured. He had fully comp and thought he was OK. 3 points later ...
I lent a mate my spare car which was not insured. He had fully comp and thought he was OK. 3 points later ...
13 May 2008, 09:21 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to check your policy. On mine, which is nothing special, I can drive another car with owner's permission, but it doesn't have to be insured by the owner. I double checked this with my insurance company.
Obviousy only 3rd Party and if you park it on the highway and leave it it becomes illegal because it's not insured.
I did this because I was advertising a car not owned by me, and not insured (it had an MOT), and I wanted to know if I was covered if I took it out for a demo run. Yes I was.
If in doubt phone your insurers. dl
Obviousy only 3rd Party and if you park it on the highway and leave it it becomes illegal because it's not insured.
I did this because I was advertising a car not owned by me, and not insured (it had an MOT), and I wanted to know if I was covered if I took it out for a demo run. Yes I was.
If in doubt phone your insurers. dl
Trending Topics
14 May 2008, 06:47 AM
#9
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 May 2008, 09:34 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you're correct, David is wrong.
To drive a car that's not yours and be covered by your own policy the vehicle in question has to have its own policy insuring it for the road.
Example:
The car you pick up isn't insured, but you have said cover to drive another car. You park the car and nip to the shop, the handbrake fails and it rolls into another vehicle - the car isn't insured. If a car has no policy covering it then it is not insured to be on a public road and you are not insured to drive it. The car will be lifted and impounded/crushed if caught.
To drive any vehicle on a public road or park on a public road, the car has to be insured. It's a very common reason for people getting points and fined and most insurance companies don't grasp this.
You are only insured to drive any car under your own policy IF the car has a policy covering it. If you could drive any car under your own policy then all you'd need to do it insure yourself in a 500cc fiat then hop into a Bugatti Veyron that's not covered and you'd be fine. I've been to court so many time with people thinking they're covered under this misconception.
People lose their cars (or other people's) every day to crushers and get fines/points for not understanding this ruling.
To drive a car that's not yours and be covered by your own policy the vehicle in question has to have its own policy insuring it for the road.
Example:
The car you pick up isn't insured, but you have said cover to drive another car. You park the car and nip to the shop, the handbrake fails and it rolls into another vehicle - the car isn't insured. If a car has no policy covering it then it is not insured to be on a public road and you are not insured to drive it. The car will be lifted and impounded/crushed if caught.
To drive any vehicle on a public road or park on a public road, the car has to be insured. It's a very common reason for people getting points and fined and most insurance companies don't grasp this.
You are only insured to drive any car under your own policy IF the car has a policy covering it. If you could drive any car under your own policy then all you'd need to do it insure yourself in a 500cc fiat then hop into a Bugatti Veyron that's not covered and you'd be fine. I've been to court so many time with people thinking they're covered under this misconception.
People lose their cars (or other people's) every day to crushers and get fines/points for not understanding this ruling.
Last edited by fatherpierre; 14 May 2008 at 09:40 AM.
14 May 2008, 11:08 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you're correct, David is wrong.
To drive a car that's not yours and be covered by your own policy the vehicle in question has to have its own policy insuring it for the road.
Example:
The car you pick up isn't insured, but you have said cover to drive another car. You park the car and nip to the shop, the handbrake fails and it rolls into another vehicle - the car isn't insured. If a car has no policy covering it then it is not insured to be on a public road and you are not insured to drive it. The car will be lifted and impounded/crushed if caught.
To drive any vehicle on a public road or park on a public road, the car has to be insured. It's a very common reason for people getting points and fined and most insurance companies don't grasp this.
You are only insured to drive any car under your own policy IF the car has a policy covering it. If you could drive any car under your own policy then all you'd need to do it insure yourself in a 500cc fiat then hop into a Bugatti Veyron that's not covered and you'd be fine. I've been to court so many time with people thinking they're covered under this misconception.
People lose their cars (or other people's) every day to crushers and get fines/points for not understanding this ruling.
To drive a car that's not yours and be covered by your own policy the vehicle in question has to have its own policy insuring it for the road.
Example:
The car you pick up isn't insured, but you have said cover to drive another car. You park the car and nip to the shop, the handbrake fails and it rolls into another vehicle - the car isn't insured. If a car has no policy covering it then it is not insured to be on a public road and you are not insured to drive it. The car will be lifted and impounded/crushed if caught.
To drive any vehicle on a public road or park on a public road, the car has to be insured. It's a very common reason for people getting points and fined and most insurance companies don't grasp this.
You are only insured to drive any car under your own policy IF the car has a policy covering it. If you could drive any car under your own policy then all you'd need to do it insure yourself in a 500cc fiat then hop into a Bugatti Veyron that's not covered and you'd be fine. I've been to court so many time with people thinking they're covered under this misconception.
People lose their cars (or other people's) every day to crushers and get fines/points for not understanding this ruling.
I have just looked at the small print in my policy which has much detail on driving other vehicles but there is no mention of the need for them to be insured.
I then telphoned LV, my insurers, and asked them what the position was. The girl asked the supervisor and looked on the computer and it was confirmed that I am able to drive another car, with owner's permission, that is not insured. They will be confirming this by letter or e-mail so if I get stopped by someone like you I can show them in writing.
I also pointed out in my previous post that car will be illegal if parked and that all policies are different so a check with insurer's is recommended. dl
14 May 2008, 11:15 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just looked at the small print in my policy which has much detail on driving other vehicles but there is no mention of the need for them to be insured.
I then telphoned LV, my insurers, and asked them what the position was. The girl asked the supervisor and looked on the computer and it was confirmed that I am able to drive another car, with owner's permission, that is not insured. They will be confirming this by letter or e-mail so if I get stopped by someone like you I can show them in writing.
This is quite unusual , David. Every single policy I have ever had, has required the other car to be insured on its own policy, fo rm to be able to drive it thrid party.
Think of the implications of *not* having to have the car insured as is elsewhere. You could buy a Ferrari in your wifes name and a Fiat Panda in yours. Insure the Panda, and be automatically insured on the Ferrari. That's why companies insist on the Car having its own insurance with *someone*
14 May 2008, 11:22 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you are wrong.
I have just looked at the small print in my policy which has much detail on driving other vehicles but there is no mention of the need for them to be insured.
I then telphoned LV, my insurers, and asked them what the position was. The girl asked the supervisor and looked on the computer and it was confirmed that I am able to drive another car, with owner's permission, that is not insured. They will be confirming this by letter or e-mail so if I get stopped by someone like you I can show them in writing.
I also pointed out in my previous post that car will be illegal if parked and that all policies are different so a check with insurer's is recommended. dl
I have just looked at the small print in my policy which has much detail on driving other vehicles but there is no mention of the need for them to be insured.
I then telphoned LV, my insurers, and asked them what the position was. The girl asked the supervisor and looked on the computer and it was confirmed that I am able to drive another car, with owner's permission, that is not insured. They will be confirming this by letter or e-mail so if I get stopped by someone like you I can show them in writing.
I also pointed out in my previous post that car will be illegal if parked and that all policies are different so a check with insurer's is recommended. dl
No I'm not! I have been pulling people over, sticking them on for no insurance, having ther cars crushed, attending court and seeing them get points and fines on the points listed.
Every car on a public road HAS to have a vaild policy covering it. End of story.
Your insurance company is wrong if they tell you otherwise. If the car's not insured by a policy it cannot be on a public road in any form.
Unless the law has changed in the last 10 minutes then that's how it stands.
The points you quote do not stand in a court and even of your insurance co say you're covered you would have no insurance in law and be liable for the penalties given in court.
14 May 2008, 11:24 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is quite unusual , David. Every single policy I have ever had, has required the other car to be insured on its own policy, fo rm to be able to drive it thrid party.
Think of the implications of *not* having to have the car insured as is elsewhere. You could buy a Ferrari in your wifes name and a Fiat Panda in yours. Insure the Panda, and be automatically insured on the Ferrari. That's why companies insist on the Car having its own insurance with *someone*
Think of the implications of *not* having to have the car insured as is elsewhere. You could buy a Ferrari in your wifes name and a Fiat Panda in yours. Insure the Panda, and be automatically insured on the Ferrari. That's why companies insist on the Car having its own insurance with *someone*
When I asked the girl on the phone her first answer was that the othe car must be insured. So I asked he to check higher up the food chain and she did this and checked on the computer. She came back and, admitting her surprise, told me that the other car needn't be insured.
Yes I guess you could fiddle it with 2CV and g/f's Veyron but it would only be 3rd party cover and you couldn't tax it without insurance and couldn't leave it anywhere.
But I'd be happier if those that we pay to enforce the law know what it is in the first place
14 May 2008, 11:29 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I think it is but LV is a big company.
When I asked the girl on the phone her first answer was that the othe car must be insured. So I asked he to check higher up the food chain and she did this and checked on the computer. She came back and, admitting her surprise, told me that the other car needn't be insured.
Yes I guess you could fiddle it with 2CV and g/f's Veyron but it would only be 3rd party cover and you couldn't tax it without insurance and couldn't leave it anywhere.
But I'd be happier if those that we pay to enforce the law know what it is in the first place
When I asked the girl on the phone her first answer was that the othe car must be insured. So I asked he to check higher up the food chain and she did this and checked on the computer. She came back and, admitting her surprise, told me that the other car needn't be insured.
Yes I guess you could fiddle it with 2CV and g/f's Veyron but it would only be 3rd party cover and you couldn't tax it without insurance and couldn't leave it anywhere.
But I'd be happier if those that we pay to enforce the law know what it is in the first place
If you want to test your policy then drive an uninsured car through an ANPR and see what happens to you, and how your claim "but I'm insured on this car because I'm insured on my own car" is greeted with, "but this car isn't insured to be on a road, so hand the keys over".
You're wrong and being given duff advice from someone in a call centre who doesn't know the law on motor insurance.
14 May 2008, 11:32 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My policy says on driving other cars:
The policy holder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car not belonging to, or hired or leased to them or their partner.
Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle or has held and is not disqualifed from holding or obtaining such a licence.
No mention of insurance, which there should be.
No insurance on a car = cann't be kept or used on a public road.
The policy holder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car not belonging to, or hired or leased to them or their partner.
Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle or has held and is not disqualifed from holding or obtaining such a licence.
No mention of insurance, which there should be.
No insurance on a car = cann't be kept or used on a public road.
14 May 2008, 11:40 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read around it seems that David is right. You are covered by your insurance, provided
(i)You do not live a tthe same address is registered at
(ii)You do not have regular access to the vehicle or drive it on a regular basis.
If it is a one off, then you are covered, even if that car does not have its own policy with someone else.
(i)You do not live a tthe same address is registered at
(ii)You do not have regular access to the vehicle or drive it on a regular basis.
If it is a one off, then you are covered, even if that car does not have its own policy with someone else.
14 May 2008, 11:43 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road Traffic Act 1988:
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(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 THAT 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
So, unless your policy covers THE VEHICLE YOU ARE USING - ie, listed on your policy (mking it insured) the car is not insured.
You can argue the finer points of it all day but lose your car if the car's not insured.
You don't really think I've been standing up in Magistrates' courts all over London for the past few years and seeing magistrates issue fines after I've stopped people in uninsured cars without a little knowledge of why I'm sending people to court and having their cars crushed do you?
Every vehicle has to have a valid policy covering to be on a public road, whether driven or not. That is point on which the argument of being insured on any vehicle falls down and where you are liable.
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(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 THAT 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
So, unless your policy covers THE VEHICLE YOU ARE USING - ie, listed on your policy (mking it insured) the car is not insured.
You can argue the finer points of it all day but lose your car if the car's not insured.
You don't really think I've been standing up in Magistrates' courts all over London for the past few years and seeing magistrates issue fines after I've stopped people in uninsured cars without a little knowledge of why I'm sending people to court and having their cars crushed do you?
Every vehicle has to have a valid policy covering to be on a public road, whether driven or not. That is point on which the argument of being insured on any vehicle falls down and where you are liable.
Last edited by fatherpierre; 14 May 2008 at 11:51 AM.
14 May 2008, 11:50 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road Traffic Act 1988:
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(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
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(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
You don't really think I've been standing up in Magistrates' courts all over London for the past few years and seeing magistrates issue fines after I've stopped people in uninsured cars without a little knowledge of why I'm sending people to court and having their cars crushed do you?
Are you insured to drive any car?
So I think in the cases you are prosecuting , yo uare correct - Due to the change in cover, the person driving the car is not insured in anyway, because the insurer has removed the cover from driving the uninsured vehicle belonging to someone else.
David, if he has checked his policy, would be covered by insurance, and therefore not in contravention of the Road traffic act.
14 May 2008, 11:54 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I added a last paragraph to my last post.
Every car has to have a vaild policy insuring the car for it to be on a public road - by this I mean its own policy. This applies whether it's driven or parked.
If your policy insures you to drive any other car and tat car's not insured to be on the road then you would only be insured on a private road.
As I've said, at the risk or repaeting the echo - this is where lots of people get caught out and I've genuinly felt sorry for them as they believe they are covered. They're not and have paid the price in court.
The insert you added applies to insurance companies paying out. It does not have any factor on the RTA being used in courts to issue points and fine.
Car insurance is a minefield, but most police cars now have a system that simply flashed up "NO INSURANCE" and somone flashing a policy covering them for any car does no cover them if the car has no insurance on the system. That's the bottom line, and that's where you get your day in court or on the spot fine of £200 and 6 points.
Every car has to have a vaild policy insuring the car for it to be on a public road - by this I mean its own policy. This applies whether it's driven or parked.
If your policy insures you to drive any other car and tat car's not insured to be on the road then you would only be insured on a private road.
As I've said, at the risk or repaeting the echo - this is where lots of people get caught out and I've genuinly felt sorry for them as they believe they are covered. They're not and have paid the price in court.
The insert you added applies to insurance companies paying out. It does not have any factor on the RTA being used in courts to issue points and fine.
Car insurance is a minefield, but most police cars now have a system that simply flashed up "NO INSURANCE" and somone flashing a policy covering them for any car does no cover them if the car has no insurance on the system. That's the bottom line, and that's where you get your day in court or on the spot fine of £200 and 6 points.
Last edited by fatherpierre; 14 May 2008 at 12:03 PM.
14 May 2008, 12:04 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Are we looking at two different things here?
To be driven on a public road the vehicle must be insured.
- Road traffic Act
However your own policy may cover you to drive someone elses vehicle, albeit third party, if the policy in respect of that vehicle does not.
- Insurer's acceptance of liability.
To be driven on a public road the vehicle must be insured.
- Road traffic Act
However your own policy may cover you to drive someone elses vehicle, albeit third party, if the policy in respect of that vehicle does not.
- Insurer's acceptance of liability.
14 May 2008, 12:08 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we looking at two different things here?
To be driven on a public road the vehicle must be insured.
- Road traffic Act
However your own policy may cover you to drive someone elses vehicle, albeit third party, if the policy in respect of that vehicle does not.
- Insurer's acceptance of liability.
To be driven on a public road the vehicle must be insured.
- Road traffic Act
However your own policy may cover you to drive someone elses vehicle, albeit third party, if the policy in respect of that vehicle does not.
- Insurer's acceptance of liability.
Yes, liability for paying out is not the same as being insured for the road.
Liability from an insurer will not save you getting your motor taken away and crushed if caught.
14 May 2008, 12:13 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
lol
it was a rhetorical question
I can understand the complication, though - its a bit of a minefield. The insurers are correct, in so far as they are covering the driver under their own policy, albeit that car isn't legal for the road.
But they would of course pay out on third party damage in an off road situation.
it was a rhetorical question
I can understand the complication, though - its a bit of a minefield. The insurers are correct, in so far as they are covering the driver under their own policy, albeit that car isn't legal for the road.
But they would of course pay out on third party damage in an off road situation.
Last edited by Devildog; 14 May 2008 at 12:18 PM.
14 May 2008, 12:15 PM
#26
Fatherpierre is correct, however my bro went on his travel, my FIat Coupe went titsup so I was left without a car so pressed my brothers Rover 214i back into service thinking I was covered, I managed to have a minor bump, a bloke slammed on and I hit the back of him, Tesco paid out no problems for the damage to his car, obviously I had to do the repairs to my brothers car.
I dont know if I just got away with it or my brothers car was still insured, he had been away a while so I suspect he cancelled the payments, I dont know if Tesco checked ?
Generally the people on the phones have no idea about the rules, they usually ask an equally clueless supervisor, I got told it (driving other cars) was for emergencies only , does that mean gushing blood or needing some beers ?
I dont know if I just got away with it or my brothers car was still insured, he had been away a while so I suspect he cancelled the payments, I dont know if Tesco checked ?
Generally the people on the phones have no idea about the rules, they usually ask an equally clueless supervisor, I got told it (driving other cars) was for emergencies only , does that mean gushing blood or needing some beers ?
14 May 2008, 12:20 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatherpierre is correct, however my bro went on his travel, my FIat Coupe went titsup so I was left without a car so pressed my brothers Rover 214i back into service thinking I was covered, I managed to have a minor bump, a bloke slammed on and I hit the back of him, Tesco paid out no problems for the damage to his car, obviously I had to do the repairs to my brothers car.
I dont know if I just got away with it or my brothers car was still insured, he had been away a while so I suspect he cancelled the payments, I dont know if Tesco checked ?
Generally the people on the phones have no idea about the rules, they usually ask an equally clueless supervisor, I got told it (driving other cars) was for emergencies only , does that mean gushing blood or needing some beers ?
I dont know if I just got away with it or my brothers car was still insured, he had been away a while so I suspect he cancelled the payments, I dont know if Tesco checked ?
Generally the people on the phones have no idea about the rules, they usually ask an equally clueless supervisor, I got told it (driving other cars) was for emergencies only , does that mean gushing blood or needing some beers ?
It is a weird system. It's almost like the insurance COs are encouraging people to risk getting points etc.
14 May 2008, 12:28 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 May 2008, 12:33 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurers don't explain these things properly and are clueless on the law.
I agree, that looking at your fully comp certificate it does look like you can drive any car you want.
I wish it was the case as I'd get a mate to put my 5 litre merc in his name, cancel my £600 insurance and just drive it on my £120 fully comp insurance for my Ibiza.
I agree, that looking at your fully comp certificate it does look like you can drive any car you want.
I wish it was the case as I'd get a mate to put my 5 litre merc in his name, cancel my £600 insurance and just drive it on my £120 fully comp insurance for my Ibiza.
14 May 2008, 12:41 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My policy is the same as Davids
Also this bit
Car insurance is a minefield, but most police cars now have a system that simply flashed up "NO INSURANCE" and somone flashing a policy covering them for any car does no cover them if the car has no insurance on the system. That's the bottom line, and that's where you get your day in court or on the spot fine of £200 and 6 points.
I would stand and argue that point all day in court and I would win
My car does NOT show up on the Police database, and has and always will come up saying NO INSURANCE, however I have a valid certificate and I pay my premiums, so my keys or car would NOT be surrendered at the roadside
Also this bit
Car insurance is a minefield, but most police cars now have a system that simply flashed up "NO INSURANCE" and somone flashing a policy covering them for any car does no cover them if the car has no insurance on the system. That's the bottom line, and that's where you get your day in court or on the spot fine of £200 and 6 points.
I would stand and argue that point all day in court and I would win
My car does NOT show up on the Police database, and has and always will come up saying NO INSURANCE, however I have a valid certificate and I pay my premiums, so my keys or car would NOT be surrendered at the roadside