mart360

Can anyone clarify what the current "law" is regarding car insurance?

What constitutes not having insurance?

What constitutes having insurance?

What is insured? the car the diver? or a combination of both.

What constitutes an offense?


had an incident over the weekend (not me btw) and a friends car got impounded, now where trying to understand why...

oh and before you ask its fully insured, any driver

Mart

Moley

iTrader: (9)

Was someone driving an un-insured car using their '3rd party on other cars' extension?

nik52wrx

Answers

Can anyone clarify what the current "law" is regarding car insurance?

What constitutes not having insurance?

Failing to buy any outright or failing to maintain monthly payments

What constitutes having insurance?

The opposite of the above

What is insured? the car the diver? or a combination of both.

Generally the car is insured to be driven by declared drivers

What constitutes an offense?

Not having a valid certificate of insurance to drive the vehicle in question.


had an incident over the weekend (not me btw) and a friends car got impounded, now where trying to understand why...

No idea if it was fully insured to be driven by the driver in question and he was in a fit state to do so. Also i presume he isn't the victim of car cloning where the car would be taken.

oh and before you ask its fully insured, any driver

Mart[/quote]

mart360

Ok i,ll clarify...

car has insurance for driver... (works car).. the insurances also cover any driver to drive the vehicle with the owners consent.. its a works based insurance.. so in essance the car is insured for any employee.

Friend got stopped with the car, and the owner. in the passenger seat..

plod ran a doccy check and the car came up clean (as it should).

but the insurance company could only report that the car was insured by the driver under the group scheme..

plod impounded the car as he says the driver, another employee was not insured..

this was despite 3 other employees who were passing confirming this..

i saw it but thought it was a breakdown, so didnt stop either..

who's right or wrong

Mart

GC8

The police officers were plainly wrong. Even if the driver wasnt insured, the impounding is not a punishment for driving uninsured, its intended to remove the 'risk'; so if the insured driver was present then they should not have attempted to remove the vehicle.

Time to make an official complaint and keep at it.

nik52wrx

Pass! No idea if all the drivers were insured as you say.
Does the reason they were stopped in the first place have any bearing?

mart360

Not really, young driver in expensive car, not unfeasible these days

billyray911

iTrader: (4)

It may be that the insurance is only valid for the purposes of work-you/he will have to check the fine print on the policy.
Also,was there any suggestion that you friend may not have a full/valid licence,hence voiding the insurance if driven other than in accordance...
Apparently,a high persentage of people using work vehicles,do so illegally by not declaring a variety of things or by producing duplicate / fake licences at work.
Not implying anything,but...
Am sure when all the docs have been produced,you wil be able to retrieve the car and then best of luck with claiming back the costs from the b.i.b.,which will have to be paid befor the recovery agent release the car

ScoobyWon't

Was he arrested for driving without insurance? I'd be looking at Section 143 to prove innocence in this case.

There are two operations that I can think of where a vehicle can be impounded (just watch any episode of Road Wars and you'll likely see it - Rustproof, where uninsured vehicles are impounded and Cube-it where un-taxed cars are impounded (and later crushed).

I'm a bit confused if no other offences have been mentioned. Charges can be brought against the owner of vehicles for causing, allowing or permitting offences to be carried out.

If the owner permitted the driver to use the car without insurance - that's an offence by both parties.

Section 143 (1) & (2) Road Traffic Act 1988 states it is an offence for a person: to use on a road at any time or cause or permit to be used a motor vehicle without a policy of insurance in respect of third-party claims.

Section 144A Road Traffic Act

If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

You may require any of the following persons to produce their insurance certificate:
a) a person driving the motor vehicle... on a road
b) a person who you have reasonable cause to believe had been the driver... at the time of an accident; or
c)a person whom you have reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on the road.

Section 165A provides power to seize a vehicle without adequate insurance cover.

Sections 143(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide that users of motor vehicles on roads or in public places must be insured against third party risks. It is an offence to use (see meaning below), or cause or permit to be used, a motor vehicle on a road without such insurance. They state:
143(1) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act -

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

143(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

Note
See Graduated Fixed Penalties Road Side Deposits and Immobilisation information and tables.

143(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves -

(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

143(4) This part of the Act does not apply to invalid carriages

Notes
(i) 'Policy of insurance' includes a cover note.

(ii) There is a common term in insurance policies which usually states something along the lines that the driver is covered if s/he holds or has held a driving licence to drive the vehicle (i.e. that class of vehicle) and is not disqualified. We are assuming everything else in the certificate is in order. If this term is in the certificate of insurance (and the driver is not disqualified by a court), s/he is coveredby the insurance whether or not s/he does or does not hold a current UK/foreign/provisional licence for that class of vehicle, as long as s/he held one in the past.
(Above based on Edwards v Griffiths 1953)
However, the term can vary on occasions, so it is worth reading the certificate carefully.

(iii) By virtue of section 143(4) this section does not apply to invalid carriages.

(iv) This section is directed at persons who use motor vehicles on roads or in public places without being insured against, amongst other things, the risk of third parties being injured or suffering damage to their property. Users of motor vehicles are required to be insured against certain 'third party' risks, with insurers required, subject to certain exceptions, to satisfy judgements against persons insured by them in respect of such risks. The liabilities which have to be satisfied are restricted to those covered by the policy.

(v) For those who suffer loss or injury in a road traffic accident, but who are left without a remedy because the person responsible is uninsured (or untraced), recourse may be had to the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB). The MIB was established to meet unsatisfied judgements in respect of the liabilities required by statute to be covered. Under the latest agreement in respect of uninsured drivers, compensation is provided for damages to property as well as death and bodily injury. There are restrictions upon the circumstances in which the MIB will provide compensation, and claims are subject to certain notice requirements. In any case where there is doubt as to whether the defendant is effectively insured, notice should be given immediately to the MIB of any intention to institute proceedings.

(vi) 'Use' has a far wider meaning than drive. It means 'have the use of'.

(vii) A car parked on a road that cannot be moved but, owing to its condition, cannot be driven is 'used' on the road within the meaning of the present provisions. A vehicle which is parked on the road, stationary and unattended is being used even if it is jacked up for repair. It has been held that the owner of a vehicle was using it even though it was in the possession of another so that it could be repaired. A vehicle which had its tyres deflated, the rear brakes seized in the 'on' position and the gearbox was without oil because of a leak, was also being used. Provided that a vehicle is a motor vehicle, and is on a road, the owner has the use of it on a road whether, at the material time, it can be moved on its wheels or not.

(viii) The courts have said that it is impossible in law or in common sense to justify the proposition that a motor vehicle which is in good condition, but which has been immobilised to prevent its wheels from rotating, does not require insurance, whereas the section does apply to a vehicle which is in poor condition and without certain important parts, if the wheels can rotate. Such a distinction would be artificial and unfair, even more so if the obligation could be avoided by immobilising a vehicle to the extent that the wheels would not rotate. The one was neither more nor less of a hazard than the other when stationary on a road.

(ix) In relation to the practice of insurance companies issuing electronic insurance certificates over the internet. At present there is no official direction re the validity of these documents on "production" to the police, however the Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government the following question in the House of Lords on 7th February 2006; "Whether a certificate of motor insurance which is printed out by the policy holder after downloading from an Internet supplier who is operating legally complies with the requirements of United Kingdom legislation."
The government response was provided by Lord Davies of Oldham who stated, "No. Our view is that Section 147 of the Road Traffic Act precludes electronic delivery to policy holders of certificates of motor insurance, for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988".
It therefore appears that until the contrary is stated, internet produced copies of certificates of insurance SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED as valid documents for the purpose of a "production" to the police.


Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the requirements in respect of policies of insurance and also the meaning of the term 'authorised insurer'.

145(1) In order to comply with the requirements of Part VI (sections 143 - 162) of this Act, a policy of insurance must satisfy the following conditions.

145(2) The policy must be issued by an authorised insurer. (see sub-section (5))

145(3) Subject to subsection (4), the policy -

(a) must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain, and
(aa) must, in the case of a vehicle normally based in the territory of another member State, insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain if,-

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

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

(i) the law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles of the State in whose territory the event giving rise to the liability occurred; or
(ii) if it would give higher cover, the law which would be applicable under this Part of this Act if the place where the vehicle was used when that event occurred were in Great Britain; and

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

145(4) The policy shall not, by virtue of subsection (3)(a), be required -

(a) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person arising out of and in the course of his employment, (see sub-section (4A)) or
(b) to provide insurance of more than £1,000,000 in respect of all such liabilities as may be insured in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, any one accident involving the vehicle, or
(c) to cover liability in respect of damage to the vehicle, or
(d) to cover liability in respect of damage to goods carried for hire or reward in or on the vehicle or in or on any trailer (whether or not coupled) drawn by the vehicle, or
(e) to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control, or
(f) to cover any contractual liability.

145(4A) In the case of a person -

(a) carried in or upon a vehicle, or
(b) entering or getting on to, or alighting from, a vehicle,

the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (4) do not apply unless cover in respect of the liability referred to in that paragraph is in fact provided pursuant to a requirement of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.

145(5) Authorised insurer has the same meaning as in section 95.

Note
Authorised Insurer means an insurer who is a member of the Motor Insurers Bureau (a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the Companies Act 1929 on 14th June 1946).

145(6) If any person or body of persons ceases to be a member of the Motor Insurers' Bureau, that person or body shall not by virtue of that cease to be treated as an authorised insurer for the purposes of this Part of this Act -

(a) in relation to any policy issued by the insurer before ceasing to be such a member, or
(b) in relation to any obligation (whether arising before or after the insurer ceased to be such a member) which the insurer may be called upon to meet under or in consequence of any such policy or under section 157 (payment for treatment) of this Act by virtue of making a payment in pursuance of such an obligation.

Section 171 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that owners of motor vehicles are duty bound to provide details of their insurance or security cover as required by the chief officer of police when there is doubt as to whether compulsory third-party insurance was in effect or their vehicle has been involved in an accident and the necessary requirements have not been fulfilled. Failure to comply with the requirement is an offence.

171(1) As regards whether a motor vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 (compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance) of this Act on any occasion when the driver was required under section 165(1) ( requirements to produce insurance and test certs) or 170 (duty of driver to stop and report accident) of this Act to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, then the owner of the vehicle must give such information as he may be required, by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, to give.

GC8

If the undisputedly insured company car driver was present then the vehicle should not have been removed. As I have already stated, the uplift is intended to remove the uninsured driving risk: it is not supposed to be an arbitarily, summarily distributed punishment.

Another fine piece of 'I AM THE LAW' policing.

superstar1

This sounds like typical UK policeing, do the Police really think that all the migrant cars on our roads are insured, or can they not be bothered to stop them to find out?
Meanwhile, just harass the law bidding folks because they are the easier target and it makes the figures look good.

Tidgy

did the driver have his own policy? if he was covered 3rd party for other cars (which alot of fully comp policies have) then he'll be covered, even if he isn't under the company policy

jasey

Yep - sounds like another small minded jealous ***** with an inferiority complex.

Probably a Sergeant or higher

Simon K

^^^^^^ I so agree with this person above. A town near me, Littlehampton, is over run buy Russian / Portugese imgrants. The car's they drive are all heaps, rusty, worn death traps, and Im sure 50% have no mot's, insurances, etc etc. Half have fake licenses, or pretend to be other people, or just run back to Russia on the event of a problem, returning as a totally different named person. These cars are full of young imgrant lads, loud folk music, etc etc, but they never get stopped, as they scream racisim, or causes a scene.

Last weekend, sitting on the side of the river, in Littlehampton, having an ice cream with my son, I watched a police car pull over a English family, in there `07` car, to do a spot check. I was right next to them where they had parked and was listening to the cop talking, asking questions etc etc.

The driver was in his later 40's / early 50's, 2 youngish kids and a wife, all sitting there as the copper asked for his details. As he did this, two rough imgrant cars drove past, too fast, too loud, shooting down the road.

I then heard the English driver ask the police officer, who was looking at his license, why he isnt pulling them over, as clearing the chances of those driver's not having all the necessary paperwork, and insurances were higher and a spot check would of made more sense than stopping a family on a day out. The copper replied it wasnt worth the aggro / racial upset in the area !!! I couldnt believe what I heard and even told the guy that it was a disgusting !

Say no more.

SBK

Snazy

Cor blimey, some serious copper bashing going on ere lol

Without knowing the exact in's and outs its hard for anyone to make an accurate assessment.
Best bet would be an appointment with a senior officer at the station, sit down and discuss. Or.... read all the paperwork carefully.

Company/trade insurance can be utter crap at times, so also look towards that to make sure there are no exclusions, times, ages, experience etc.

Leslie

As I understand it, the law requires the driver to be insured to drive the car against third party damage to someone else. Anything else is bonus.

Les

billyray911

iTrader: (4)

The offence would already have been committed so although it is bit ott,the bib have the right to remove the vehicle.Whats to say that if they let the car and occupants go,the scenario wouldnt repeat itself leading to a crash.Who would be to blame then...Also,the other occupants may not have been in a fit state to drive and the driver may have been their designated driver for the evening.There are probably loads of what ifs in this...

(Quote)Was he arrested for driving without insurance? I'd be looking at Section 143 to prove innocence in this case.
Although there is a power of arrest for any offence now,under SOCAP,this would only apply in this matter,to ascertain identity-under S.24.If all is ok,summons would probably be the normal course of action.

(Quote)There are two operations that I can think of where a vehicle can be impounded (just watch any episode of Road Wars and you'll likely see it - Rustproof, where uninsured vehicles are impounded and Cube-it where un-taxed cars are impounded (and later crushed).

This is probably from an old episode of road wars as the Police routinely seize uninsured cars now under the RTA.This power has only been used for the past 5 years or so.It used to be a producer and then off you go

I'm probably talking out of ar$e though

hodgy0_2

i think am right in saying if you lodge 500k at the local magistrates court you dont need car insurance


I heard that London Transport & British Gas do not have insurance -- in the terms ment by the OP

mart360

Right an update...

Car in question was an 59 plate and brand spankers

the owner/ was behind him in a van, his friend (an employee also )was driving the car..

The insurance policy covers the employee to drive the vehicle owned by

him, and any other vehicle with the owners permission...

It also covers any employee to drive any vehicle with the owners consent..



Regardless that the driver in question, had given permission. the driver had

his own policy on his non work car that covers him to drive any vehicle,

and the car came back on the MID database as being insured. not stolen etc....

oh and 2 other employees arrived on scene (3 if i,d stopped) to confirm this

yet it was still lifted...

go figure


Mart

mart360

Car was fully insured, taxed & brand new, driver not under any influence, or arrested.
Mart

mart360

Wasnt far from there lol

Mart

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

If the driver was not insured, or could not prove he was insured then they can take the car.
If its work insurance then you should have to prove it was being used for work.
Does not sound like there is any complaint there to me.

Maybe some of the keyboard heroes above will wind there necks in if they get hit by an uninsured driver in the future.

Snazy

Im guessing here, but with it a/ being a new car, and b/ being covered on a trade policy, its quite likely that the MID would not have a record of the specific vehicle being insured.
SO that would sadly give the police the right to cease it until proof is given.
I cant imagine for a second that the police would just decide to cease it.

Has the vehicle been released yet. Im assuming that with such a case, the car would be returned in no time at all.

Being hit by an uninsured vehicle is NOT nice at all.

Plus there are a lot of people ignorantly driving with no insurance out there, thinking they are covered by some 3rd party, any driver rule on someone elses insurance policy. Mistake do happen, on both sides.

GC8

If the person identified by the police as the insured driver was present; then they should not have taken the car. Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Like I keep saying, its not supposed to be a punitive act.

Make a formal complaint.

Snazy

Question is, could proof of insurance be given or proven at the scene?
A lot of trade policies dont name cars, therefore there may not show as proof of insurance on the MID

dunx

iTrader: (3)

The only question left is...

Was the driver over 21/25 as MAY be required by the company policy ?

dunx

P.S. The vehicle has to have cover to be road legal, the driver needs to be named on that policy, or use his own third party cover ?

mart360

Lets kill the uninsured aspect once and for all...

The car is leased from the supplier / through work the insurance policy covers the car for any use, private or work They are all fully insured, for any driver to use with the owners permission.


Mart

mart360

Nope, car is cover on MID, we ran all our cars in the office through it today

All come back correctly identified & insured


Mart

GC8

You dont have to give proof. If theres a doubt then they issue a producer. The MIB database is a tool, but not sufficient grounds on its own.

The point that I keep making and that no one has picked up on is that if Marts employer who was the named driver was present, then the vehicle should not have been confiscated. It is not a punishment; although too many police officers seemingly cant wait to make the call...

ScoobyWon't

We've been discussing this at work tonight, and all three of us say we would have issued a HORT/1 and sent him on his way.