Insured or Uninsured..that is the question?
Discussion
WolfAir said:
Hope all are well. I haven't posted in a while due to personal stuff going on as well as busy work and just life.
Anyway to the point,
A "friend" of mine went to buy a car with his cousin, now my friend has fully comprehensive insurance on his own car and his policy states he is allowed to drive any car privately insured as 3rd party.
They were pretty much 100% going to purchase the car so they handed over the money before taking it for a little test drive. My friend drove the car as his cousin had not yet transferred his insurance over (I have no idea why I asked this myself). Whilst driving they were stopped by the Police, apparently the car was uninsured. My friend, whilst in the back of the Police car, when asked who owns the car may have said he does..and so cue full checks (driving licence, address etc.) all coming back clear, the Police officer said the vehicle in question was not insured for my friend to drive, therefore his own policy was not enforceable and so he was served with NIP for driving whilst uninsured and the vehicle impounded.
Unfortunately at the time they were unable to get in touch with the gentleman who owned the car, although he did get in touch later in the evening and provided his insurance policy details which seem to prove the car was fully insured by him therefore meaning my friend's policy was valid as 3rd party.
My friend received his conditional offer in the post yesterday of £300 and 6 points but thinks it is unfair, he has been getting mixed advice with the Police saying speak to the DVLA, and the DVLA saying it isn't our problem.
Also taking advantage of free legal advice, some have said take the fine and points your argument is not strong enough in court, whilst others have said fight it.
PH has always given good advice so I thought I'd give a shout get some feed back from anyone been in the same situation?
Cheers fellas and Happy Easter to everyone
To give you some honest advice, I'd probably get some better friends than your current dodgy minicab driving ones....Anyway to the point,
A "friend" of mine went to buy a car with his cousin, now my friend has fully comprehensive insurance on his own car and his policy states he is allowed to drive any car privately insured as 3rd party.
They were pretty much 100% going to purchase the car so they handed over the money before taking it for a little test drive. My friend drove the car as his cousin had not yet transferred his insurance over (I have no idea why I asked this myself). Whilst driving they were stopped by the Police, apparently the car was uninsured. My friend, whilst in the back of the Police car, when asked who owns the car may have said he does..and so cue full checks (driving licence, address etc.) all coming back clear, the Police officer said the vehicle in question was not insured for my friend to drive, therefore his own policy was not enforceable and so he was served with NIP for driving whilst uninsured and the vehicle impounded.
Unfortunately at the time they were unable to get in touch with the gentleman who owned the car, although he did get in touch later in the evening and provided his insurance policy details which seem to prove the car was fully insured by him therefore meaning my friend's policy was valid as 3rd party.
My friend received his conditional offer in the post yesterday of £300 and 6 points but thinks it is unfair, he has been getting mixed advice with the Police saying speak to the DVLA, and the DVLA saying it isn't our problem.
Also taking advantage of free legal advice, some have said take the fine and points your argument is not strong enough in court, whilst others have said fight it.
PH has always given good advice so I thought I'd give a shout get some feed back from anyone been in the same situation?
Cheers fellas and Happy Easter to everyone
Someone left the guy money, and drove away in the car. I think at that point ownership transferred to whoever was buying the car (I can't work out whether that was the friend or the cousin). Regardless of whether the vendor still had the car insured (even if so his policy was probably void because he was no longer the owner) either the cousin owned the car and it wasn't insured, so the friends third party cover didn't apply, or the friend owned the car and therefore his third party cover wouldn't apply.
If the owner wasn't contactable until the evening it rather sounds as though he considered the car sold.
If the owner wasn't contactable until the evening it rather sounds as though he considered the car sold.
Hey up, sorry for the late reply burning the midnight oil on the night shifts and all.
I think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
I think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
Why would you drive a car away under the assumption that the previous owner would keep it insured for you? Also the assumption that fully comp insurance always covers you to DOC is a false one - it all depends on the wording on your own insurance certificate.
When you assume........we all know the saying.....
He should plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. What will his defence in court be? "I thought someone was insuring me"? Ludicrous
When you assume........we all know the saying.....
He should plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. What will his defence in court be? "I thought someone was insuring me"? Ludicrous
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 31st March 07:16
WolfAir said:
Hey up, sorry for the late reply burning the midnight oil on the night shifts and all.
I think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
You still have not defined exactly who was buying the car, Mr A or Mr B. That makes a huge difference. If Mr A, then definitely not insured, if Mr B then maybe, dependent on wording of policy.I think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
I don't think the argument 'genuinely thought' works very well.
However...just to add to your confusion I believe there have been cases where an accident occurred on a recently sold car, the previous owner had neglected to cancel/inform their insurer so their insurer was liable even though the buyer had their own insurance.
So if the vendor didn't cancel their insurance maybe there is some wiggle room...but if they did then they are screwed.
But back to point one, I doubt ignorance is a usable defense...
However...just to add to your confusion I believe there have been cases where an accident occurred on a recently sold car, the previous owner had neglected to cancel/inform their insurer so their insurer was liable even though the buyer had their own insurance.
So if the vendor didn't cancel their insurance maybe there is some wiggle room...but if they did then they are screwed.
But back to point one, I doubt ignorance is a usable defense...
What would the insurance company actually say?
If the seller's insurance company considers that cover had ended, and they would not have provided cover for their insured in those circumstances, then (assuming the 'other car has to be insured' provision is real, and not also an assumption) it's a clear guilty plea and the owner of the car is lucky not to be done for causing or permitting.
If the seller's insurance company would have provided cover to its insured then there is an argument, although the driver still has to overcome the fact that he told the police that the car was his. (It might not be his car but the evidence that the police have suggests it is).
If the seller's insurance company considers that cover had ended, and they would not have provided cover for their insured in those circumstances, then (assuming the 'other car has to be insured' provision is real, and not also an assumption) it's a clear guilty plea and the owner of the car is lucky not to be done for causing or permitting.
If the seller's insurance company would have provided cover to its insured then there is an argument, although the driver still has to overcome the fact that he told the police that the car was his. (It might not be his car but the evidence that the police have suggests it is).
CYMR0 said:
What would the insurance company actually say?
If the seller's insurance company considers that cover had ended, and they would not have provided cover for their insured in those circumstances, then (assuming the 'other car has to be insured' provision is real, and not also an assumption) it's a clear guilty plea and the owner of the car is lucky not to be done for causing or permitting.
If the seller's insurance company would have provided cover to its insured then there is an argument, although the driver still has to overcome the fact that he told the police that the car was his. (It might not be his car but the evidence that the police have suggests it is).
You're making a huge assumption that the seller (Mr C) had insurance. If he did, then it's highly unlikely the car would've been stopped by the police, as it wouldn't have pinged as uninsured in the first place. This is because, it's unlikely that Mr C would've managed to get in touch with his insurers to cancel, have them remove it from MID and update the non-live feed MID inside the police car in such a short space of time. That wouldn't have happened. If the seller's insurance company considers that cover had ended, and they would not have provided cover for their insured in those circumstances, then (assuming the 'other car has to be insured' provision is real, and not also an assumption) it's a clear guilty plea and the owner of the car is lucky not to be done for causing or permitting.
If the seller's insurance company would have provided cover to its insured then there is an argument, although the driver still has to overcome the fact that he told the police that the car was his. (It might not be his car but the evidence that the police have suggests it is).
If the seller (Mr C) had insurance, then the OP's friend (Mr A) would've been insured if his policy has DOC, as long as it really was Mr B buying the car.
If Mr A didn't have any DOC within his fully comp policy, which is quite possible, then irrespective of whether the seller's insurance was still in force or not he would remain uninsured. The seller's insurer would be liable as RTA insurer, but their requirement to indemnify any third party's damage would not equal Mr A being insured.
It is most likely that Mr C (the seller) did not have any insurance in force on the car.
I'll leave the rest of you to speculate whether Mr C ever existed and whether this was just a ruse by A & B to try to drive a much higher value car on a policy taken out on a much cheaper car.
Edited by snorky782 on Thursday 31st March 20:29
WolfAir said:
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
If only there was an IQ assessment as part of the driving test. Would weed out this sort of problem.TwigtheWonderkid said:
If only there was an IQ assessment as part of the driving test. Would weed out this sort of problem.
If only there was some kind of day insurance policy that was readily and easily available. Or some kind of telecommunications device that would let you speak to your insurer without having to go into one of their many shops, or instead of writing them a letter.Roo said:
According to the OP A was buying the car, from what he told the police, so why was B going to be insuring it?
I cannot see anything that says who was buying the car. OP only says A went with B to buy the car from C.As far as the stop goes it may have been for anything, not no insurance, until PC investigated.
KevinCorvetteC6 said:
I cannot see anything that says who was buying the car. OP only says A went with B to buy the car from C.
As far as the stop goes it may have been for anything, not no insurance, until PC investigated.
In bold from the OP. As far as the stop goes it may have been for anything, not no insurance, until PC investigated.
WolfAir said:
Hope all are well. I haven't posted in a while due to personal stuff going on as well as busy work and just life.
Anyway to the point,
A "friend" of mine went to buy a car with his cousin, now my friend has fully comprehensive insurance on his own car and his policy states he is allowed to drive any car privately insured as 3rd party.
They were pretty much 100% going to purchase the car so they handed over the money before taking it for a little test drive. My friend drove the car as his cousin had not yet transferred his insurance over (I have no idea why I asked this myself). Whilst driving they were stopped by the Police, apparently the car was uninsured. My friend, whilst in the back of the Police car, when asked who owns the car may have said he does..and so cue full checks (driving licence, address etc.) all coming back clear, the Police officer said the vehicle in question was not insured for my friend to drive, therefore his own policy was not enforceable and so he was served with NIP for driving whilst uninsured and the vehicle impounded.
Unfortunately at the time they were unable to get in touch with the gentleman who owned the car, although he did get in touch later in the evening and provided his insurance policy details which seem to prove the car was fully insured by him therefore meaning my friend's policy was valid as 3rd party.
My friend received his conditional offer in the post yesterday of £300 and 6 points but thinks it is unfair, he has been getting mixed advice with the Police saying speak to the DVLA, and the DVLA saying it isn't our problem.
Also taking advantage of free legal advice, some have said take the fine and points your argument is not strong enough in court, whilst others have said fight it.
PH has always given good advice so I thought I'd give a shout get some feed back from anyone been in the same situation?
Cheers fellas and Happy Easter to everyone
Anyway to the point,
A "friend" of mine went to buy a car with his cousin, now my friend has fully comprehensive insurance on his own car and his policy states he is allowed to drive any car privately insured as 3rd party.
They were pretty much 100% going to purchase the car so they handed over the money before taking it for a little test drive. My friend drove the car as his cousin had not yet transferred his insurance over (I have no idea why I asked this myself). Whilst driving they were stopped by the Police, apparently the car was uninsured. My friend, whilst in the back of the Police car, when asked who owns the car may have said he does..and so cue full checks (driving licence, address etc.) all coming back clear, the Police officer said the vehicle in question was not insured for my friend to drive, therefore his own policy was not enforceable and so he was served with NIP for driving whilst uninsured and the vehicle impounded.
Unfortunately at the time they were unable to get in touch with the gentleman who owned the car, although he did get in touch later in the evening and provided his insurance policy details which seem to prove the car was fully insured by him therefore meaning my friend's policy was valid as 3rd party.
My friend received his conditional offer in the post yesterday of £300 and 6 points but thinks it is unfair, he has been getting mixed advice with the Police saying speak to the DVLA, and the DVLA saying it isn't our problem.
Also taking advantage of free legal advice, some have said take the fine and points your argument is not strong enough in court, whilst others have said fight it.
PH has always given good advice so I thought I'd give a shout get some feed back from anyone been in the same situation?
Cheers fellas and Happy Easter to everyone
My tuppence,
A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
Jimmyarm said:
My tuppence,
A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
You can pay to insure a car you don't own? The only people that can absolutely answer are the respective insurance companies.A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
Was this person insured for this vehicle, at this time/date, for this purpose....?
Jimmyarm said:
My tuppence,
A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
Save your tuppence. A buys the car, B assumes he can drive it as C has it insured.
What B doesn't realise is that as soon as A buys the car, C's insurable interest dissappears ergo his policy is no longer valid.
B is up the creek without a paddle and should take the first offer with regards to the penalty.
Just for clarity, B's driving other cars extension definately says the other car must he insured under another policy ?
Insurable interest is a long since effectively dead concept in motor insurance. Have a look at the Deregulation Act from last year which explains when an insurer's liability ceases.
WolfAir said:
Hey up, sorry for the late reply burning the midnight oil on the night shifts and all.
I think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
This thread has cleared up nothingI think there has been some mistake as to how I wrote the situation down that has some people confused although a couple of chaps have given good advice, I'll start again.
My friend- Mr A.
His cousin- Mr B
The car seller- Mr C
MR A went with MR B to buy a car from MR C,
They had in fact handed over money to purchase the car, not as a deposit to test the car (That was my mistake). So in effect the car was sold.
MR A has fully comprehensive insurance and so was driving the car home under the assumption MR C's fully comprehensive insurance was still valid hence giving MR A 3rd party cover.
Stopped by police who then claimed car was uninsured as ownership had transferred, regardless of v5 being sent off or not.
Car was seized and MR A given notice of driving without insurance.
Now I think the general opinion on the thread is my friend MR A was not insured at the time and so would you say he should accept the £300 fine and 6 points or still fight his case at court as he genuinely believed his was insured to drive the car.
Cheers fellas
We had already figured they had bought the car despite the story that they hadn't
But the simple question is, who bought the car.
If Mr A bought the car, chances are he was uninsured, as drive any car usually excludes other vehicles you own, or some thing around that theme.
If Mr B bought he car, chances are Mr A was insured to drive Mr B's car regardless if it meet the continuous insurance requirements, because as far as i'm aware no insurer actually requires the other car to have another insurance policy despite many people believing this is the case, and if any due it's an awful lot less common than people seem to think.
snorky782 said:
Save your tuppence.
Insurable interest is a long since effectively dead concept in motor insurance. Have a look at the Deregulation Act from last year which explains when an insurer's liability ceases.
I'm not seeing anything that stops insurable interest being an essential concept ?Insurable interest is a long since effectively dead concept in motor insurance. Have a look at the Deregulation Act from last year which explains when an insurer's liability ceases.
Sure, the compulsory part of the cover doesn't immediately cease (in certain circumstances) but for the purposes of another policys extension clause being activated when a 'valid' insurance policy is in force I wouldn't drive on the assumption it was in these circumstances.
I'm genuinely interested in the answer, if what the OP says is correct you are essentially saying that B was insured, whereas my underwriters head says they weren't as the sellers Policy ceased to be 'valid' as soon as they sold the car
Vaud said:
You can pay to insure a car you don't own? The only people that can absolutely answer are the respective insurance companies.
Was this person insured for this vehicle, at this time/date, for this purpose....?
Yes you can, if you have an insurable interest in it. Was this person insured for this vehicle, at this time/date, for this purpose....?
If I 'rent' you my car for six months and a stipulation of that is that you are responsible for any damage you cause to it then you have an insurable interest.
The fact that you need cover in accordance with the Road Traffic act is a seperate matter.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff