Insured or Uninsured..that is the question?

[WolfAir]

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

[dirkgently]

Why is your "Friend" talking to the police or the DVLA? Wouldn't a call to his insurance company be more constructive.

[anonymous-user]

I don't understand why they told the police the vehicle was theirs.

If the insurance policy states that when driving other cars the other car has to have its own insurance policy and it didn't, they're bang to rights unfortunately. It seems this is the case.

What does it say on the insurance certificate under "driving other cars"?

[anonymous-user]

I would think that your friend became the 'owner' as soon as the money was handed over - before the test drive. As such, the 'driving other cars' became inoperative, and your friend was driving his own uninsured car.

It does have the whiff of a week-old haddock, TBH;)

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

Usually, the wording of the driving-other-cars clause specifies that the car must already be insured, and the driver must not own the car. But obviously your friend needs to check the wording in his own policy.

But assuming for a moment that the wording follows that common pattern (car already insured and not owned by the driver), then clearly there are two important questions:

• Was the car itself already insured by the seller?
• Had the sale transaction actually happened, and did your friend therefore own the car at the time he was stopped?

Things to ignore when answering these questions:

• The fact that the V5C hadn't been signed and sent off. The V5C has nothing to do with ownership.
• Whatever your friend said to the police in the car. He may have been confused or flustered.
• The fact that the car didn't show as insured on the police's database. It can easily be wrong or out of date - it's just a tool to help them pick cars that might be worth stopping for further investigation; it does not definitively determine whether the car was insured.

To me it sounds like the car was insured by the seller, and the sale transaction had not been completed* - the money had been handed over as a deposit, but they had not 'shaken hands' and agreed that the car had been sold - he was test-driving it to decide whether he wanted to commit to buying it. Is that correct?

* Edit: But it now seems this wasn't the case - they had indeed bought the car. See later in the thread.

If that is the case, then your friend should go to court and explain that he made an innocent mistake in telling the police that he owned the car - he now realises that the transaction had not been finalised and the car was therefore not his, but he was of course driving it with permission. Explain also that despite the police database's information, the car was insured and therefore your friend's 'other car' insurance was valid.

If the court accepts this then there should be no problem. Don't just plead guilty or accept a fine/points if you genuinely believe yourself to be not guilty. I personally wouldn't bother with a lawyer; it's a simple case of explaining the facts to the court - your friend can do that himself.

But firstly your friend needs to check his insurance (phone them, not the DVLA) to determine the circumstances under which his 'other car' insurance can apply. The issues of ownership and pre-existing insurance might not even be relevant, in which case your friend is in the clear anyway.

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Saturday 2nd April 08:12

[98elise]

Its quite an odd story. Cousin paying for a car before the test drive, your friend telling the police he owns it.

This has the hallmarks of a Police Interceptors story written all over it

[vanordinaire]

Is the car still inpounded or was the 'owner ' able to get the car back by proving it was insured at the time of the stop? This should help you to determine whether it was actually insured or not.

[paintman]

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

Just in case.

[vonhosen]

vanordinaire said:

Is the car still inpounded or was the 'owner ' able to get the car back by proving it was insured at the time of the stop? This should help you to determine whether it was actually insured or not.

To get it back the owner doesn't have to show it was insured at the time of the stop, they have to show it is insured when they want to pick it up.

[herewego]

vonhosen said:

vanordinaire said:

Is the car still inpounded or was the 'owner ' able to get the car back by proving it was insured at the time of the stop? This should help you to determine whether it was actually insured or not.

To get it back the owner doesn't have to show it was insured at the time of the stop, they have to show it is insured when they want to pick it up.

It's a good question though. If the car was retrieved by the seller then it would help to show that he still owned it and it was insured at the time of the stop and the friend was driving legitimately on DOC cover.

[agtlaw]

If the seller isn't prepared to attend court to give evidence in support of the story then the "friend" will be convicted.

The full note of the roadside conversation with the police is important. Was "test drive" mentioned? If not, why not?

[vonhosen]

herewego said:

vonhosen said:

vanordinaire said:

Is the car still inpounded or was the 'owner ' able to get the car back by proving it was insured at the time of the stop? This should help you to determine whether it was actually insured or not.

To get it back the owner doesn't have to show it was insured at the time of the stop, they have to show it is insured when they want to pick it up.

It's a good question though. If the car was retrieved by the seller then it would help to show that he still owned it and it was insured at the time of the stop and the friend was driving legitimately on DOC cover.

Or he has bought it back for a cheaper price than he sold it. The insurance company will tell if it was insured at the time of the stop or not by the seller.

[bradjsmith88]

I don't know who the DOC insurer is - so I can't answer the question - as already said it depends on the specific policy wording.

Also if it was insured by the owner, and they sold the vehicle - the insured they have would cease to operate due to the transfer of ownership.

The part i'm also not clear about is if it was your friend or his cousin that was intending to purchase the vehicle?

It sounds like your friend was driving - and he told the Police that he was the owner - DOC usually excludes vehicle owned by you - so he would in that case be uninsured.

The story needs to be straightened out - had the sale taken place - who was the owner at the time of the stop - and if he feels the offer is unfair to have his day in court.

It sounds like the whole issue stems from not telling the whole true story - and why would he not have?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bradjsmith88 said:

It sounds like the whole issue stems from not telling the whole true story - and why would he not have?

There's a breed of people out there that when it comes to dealing with authority (HMRC, Insurance, Police, Local Council etc.) feel compelled to lie, even when the truth is more advantageous. They just can't help themselves.

[Laurel Green]

280E said:

It does have the whiff of a week-old haddock, TBH;)

Thank you. If it was not for your post my haddock would still be languishing in my freezer.

[ging84]

Where the hell does the cousin fit in?

Who was actually buying the car ? The friend or cousin? The story just says they were buying it.
The friend claimed to own it yet the cousin was the one meant to be insuring it?

[Roo]

ging84 said:

Where the hell does the cousin fit in?

Who was actually buying the car ? The friend or cousin? The story just says they were buying it.
The friend claimed to own it yet the cousin was the one meant to be insuring it?

Used to get that a lot when I was selling used hybrid cars that were going to be used for private hire.

[snorky782]

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

The two bits in bold make no sense at all. Either they bought the car, so the vendor wouldn't have been worried about it being impounded, or they hadn't and he'd be tearing his hair out at it being impounded.

The vendor seems pretty disinterested in the car being impounded so that speaks volumes IMHO.

Equally confusing is the lack of insurance in general. You say that your friend's cousin hadn't transferred any insurance across and that you know that your DOC requires other private insurance in place.

The owner would not have been able to cancel his insurance so quickly from when you left on the supposed test drive. That means that it was never insured by him and you were chancing it and knew it.

Edited by snorky782 on Thursday 24th March 14:31

[Variomatic]

snorky782 said:

The two bits in bold make no sense at all. Either they bought the car, so the vendor wouldn't have been worried about it being impounded, or they hadn't and he'd be tearing his hair out at it being impounded.

More to the point, if it was a test drive, and the sale was still to be completed, how could they not be able to get in touch with the vendor? Surely he'd still be exactly where they'd left him, waiting to do the relevant paperwork?

[Roo]

Variomatic said:

snorky782 said:

The two bits in bold make no sense at all. Either they bought the car, so the vendor wouldn't have been worried about it being impounded, or they hadn't and he'd be tearing his hair out at it being impounded.

More to the point, if it was a test drive, and the sale was still to be completed, how could they not be able to get in touch with the vendor? Surely he'd still be exactly where they'd left him, waiting to do the relevant paperwork?

And why hand over all the money if you're not sure whether you're going to buy it or not.