Insured or Uninsured..that is the question?
Discussion
king car? 
it seems quite a simple scenario to explain, but the OP seems to be making a right meal of it. Its like watching Inception all over again 
littleredrooster said:
Umm, no it's not. DOC cover is not just for emergencies. There are, however, specific clauses in certain policies which refer to moving the car 'in an emergency', but this is usually within the 1st parties' insurance cover.
I would say a DOC should be thought of as such. There is of course no fire/theft cover when the DOC driver parks it up so that should be considered before undertaking a journey under the cover of a DOC. Much better simply to be a named driver on the 1st instance policy.
There was no test drive. The car was bought and paid for, you decided to gamble it and drive home without the proper insurance. You got caught. Either the vendor lies for you to say the car was still owned by him at the time you were pulled or you take the 6 points and put it down to experience.
cashmax said:
There was no test drive. The car was bought and paid for, you decided to gamble it and drive home without the proper insurance. You got caught. Either the vendor lies for you to say the car was still owned by him at the time you were pulled or you take the 6 points and put it down to experience.
But does the seller's insurance cease when he sells the car or when he cancels the insurance?herewego said:
But does the seller's insurance cease when he sells the car or when he cancels the insurance?
It ceases when the car is removed from MID and no earlier. The comment made by the OP about the vendors insurance "not being happy that the insurance was in force after so long" speaks volumes. This wasn't a test drive. This was two smart arses buying a car between them and using DOC to try to blag that they had some insurance in place a few months later. It's rightly backfired on them.
Whether the vendor's insurance remained in force is moot as DOC excludes cover on any vehicle owned, leased or hired to you. Part of me expects the OP and his cousin / friend to be under 25 as well so probably don't have DOC anyway under that exclusion.
snorky782 said:
It ceases when the car is removed from MID and no earlier. The comment made by the OP about the vendors insurance "not being happy that the insurance was in force after so long" speaks volumes.
This wasn't a test drive. This was two smart arses buying a car between them and using DOC to try to blag that they had some insurance in place a few months later. It's rightly backfired on them.
Whether the vendor's insurance remained in force is moot as DOC excludes cover on any vehicle owned, leased or hired to you. Part of me expects the OP and his cousin / friend to be under 25 as well so probably don't have DOC anyway under that exclusion.
The addition or removing of a vehicle from the MID does not denote when the vehicle is or isn't covered, it's linked to the certificate This wasn't a test drive. This was two smart arses buying a car between them and using DOC to try to blag that they had some insurance in place a few months later. It's rightly backfired on them.
Whether the vendor's insurance remained in force is moot as DOC excludes cover on any vehicle owned, leased or hired to you. Part of me expects the OP and his cousin / friend to be under 25 as well so probably don't have DOC anyway under that exclusion.
snorky782 said:
dacouch said:
The addition or removing of a vehicle from the MID does not denote when the vehicle is or isn't covered, it's linked to the certificate
You really need to review the Deregulation Act impacts from 2015Edited by snorky782 on Wednesday 27th April 18:38
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed, but neither is the MID is not the definitive word on insurance. A vehicle can be uninsured yet be on the MID, or be insured but not be on the MID.
If an insurer or customer cancels a policy then it is only deemed to be cancelled from an RTA perspective when the insurer has removed it from MID.That's the point that's being discussed. All the other ifs, buts and maybes are not relevant to the is discussion and are just red herrings.
snorky782 said:
If an insurer or customer cancels a policy then it is only deemed to be cancelled from an RTA perspective when the insurer has removed it from MID.
That's the point that's being discussed. All the other ifs, buts and maybes are not relevant to the is discussion and are just red herrings.
Deregulation Act is interesting reading. That's the point that's being discussed. All the other ifs, buts and maybes are not relevant to the is discussion and are just red herrings.
Quick question. Policyholder sells a vehicle and informs their insurer. Insurer is lax in removing it from MID. New owner has an accident and the seller's insurance could be liable under section 75 despite telling them of the cancellation/suspension.
This used to effect the policyholders claim record as their policy had paid out. Is that still the case?
Roo said:
Deregulation Act is interesting reading.
Quick question. Policyholder sells a vehicle and informs their insurer. Insurer is lax in removing it from MID. New owner has an accident and the seller's insurance could be liable under section 75 despite telling them of the cancellation/suspension.
This used to effect the policyholders claim record as their policy had paid out. Is that still the case?
The seller's insurance would only be liable if the purchaser was uninsured. If the seller had done everything right and the insurer was the one who was lax in removing it form MID, then it's highly unlikely that the seller would suffer, as they've done nothing wrong. Quick question. Policyholder sells a vehicle and informs their insurer. Insurer is lax in removing it from MID. New owner has an accident and the seller's insurance could be liable under section 75 despite telling them of the cancellation/suspension.
This used to effect the policyholders claim record as their policy had paid out. Is that still the case?
If the seller just sat on the cancellation to get another year's NCD, as is often the case, then they would probably lose out.
Article 75 is a very rare basis on which to pay a claim.
snorky782 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed, but neither is the MID is not the definitive word on insurance. A vehicle can be uninsured yet be on the MID, or be insured but not be on the MID.
If an insurer or customer cancels a policy then it is only deemed to be cancelled from an RTA perspective when the insurer has removed it from MID.That's the point that's being discussed. All the other ifs, buts and maybes are not relevant to the is discussion and are just red herrings.
My insurer could also pursue me thru the courts to recover their tp outlay.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If it's on the MID, then insurers are responsible for their tp obligations. But...if I cancel my policy, receive a refund, and the insurer forgets to remove the vehicle from MID due to an admin cock up, then if I were to crash the vehicle weeks later, despite the vehicle being on the MID, my own damage claim would not be paid and I could be prosecuted for driving without insurance.
My insurer could also pursue me thru the courts to recover their tp outlay.
Whilst technically correct, that doesn't answer the specific question that was asked. My insurer could also pursue me thru the courts to recover their tp outlay.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff