Is this legal?

Author
Discussion

Sheepshanks

32,764 posts

119 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
cpjitservices said:
Ki3r said:
Wrong.

I stopped a driver driving her sons car as hers was getting repaired. His vehicle didn't have a policy in place due to being at uni and not needed.

Direct line WOULD cover her using the drive other vehicles cover. It depends massively on the insurance company.
Oh OK, very badly mis-informed then - or I guess it's just my insurance company.

My bad.

Now I know....
Ki3r's stop must have been a few years ago as now there would still be a CIE offence against the vehicle's keeper.

SS2.

14,462 posts

238 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
Ki3r's stop must have been a few years ago as now there would still be a CIE offence against the vehicle's keeper.
Not really his place to do anything about that - CIE is a DVLA matter and entirely seperate from whether or not a vehicle is insured to be used on a road or other public place.


Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 18th January 09:27

Sheepshanks

32,764 posts

119 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
SS2. said:
Not really his place to do anything about that - CIE is a DVLA matter and entirely seperate from whether or not a vehicle is insured to be used on a road or other public place.
Yes, I wasn't even sure if it was an offence or a "rule" sort of thing, with a civil penalty. But the MIB site does say it's an offence.

SS2.

14,462 posts

238 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
SS2. said:
Not really his place to do anything about that - CIE is a DVLA matter and entirely seperate from whether or not a vehicle is insured to be used on a road or other public place.
Yes, I wasn't even sure if it was an offence or a "rule" sort of thing, with a civil penalty. But the MIB site does say it's an offence.
It's a valid point.

RTA 1988 said:
144A. Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

(1) 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.

(2) For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—

(a) it is covered by a 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) either of the following conditions is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.

(4) The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—

(a) the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and

(b) the vehicle is owned by that person.

(5) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle.
DOC may well satisfy Section 2a but, absent the presence of a valid insurance policy specific for that vehicle (or a fleet policy in the name of the RK), it would not satisfy Section 2b.

And Schedule 2A of the RTA does allow vehicles falling foul of the above sections to be immobilised, removed and disposed of.



speedking31

3,556 posts

136 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Can a vehicle be 'deregistered', e.g. by putting its registration on retention and not requesting a new plate?