Is this legal?

[Amused2death]

Car registered in my name, currently SORN and uninsured. It's nearly time for the MOT. We take our vehicles to a local guy who'll give it the once over then take it for the MOT. As the car is in my name I'm fully aware if I want to drive it to our local guy I'd need to insure it accordingly.

Wife has her own car, fully comp insurance in her name, which also gives her minimum 3rd party cover on other vehicles. Exact wording on the insurance certificate is...."Under the terms of section 2 of the policy, Mrs A2D may, with the owner's express consent, also drive a motor car which does not belong to them; is not a rental car; is not hired to them under a hire purchase or leasing agreement"

Can the wife drive my SORN'd car to/from our local mechanic legally given the wording above? This will be a proper, prebooked arrangement.

I know she'll only have 3rd party cover and that's not an issue, I'm more concerned about our liabilities to other road users. I think she's legally ok with this, but thought I'd ask here.....just in case.

Thanks

[speedking31]

My policy also has an exclusion (helpfully listed elsewhere) under What is not covered: "Use of a private motor car unless there is a current and valid policy of insurance in force for the vehicle being driven under this Section."
Check carefully.

[Corpulent Tosser]

I am not sure about the insurance side of it but my understanding is without RFL/MOT you can only drive it to and from an MOT station where you have pre-booked the MOT, and you can then take it to a place to get repairs carried out after the MOT.

[steveo3002]

ask if the garage will collect /deliver

[solo2]

The vehicle has to be covered even for a third party to drive it, so no that won't work unfortunately

[KevinCamaroSS]

solo2 said:

The vehicle has to be covered even for a third party to drive it, so no that won't work unfortunately

Only if it says so in the policy.

[Terminator X]

speedking31 said:

My policy also has an exclusion (helpfully listed elsewhere) under What is not covered: "Use of a private motor car unless there is a current and valid policy of insurance in force for the vehicle being driven under this Section."
Check carefully.

This is normally the case as otherwise you'd only need to insure one car in order to drive a load of un-insured cars.

TX.

[SS2.]

Personally, I'd DayInsure it. This would avoid any 'complications' if the MOT'er decided to park it on the road. It would also avoid any unwanted attention from ANPR pings.

Also be aware that the exemption from MOT & VED only applies when driving to and from a pre-arranged test (or to a place of repair after a failure). Whilst you might be unlucky to get tugged for it, the exemption doesn't appear to extend to taking the vehicle for a pre-test 'once over' at another location.

solo2 said:

The vehicle has to be covered even for a third party to drive it, so no that won't work unfortunately

Not necessarily - depends on the policy wording.

[Amused2death]

Thanks for the thoughts so far. I did find the following.

"You can’t drive your vehicle on the road if the MOT has run out. You can be prosecuted if caught.
The only exceptions are to drive it:
to or from somewhere to be repaired
to a pre-arranged MOT test"

Taken from here. https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot

It doesn't make any mention of "place of repair after MOT failure", just to or from somewhere to be repaired.

I'm confused.

I hasten to add I'm not looking for a get out to this, just not fully certain about what is or is not permitted.

ETA, have noticed the suggestions regarding it being collected or day insured. Thank you for that, it might be an option.

[SS2.]

Amused2death said:

Thanks for the thoughts so far. I did find the following.

"You can’t drive your vehicle on the road if the MOT has run out. You can be prosecuted if caught.
The only exceptions are to drive it:
to or from somewhere to be repaired
to a pre-arranged MOT test"

Taken from here. https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot

It doesn't make any mention of "place of repair after MOT failure", just to or from somewhere to be repaired.

I'm confused.

This is the MOT exemption:

The Motor Vehicles Tests Regulations 1981 said:

6. Exemptions

(2) Pursuant to section 44(6) the Secretary of State hereby exempts from section 44(1) for use of a vehicle;

(a) (i) for the purpose of submitting it by previous arrangement for, or bringing it away from, an examination, or

(ii) in the course of an examination, for the purpose of taking it to, or bringing it away from, any place where a part of the examination is to be or, as the case may be, has been, carried out, or of carrying out any part of the examination, the person so using it being either—

(A) an examiner, or a Ministry Inspector or an inspector appointed by a designated council, or

(B) a person acting under the personal direction of an examiner, a Ministry
Inspector or a designated Council, or

(iii) where a test certificate is refused on an examination—

(A) for the purpose of delivering it by previous arrangement at, or bringing it away from, a place where work is to be or has been done on it to remedy for a further examination the defects on the ground of which the test certificate was refused; or

(B) for the purpose of delivering it, by towing it, to a place where the vehicle is to be broken up;

(b) for any purpose for which the vehicle is authorised to be used on roads by an order under section 42;

(c) where the vehicle has been imported into Great Britain, for the purpose of its being driven after arrival in Great Britain on the journey from the place where it has arrived in Great Britain to a place of residence of the owner or driver of the vehicle;

(d) for the purpose of removing it in pursuance of section 3 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 of moving or removing it in pursuance of regulations under section 20 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 as altered by the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Alteration of Enactments) Order 1967 or of removing it from a parking place in pursuance of an order
under section 31(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, an order relating to a parking place designated under section 35 thereof, or a provision of a designation order having effect by virtue of section 39(2) thereof;

(e) where the vehicle has been detained or seized by a police constable, for police purposes connected with such detention or seizure;

[Huskyman]

Personally I would speak to the insurance company you normally use for the car's insurance, explain the situation that you need to drive the car to a pre-booked MOT appointment, ask about temporary cover for this and go from there.

[cpjitservices]

The vehicle has to have insurance in its own right to be driven on the road, simply having 3rd party cover via a comprehensive other policy will not cover the vehicle.

My point in case, you say the vehicle is un-insured. If you go to do an MID check, the database will show the vehicle as being uninsured. So you go out and drive with your 3rd party insurance - the vehicle still shows up as uninsured because it doesn't have insurance in its own right, therefore you arent covered.

https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

[Sheepshanks]

KevinCamaroSS said:

solo2 said:

The vehicle has to be covered even for a third party to drive it, so no that won't work unfortunately

Only if it says so in the policy.

I daresay it exists, but I've never seen that in a policy.

However it's a complete red herring these days - since Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) every car on the road has to have its own insurance (or be listed on a fleet policy etc etc).

[SS2.]

cpjitservices said:

The vehicle has to have insurance in its own right to be driven on the road, simply having 3rd party cover via a comprehensive other policy will not cover the vehicle.

My point in case, you say the vehicle is un-insured. If you go to do an MID check, the database will show the vehicle as being uninsured. So you go out and drive with your 3rd party insurance - the vehicle still shows up as uninsured because it doesn't have insurance in its own right, therefore you arent covered.

https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

PH myth #3/47.

[speedking31]

Sheepshanks said:

I daresay it exists, but I've never seen that in a policy.

See my post above. Highway bottom of page 2.

[Amused2death]

Looks like it'll be a temporary short term policy and I'll drive it myself.

Thanks everyone for your observations.

[Gavia]

cpjitservices said:

The vehicle has to have insurance in its own right to be driven on the road, simply having 3rd party cover via a comprehensive other policy will not cover the vehicle.

My point in case, you say the vehicle is un-insured. If you go to do an MID check, the database will show the vehicle as being uninsured. So you go out and drive with your 3rd party insurance - the vehicle still shows up as uninsured because it doesn't have insurance in its own right, therefore you arent covered.

https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

Why do people continue to say this when it's completely wrong?

Sheepshanks said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

solo2 said:

The vehicle has to be covered even for a third party to drive it, so no that won't work unfortunately

Only if it says so in the policy.

I daresay it exists, but I've never seen that in a policy.

However it's a complete red herring these days - since Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) every car on the road has to have its own insurance (or be listed on a fleet policy etc etc).

I'm confused by this. CIE just means a car must be either insured or SORNed. If it's SORNed but then used on a valid DOC basis, then the only offence is not having road tax. That's the owner's problem and is a non-endorseable minor offence.

The other car does not necessarily have to be insured for DOC to be valid either.

[akirk]

Sheepshanks said:

I daresay it exists, but I've never seen that in a policy.

However it's a complete red herring these days - since Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) every car on the road has to have its own insurance (or be listed on a fleet policy etc etc).

but not if sorned...
and a sorned vehicle can be driven to a pre-arranged MOT...

[dacouch]

For the definitive answer, check the Certificate of Insurance where it describes the cover for driving other cars, also check her policy wording. If you look in the Section titled "Liability" or "Liability to others" it will have a section confirming the driving other cars cover and any exclusions.

If it does not state the other car needs it own cover then it does not need it's own cover despite what the other posters are stating as fact about insurance and the continuous insurance law

[dave-the-diver]

Real life example.

My mother told me her brother was driving his daughters.......hang on, getting complicated, start again.

Bloke A was a a named driver on a car belonging to girl B.
Girl B forgot to re-insure the car.
Bloke A got pinged by ANPR.
Plod told Bloke A car was not insured, but asked if he had any other insurance policy which may provide cover.
Bloke A checked his own insurance policy (different vehicle), found he did have Driving Other Vehicles (not sure of exact wording or exclusions).
Plod happy, and Bloke A drove off into the sunset.

HTH

David