Continuous insurance rule & DOC cover
Discussion
Is there not a conflict between both of these?
Some policies include DOC cover which does not stipulate that the car to be driven must have its own insurance policy in force.
But I thought that continuous insurance rules result in an automatic FPN through the post of £100 for a car which is taxed but not identified on the insurance database as being listed on an insurance policy.
Does anyone know how this works?
Obviously if you were pulled up while driving you could demonstrate you are driving the car under the conditions of your other insurance policy, but how would you get round a FPN being issued by a computer?
Some policies include DOC cover which does not stipulate that the car to be driven must have its own insurance policy in force.
But I thought that continuous insurance rules result in an automatic FPN through the post of £100 for a car which is taxed but not identified on the insurance database as being listed on an insurance policy.
Does anyone know how this works?
Obviously if you were pulled up while driving you could demonstrate you are driving the car under the conditions of your other insurance policy, but how would you get round a FPN being issued by a computer?
DaveCWK said:
Is there not a conflict between both of these?
Some policies include DOC cover which does not stipulate that the car to be driven must have its own insurance policy in force.
But I thought that continuous insurance rules result in an automatic FPN through the post of £100 for a car which is taxed but not identified on the insurance database as being listed on an insurance policy.
Does anyone know how this works?
Obviously if you were pulled up while driving you could demonstrate you are driving the car under the conditions of your other insurance policy, but how would you get round a FPN being issued by a computer?
DOC doesn't cover 'your' cars (those in your household available for your use).Some policies include DOC cover which does not stipulate that the car to be driven must have its own insurance policy in force.
But I thought that continuous insurance rules result in an automatic FPN through the post of £100 for a car which is taxed but not identified on the insurance database as being listed on an insurance policy.
Does anyone know how this works?
Obviously if you were pulled up while driving you could demonstrate you are driving the car under the conditions of your other insurance policy, but how would you get round a FPN being issued by a computer?
DaveCWK said:
Is there not a conflict between both of these?
One might think so but the legislation suggests that is not necessarily so.Driving without insurance is an offence committed by the user (i.e. the driver).
Section 143 RTA 1988 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Valid* DOC cover clearly satisfies that requirement.
* The key point here is where the DOC cover does NOT require that the vehicle being driven has its own current policy in force (see below).
The CIE offence is committed by the Registered Keeper.
Section 22 Road Safety Act 2006 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/sectio...
Which added Section 144A to the RTA 1988 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Simply by perusing the wording normally used for DOC cover it will be evident that a driver using it won't be the RK of the vehicle being driven. Bear in mind that some insurance policies stipulate that it must have its own current policy in force (mine does). Others don't. It is the latter scenario which will create the potential for conflict (see * above).
In short, what we are looking at here is different offences committed by different people. You might have some fun though trying to argue that distinction with the BiB if/when you get tugged. As is quite likely if their in-car equipment/the MID flags the vehicle as 'no insurance'. The potential for seizure then rears its ugly head.
DaveCWK said:
Obviously if you were pulled up while driving you could demonstrate you are driving the car under the conditions of your other insurance policy, but how would you get round a FPN being issued by a computer?
See above. It would be different 'yous' being fined.The BiB can't seize under Section 143.
The easy to digest version here - http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263
The full monty is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...
If you are going to rely on DOC it is essential that you carry your Certificate of Insurance with you.
I don't know whether they have that power under Section 144A though. I wouldn't fancy testing it tbh.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff