Legalities about driving someone's car
Discussion
Hi, was asked to drive a works van for an employee of that said firm who told me 'anyone' could drive it, what if it wasn't insured/taxed, MOT who would carry the can? I assume most people will say me, however, it's common for people to be asked to drive a car that's not owned nor insured by them and it's unpractical to ask to see paperwork in the moment but you have been given verbal authority everything is in order so would/could the buck lie with the person who verbally said everything is good for you to drive? Thanks in advance and look forward to hearing from you all
Unless you had personal cover to drive that car, I would ask for insurance certificate. I would expect that, or a copy to be in the vehicle and available to employees to see. That of course applies to proper firms, you know, those that also display employer’s liability insurance in a prominent place. I would seek assurance, not reassurance.
mgsontour said:
Hi, was asked to drive a works van for an employee of that said firm who told me 'anyone' could drive it, what if it wasn't insured/taxed, MOT who would carry the can?
The employee would have a statutory defence under section 143 of the road traffic act:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
A non-employee, driving with only the verbal assurance from an employee (who may or may not be authorised to give permission to drive the vehicle to non-employees) that adequate insurance cover is in force, only to find that it isn't?
Good luck with that.
mgsontour said:
Hi, was asked to drive a works van for an employee of that said firm who told me 'anyone' could drive it,
Our company vehicles are insured for anyone to drive, but only with the policyholder's permission. I always wonder about "policyholder" and who would be acceptable to give that permission. In our case an admin person takes care of such stuff, but she certainly isn't a Director etc.mgsontour said:
...it's common for people to be asked to drive a car that's not owned nor insured by them
Is it? Sheepshanks said:
Our company vehicles are insured for anyone to drive, but only with the policyholder's permission. I always wonder about "policyholder" and who would be acceptable to give that permission. In our case an admin person takes care of such stuff, but she certainly isn't a Director etc.
The same for us, and we've always taken the interpretation that some sort of suitable representative (in this case the admin person) would count.I mean, at Eddie Stobart I doubt that every driver has a meeting with a director when he starts who confirms he has permission. And what about agency drivers who might do one day and never again?
Jimmy Recard said:
I mean, at Eddie Stobart I doubt that every driver has a meeting with a director when he starts who confirms he has permission. And what about agency drivers who might do one day and never again?
Sure, but in that case they'd be working (even indirectly) for Eddie Stobart, and there's almost certainly a licence checking process. The OP doesn't give the circumstances in his example.
Yes "policyholder permission" is the interesting one. At the company I worked for the vans allocated to my staff. I was classed as "policyholder" as far as permission was required. All written down as part of my T & C of employment. Never told my staff that though, saved all the "can my wife/son/daughter take the van away this weekend"
Sheepshanks said:
Sure, but in that case they'd be working (even indirectly) for Eddie Stobart, and there's almost certainly a licence checking process.
The OP doesn't give the circumstances in his example.
Of course, that’s very different. I was just saying that I think your office admin person is a suitable person in your example because it’s part of their job. A cleaner or even a manager of a totally unrelated department probably wouldn’t be suitable as it’s not an assumed part of their job The OP doesn't give the circumstances in his example.
RTA 1988 Section 143(3)(b) is quite specific. If the OP is not an employee of or under contract to the company whose vehicle he has been asked to drive then he can't avail himself of it. I certainly wouldn't take the van driver's word that I'm covered. Far too risky if it all goes Pete Tong.
Thanks for all your replies and assumed it would prove a minefield but to get to the bottom I'll give the circumstance. . . . I go fishing with friends with a business who organises day trips out to sea, there is a company Landrover always left on the docks, last week we couldn't dock so I was asked to jump off and go and get the Landrover by the captain/employee who was in charge of the day out but is not a director ( I don't think anyhow ) but he is certainly senior management within the business, I had seen others drive it so I assumed everything to be OK for me to drive as I have my own insurance on my car, sorry and should have given the circumstance to begin with and thanks again for all your help
I hope this is not veering off the point completely, but I was recently made aware of a detail about the 'insured to drive other insured vehicles with third party cover' clause that is commonly found on fully comprehensive insurance.
This clause is put in place when the policy holder is also the named keeper of the vehicle. If the policy holder is not on the V5, for example when a husband or wife owns the car but is not the main driver then this clause is removed from the insurance policy.
This clause is put in place when the policy holder is also the named keeper of the vehicle. If the policy holder is not on the V5, for example when a husband or wife owns the car but is not the main driver then this clause is removed from the insurance policy.
It's just a trust thing. Do you trust him enough that he knows the details of the insurance? You have no get-out in law for no insurance (plus no tax and no MoT). If you have DOC on your own policy then (depending on the terms) you are covered at least 3rd party.
And then how much do you rate the risk (of accident and/or getting nabbed) of getting the Landy from over there to over here?
Quite a few years ago, a holiday cottage in Cornwall came with its own Landy to drive around (on road) and down the off-road track to the beach. That was supposedly insured, but I doubt it could have been! Was my DOC cover valid? Dunno. I drove it. I'd certainly be more circumspect about it now!
Bert
And then how much do you rate the risk (of accident and/or getting nabbed) of getting the Landy from over there to over here?
Quite a few years ago, a holiday cottage in Cornwall came with its own Landy to drive around (on road) and down the off-road track to the beach. That was supposedly insured, but I doubt it could have been! Was my DOC cover valid? Dunno. I drove it. I'd certainly be more circumspect about it now!
Bert
WhiskyDisco said:
I hope this is not veering off the point completely, but I was recently made aware of a detail about the 'insured to drive other insured vehicles with third party cover' clause that is commonly found on fully comprehensive insurance.
This clause is put in place when the policy holder is also the named keeper of the vehicle. If the policy holder is not on the V5, for example when a husband or wife owns the car but is not the main driver then this clause is removed from the insurance policy.
You're confusing two different things. It has nothing to do with who the named keeper is.This clause is put in place when the policy holder is also the named keeper of the vehicle. If the policy holder is not on the V5, for example when a husband or wife owns the car but is not the main driver then this clause is removed from the insurance policy.
DOC cover applies only to the policyholder: any named driver/s are excluded
Although some insurers require the policyholder to also be the RK, it is by no means universal (mine doesn't).
In fact such a restriction is a nonsense as there is big bold writing on every V5C that it is NOT proof of ownership.
There is no valid reason why an owner cannot have an insured interest in the vehicle. Especially if it's their money that paid for it!
It should be noted that DOC is not normally available to policyholders who are under 25.
Also such cover is third party only (even if your policy is comprehensive). If the car is stolen/damaged you're on the hook.
The problem is that many people don't look carefully enough at the fine details in their policy document and Certificate.
The precise wording is crucial. For example my Certificate restricts the DOC cover to a private motor car.
That means that I can't use it to borrow my mate's van and trailer to take my car to/from a track day.
There is also another exclusion: no DOC cover at all if there is no valid insurance policy in force for the vehicle I'm driving.
So if the owner thereof doesn't have one for whatever reason I can't drive it using my DOC cover.
The reason for that it is provides a back stop to prevent a third party being left high and dry.
It's pointless getting a judgement against someone who is impecunious and has no assets.
WhiskyDisco said:
This clause is put in place when the policy holder is also the named keeper of the vehicle. If the policy holder is not on the V5, for example when a husband or wife owns the car but is not the main driver then this clause is removed from the insurance policy.
I own and am RK of the car my wife uses. She was named as the main driver. I had DOC cover as the policyholder.I changed the cover so she was policyholder. I still own the car. She now has DOC cover as the policyholder.
It is something to be cautious of though. I read on the leasing thread that some insurers omit DOC if the car is leased.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff