Charged with driving without insurance
Discussion
I'm looking for a bit of a steer from anyone knowledgeable on these matters.
I had my Range Rover hit and written off last year. I bought an old Freelander as a run about whilst the insurers argued the toss over the RR before finally agreeing to write it off. The Freelander went on the RR policy and was fully insured.
I bought a subsequent replacement RR and put that back on the original policy, so my Freelander at that point had no specific insurance policy that related to it. There were two other cars in the household (my RR and the Wife's car) both of which are insured fully comp and both of which cover us to drive any vehicle third party cover only. The freelander was worth about £800 so just wasn't worth insuring anything other than third party.
DVLA wrote to me telling me that the Freelander wasn't insured. I explained that it was covered TP on two other policies, but they wouldn't have it. As a result I took out another policy for the Freelander on a fully comp basis.
I have now received a summons to appear in respect of a charge of being the registered keeper of a vehicle that did not meet the insurance requirements of section 144A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
I am absolutely convinced that had I have been involved in an accident, there was adequate insurance in place and that I did have a Road Traffic Act insurer in place.
Has anyone had any experience or have any suggestions?
Cheers
I had my Range Rover hit and written off last year. I bought an old Freelander as a run about whilst the insurers argued the toss over the RR before finally agreeing to write it off. The Freelander went on the RR policy and was fully insured.
I bought a subsequent replacement RR and put that back on the original policy, so my Freelander at that point had no specific insurance policy that related to it. There were two other cars in the household (my RR and the Wife's car) both of which are insured fully comp and both of which cover us to drive any vehicle third party cover only. The freelander was worth about £800 so just wasn't worth insuring anything other than third party.
DVLA wrote to me telling me that the Freelander wasn't insured. I explained that it was covered TP on two other policies, but they wouldn't have it. As a result I took out another policy for the Freelander on a fully comp basis.
I have now received a summons to appear in respect of a charge of being the registered keeper of a vehicle that did not meet the insurance requirements of section 144A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
I am absolutely convinced that had I have been involved in an accident, there was adequate insurance in place and that I did have a Road Traffic Act insurer in place.
Has anyone had any experience or have any suggestions?
Cheers
Have you read "insurance requirements of section 144A(1)"?
1 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.
1 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.
I'm pretty sure it would be a stipulation of your policy that if you were to drive another vehicle using the 3rd party driving other cars element of your insurance, that vehicle would need to itself be insured by somebody else. Did you think you could drive any vehicle regardless of whether it was insured elsewhere or not?
ModernAndy said:
I'm pretty sure it would be a stipulation of your policy that if you were to drive another vehicle using the 3rd party driving other cars element of your insurance, that vehicle would need to itself be insured by somebody else. Did you think you could drive any vehicle regardless of whether it was insured elsewhere or not?
Not necessarily. It depends on the insurer and the policy.However - most of them specifically state that the DoC cover only extends to vehicles NOT owned by the policyholder.
You haven't been charged with driving without insurance - you've been charged with being the registered keeper of a vehicle which doesn't meet the insurance requirements. Whether or not you could have used your DoC cover to drive it on the road doesn't matter - the vehicle must be either covered by its own policy, or declared SORN, or you commit an offence.
marshalla said:
ModernAndy said:
I'm pretty sure it would be a stipulation of your policy that if you were to drive another vehicle using the 3rd party driving other cars element of your insurance, that vehicle would need to itself be insured by somebody else. Did you think you could drive any vehicle regardless of whether it was insured elsewhere or not?
Not necessarily. It depends on the insurer and the policy.However - most of them specifically state that the DoC cover only extends to vehicles NOT owned by the policyholder.
My wife's insurance has me as a named driver on her policy. Her policy states that either named driver is covered to drive any vehicle that is not owned by the Policyholder - ie not owned by her. The Freelander was not owned by her, it was owned by me.
My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
NICE EH said:
My wife's insurance has me as a named driver on her policy. Her policy states that either named driver is covered to drive any vehicle that is not owned by the Policyholder - ie not owned by her. The Freelander was not owned by her, it was owned by me.
My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
But the law requires that any vehicle which is taxed must have its own policy in force. Having cover just to drive it through another policy is not enough. It's called Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) and has been a requirement since 2011.My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
Simple answer to your query.
Every car you own needs to be insured or declared SORN.
You have made the mistake of thinking your 3rd party cover on another policy means the car is insured when it isn't.
In reality what you should have done is got a multi-car policy or insured it seperately with its own cover.
As yours was neither that is why you have receiver a letter from the DVLA.
If I were you i'd get cover immediately, turn up in court and just be honest about the situation. As you say it's not like you were deliberately trying to avoid insuring the car, you genuinely believed it was covered so turn up in court with your other car insurance policies also and explain your mistake.
Every car you own needs to be insured or declared SORN.
You have made the mistake of thinking your 3rd party cover on another policy means the car is insured when it isn't.
In reality what you should have done is got a multi-car policy or insured it seperately with its own cover.
As yours was neither that is why you have receiver a letter from the DVLA.
If I were you i'd get cover immediately, turn up in court and just be honest about the situation. As you say it's not like you were deliberately trying to avoid insuring the car, you genuinely believed it was covered so turn up in court with your other car insurance policies also and explain your mistake.
Edited by Joeguard1990 on Wednesday 20th January 17:43
I'd speak to a solicitor. You may be able to argue that you were under a genuine misapprehension and rectified it as soon as you were fully aware of your responsibilities. I don't know how far that would get you but you may be able to convince the DVLA to drop the case.
I have a friend who was caught driving without insurance. Long story short; he bought a car from a dealer. That car was then replaced by an extremely similar car due to the original car needing work done on it. Insurance was arranged before all this happened so he was insured on the registration mark of the first car while driving the second and made the mistake of forgetting to change the insurance details and I believe this happened before the V5 and letters from the DVLA had a chance to be sent. He got away with no case to answer but had a decent solicitor.
I have a friend who was caught driving without insurance. Long story short; he bought a car from a dealer. That car was then replaced by an extremely similar car due to the original car needing work done on it. Insurance was arranged before all this happened so he was insured on the registration mark of the first car while driving the second and made the mistake of forgetting to change the insurance details and I believe this happened before the V5 and letters from the DVLA had a chance to be sent. He got away with no case to answer but had a decent solicitor.
Its pretty simple - any vehicle needs to have a valid insurance policy on it for it to be driven by someone else under their "drive another car" policy extension.
The point raised several times above also applies in that you can't apply a "drive another car" extension to a car you already own. Your wife also can't drive your Freelander under her own DOC, because you don't have it insured.
Sorry, but you're bang to rights - Mag is unlikely to accept ignorance (of the law) as a defence
The point raised several times above also applies in that you can't apply a "drive another car" extension to a car you already own. Your wife also can't drive your Freelander under her own DOC, because you don't have it insured.
Sorry, but you're bang to rights - Mag is unlikely to accept ignorance (of the law) as a defence
Nigel_O said:
Its pretty simple - any vehicle needs to have a valid insurance policy on it for it to be driven by someone else under their "drive another car" policy extension.
IT DEPENDS ON THE POLICY!Mine would allow me to drive someone else's uninsured and untaxed car to an MOT test and back again.
(It would even allow me to drive that car if it was taxed and uninsured - but the owner would be committing the offence of keeping a taxed but uninsured car in that case.)
NICE EH said:
My wife's insurance has me as a named driver on her policy. Her policy states that either named driver is covered to drive any vehicle that is not owned by the Policyholder - ie not owned by her. The Freelander was not owned by her, it was owned by me.
My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
The vehicles are all owned by both of you as far insurance is concerned.My policy has the same wording in it, so she would be covered to drive the Freelander on my policy.
Vehicle was tax'd, MOT'd etc. I wasn't trying to avoid being insured, I genuinely thought that I had TP cover on any vehicle.
The thread title is misleading.
The OP hasn't been charged with driving without insurance - it's been alleged that he kept a vehicle which didn't meet the required insurance requirements. The two are quite separate.
If he's got 3rd party cover for other vehicles, his policy will no doubt state that this applies to vehicles that he is driving, not keeping.
The OP hasn't been charged with driving without insurance - it's been alleged that he kept a vehicle which didn't meet the required insurance requirements. The two are quite separate.
If he's got 3rd party cover for other vehicles, his policy will no doubt state that this applies to vehicles that he is driving, not keeping.
Nigel_O said:
Its pretty simple - any vehicle needs to have a valid insurance policy on it for it to be driven by someone else under their "drive another car" policy extension.
ModernAndy said:
I'm pretty sure it would be a stipulation of your policy that if you were to drive another vehicle using the 3rd party driving other cars element of your insurance, that vehicle would need to itself be insured by somebody else.
For both of the above, it depends on the policy wording - some require the other vehicle to be insured, some don't.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff