Can my brother drive my taxed and MOTd car on his insurance?
Discussion
See, I left my car in London when I returned to NZ a few months back. The insurance runs out in a few weeks, the tax and MOT run until June 2008.
Brother wants to pay the tax and use it. He has a policy which clearly states he can drive another car 'so long as it is roadworthy and you are licensed to do so'.
My worry is an earlier thread about how the police and councils are clamping 'uninsured' cars. This car will be shown as so on an ANPR check, and my worry is that unless my brother is there behind the wheel when the police or warden run the check, for example the car is parked on a road, they will clamp it and then still charge a silly ' release fee' even when he proves the position.
Or is it that these clampers can only operate AFTER they stop cars being driven and no insurance ( of any kind ) being proven? ( No creeping up on parked cars )
That is how it should be, but I have heard of poor people having tax, mot AND insurance ( just that the details had not yet hit the database ) and then coming back from a few days in Spain to find out their car was not only clamped, but then towed and bloody well crushed!!!
Brother wants to pay the tax and use it. He has a policy which clearly states he can drive another car 'so long as it is roadworthy and you are licensed to do so'.
My worry is an earlier thread about how the police and councils are clamping 'uninsured' cars. This car will be shown as so on an ANPR check, and my worry is that unless my brother is there behind the wheel when the police or warden run the check, for example the car is parked on a road, they will clamp it and then still charge a silly ' release fee' even when he proves the position.
Or is it that these clampers can only operate AFTER they stop cars being driven and no insurance ( of any kind ) being proven? ( No creeping up on parked cars )
That is how it should be, but I have heard of poor people having tax, mot AND insurance ( just that the details had not yet hit the database ) and then coming back from a few days in Spain to find out their car was not only clamped, but then towed and bloody well crushed!!!
They can and will clamp if they find it at the roadside.
As far as him driving it, there will be no problem, but it would be best for him to carry his docs with him. The problem you have, is that when it is parked without him driving it, it will not be insured, so shoudlnt be parked on the public highway.
As far as him driving it, there will be no problem, but it would be best for him to carry his docs with him. The problem you have, is that when it is parked without him driving it, it will not be insured, so shoudlnt be parked on the public highway.
jondude said:
See, I left my car in London when I returned to NZ a few months back. The insurance runs out in a few weeks, the tax and MOT run until June 2008.
Brother wants to pay the tax and use it. He has a policy which clearly states he can drive another car 'so long as it is roadworthy and you are licensed to do so'.
My worry is an earlier thread about how the police and councils are clamping 'uninsured' cars. This car will be shown as so on an ANPR check, and my worry is that unless my brother is there behind the wheel when the police or warden run the check, for example the car is parked on a road, they will clamp it and then still charge a silly ' release fee' even when he proves the position.
Or is it that these clampers can only operate AFTER they stop cars being driven and no insurance ( of any kind ) being proven? ( No creeping up on parked cars )
That is how it should be, but I have heard of poor people having tax, mot AND insurance ( just that the details had not yet hit the database ) and then coming back from a few days in Spain to find out their car was not only clamped, but then towed and bloody well crushed!!!
I think his docs will also say that the car has to be insured by someone else as well as owned by them. E.g. he can drive a car that has MOT, and Insurance in someone elses name using his 3rd party cover. Might be worth a 2nd read just to check.Brother wants to pay the tax and use it. He has a policy which clearly states he can drive another car 'so long as it is roadworthy and you are licensed to do so'.
My worry is an earlier thread about how the police and councils are clamping 'uninsured' cars. This car will be shown as so on an ANPR check, and my worry is that unless my brother is there behind the wheel when the police or warden run the check, for example the car is parked on a road, they will clamp it and then still charge a silly ' release fee' even when he proves the position.
Or is it that these clampers can only operate AFTER they stop cars being driven and no insurance ( of any kind ) being proven? ( No creeping up on parked cars )
That is how it should be, but I have heard of poor people having tax, mot AND insurance ( just that the details had not yet hit the database ) and then coming back from a few days in Spain to find out their car was not only clamped, but then towed and bloody well crushed!!!
Thanks for above, appreciated.
I think Trax is right. That's certainly my concern. Namely, that if he visits a friend in London ( and especially London ) then while he is watching the football all checks will come up as no insurance, and as it is easy money, they will not wait for bona fide reasons - they will just clamp it.
Seeing as he will be driving a lot in and near London, I reckon it will be better, and certainly less stressful, to get a cheap policy on the car.
I think Trax is right. That's certainly my concern. Namely, that if he visits a friend in London ( and especially London ) then while he is watching the football all checks will come up as no insurance, and as it is easy money, they will not wait for bona fide reasons - they will just clamp it.
Seeing as he will be driving a lot in and near London, I reckon it will be better, and certainly less stressful, to get a cheap policy on the car.
Munter said:
I think his docs will also say that the car has to be insured by someone else as well as owned by them. E.g. he can drive a car that has MOT, and Insurance in someone elses name using his 3rd party cover. Might be worth a 2nd read just to check.
Agreed! This isn't really the place to ask. If you are not sure, the best people to ask are your insurance company.
Munter said:
I think his docs will also say that the car has to be insured by someone else as well as owned by them. E.g. he can drive a car that has MOT, and Insurance in someone elses name using his 3rd party cover. Might be worth a 2nd read just to check.
Unlikely, but possible. As always read the fine print!jondude said:
Thanks for above, appreciated.
I think Trax is right. That's certainly my concern. Namely, that if he visits a friend in London ( and especially London ) then while he is watching the football all checks will come up as no insurance, and as it is easy money, they will not wait for bona fide reasons - they will just clamp it.
Clamping in the circumstances described would be bona fide.I think Trax is right. That's certainly my concern. Namely, that if he visits a friend in London ( and especially London ) then while he is watching the football all checks will come up as no insurance, and as it is easy money, they will not wait for bona fide reasons - they will just clamp it.
I think you're missing the crucial point that the car would only be insured while your brother is in it. Once he steps out then the car is uninsured.
I would think that you would have to have a policy on the car! else what if somthing happens to the car while it's parked up? or if it was causing an obstruction on the road and caused someone to crash. the car would be classed as uninsured as it has no policy on it.
how owuld you TAX it without an insurance policy on it? you cant take in yours and say look im coverd to drive any car...
If this was possible then it would mean a big loopwhole in the law.
Liam
how owuld you TAX it without an insurance policy on it? you cant take in yours and say look im coverd to drive any car...
If this was possible then it would mean a big loopwhole in the law.
Liam
shocker-z said:
I would think that you would have to have a policy on the car! else what if somthing happens to the car while it's parked up? or if it was causing an obstruction on the road and caused someone to crash. the car would be classed as uninsured as it has no policy on it.
It wouldn't just be classed as uninsured, it would actually be uninsured.shocker-z said:
how owuld you TAX it without an insurance policy on it? you cant take in yours and say look im coverd to drive any car...
If this was possible then it would mean a big loopwhole in the law.
That bits easy - buy a single day policy or take out insurance on line then cancel it within the cooling off period.If this was possible then it would mean a big loopwhole in the law.
I just posted an answer about this on another thread.
To repeat it, if you are covered on your own policy to drive a vehicle not owned by you or hired to you under an HP agreement, then you may drive, quite legally, any vehicle which is taxed and MoT'd, even if it is not subject to its own insurance policy. Howwever, if you then leave the car at the end of your journey on a public road, the owner (the keeper actually) is then guilty of having a vehicle on the road without insurance.
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
As I mentioned, I have used this cover on my insurance to collect a car for a friend who had just bought it for cash, but could not get his own cover transferred until the next day. The car was taxed and MoT'd, but not insured. I had earlier confirmed that this was OK with my insurance broker.
To repeat it, if you are covered on your own policy to drive a vehicle not owned by you or hired to you under an HP agreement, then you may drive, quite legally, any vehicle which is taxed and MoT'd, even if it is not subject to its own insurance policy. Howwever, if you then leave the car at the end of your journey on a public road, the owner (the keeper actually) is then guilty of having a vehicle on the road without insurance.
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
As I mentioned, I have used this cover on my insurance to collect a car for a friend who had just bought it for cash, but could not get his own cover transferred until the next day. The car was taxed and MoT'd, but not insured. I had earlier confirmed that this was OK with my insurance broker.
[
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
allaway said:
[
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
I believe it's a 'common sense' thing. If you park up and go off to the shops and are gone for some time and visit several shops or just one shop for a long time, clearly your prior journey is at an end. When you return it becomes a new journey. Thus the period in between would be the time the keeper has left the vehicle uninsured on a public road. If you are going 'shopping' then you need to park in off the public road in a proper car park where on-road insurance is unnecessary.If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
Now, if my wife phones me and asks me to pick up a copy of the Dail Mail (as if!) on the way home, then the stopping for that is not the end of one journey and the beginning of another so far as an insurer is concerned. Similarly if I need to stop for a 'call of nature'. Anyway, that's what my broker has said, and who am I to argue?
It is all there in the RTA section 143 
A car park is still a "road" under the RTA 1988 - it says "road or other public place". Even a hotel car park see Bugge v Taylor.
The RTA also talks about "caused by OR ARISING OUT OF THE USE".
"Use" doesn't mean driving. Even a car with flat tyres and no battery is being "used". Elliot v Grey or Plumbien v Vine. Towing a chassis isn't (Thomas v Hooper) however
So it comes down to control. If the driver's negligence caused the accident, then they would be "in control". If they left it negligently, then perhaps also. But if it wasn't their negligence, then it comes down to the owner. It is DRIVING other cars, and the act act requires insurance for that use. Driving isn't using, it is wider than that. So when parked up you have use.
The "2 minutes wee stop" has never been tested, there is no case law. Not sure I would risk it.
Lowry and Rawlings - available from all good legal bookshops if you are interested !
A car park is still a "road" under the RTA 1988 - it says "road or other public place". Even a hotel car park see Bugge v Taylor.
The RTA also talks about "caused by OR ARISING OUT OF THE USE".
"Use" doesn't mean driving. Even a car with flat tyres and no battery is being "used". Elliot v Grey or Plumbien v Vine. Towing a chassis isn't (Thomas v Hooper) however
So it comes down to control. If the driver's negligence caused the accident, then they would be "in control". If they left it negligently, then perhaps also. But if it wasn't their negligence, then it comes down to the owner. It is DRIVING other cars, and the act act requires insurance for that use. Driving isn't using, it is wider than that. So when parked up you have use.
The "2 minutes wee stop" has never been tested, there is no case law. Not sure I would risk it.
Lowry and Rawlings - available from all good legal bookshops if you are interested !
I think remember when I was given a short training course to become authorised to recover vehicles under Section 165a of the Road Traffic Act that the insurance companies, when covering a driver for a vehicle other than the one in the policy, that it must be legally on the road in the first place.
If there is no insurance for the vehicle then nobody may drive it on another policy as it's not legally on the road in the first place.
That is off the top of my head and i'm not going to promise it's right but it does ring a bell.
It may be worth reading the small print of the policy, i'll have a look for the handout we were given tomorrow.
If there is no insurance for the vehicle then nobody may drive it on another policy as it's not legally on the road in the first place.
That is off the top of my head and i'm not going to promise it's right but it does ring a bell.
It may be worth reading the small print of the policy, i'll have a look for the handout we were given tomorrow.
It makes sense that it isn't covered when left for longer periods because it is unfair on the insurer to have to cover as many cars as the insured is allowed access to all the time for an indeterminate period of time.
So unless the OP's brother goes exclusively from private land to private land then he needs to have some other form of insurance.
So unless the OP's brother goes exclusively from private land to private land then he needs to have some other form of insurance.
Thanks for above. Yep, pretty much agree it is as said by H-Kan and others.
Happpyrotter: There is no demand for the other car to be insured, not unless your 'driving other vehicles' extension demands it, and few do.
However, the insurance companies wanted the need for permanent cover as it earns them millions for little or no risk.
In typical British style, we will say we do not have restrictions in our freedoms and that we have choices rather than dictates, but the above situation I find myself in, or even many innocent motorists who may decide to go abroad for a year but who do not have a garage, is that we do, effectively, have a permanant insurance law - in all but legal documentation only.
Nothing is more welcome by insurers than people being forced to pay to park their cars. Little or no risk for them, more money for the insurers and the treasury through insurance tax.
Happpyrotter: There is no demand for the other car to be insured, not unless your 'driving other vehicles' extension demands it, and few do.
However, the insurance companies wanted the need for permanent cover as it earns them millions for little or no risk.
In typical British style, we will say we do not have restrictions in our freedoms and that we have choices rather than dictates, but the above situation I find myself in, or even many innocent motorists who may decide to go abroad for a year but who do not have a garage, is that we do, effectively, have a permanant insurance law - in all but legal documentation only.
Nothing is more welcome by insurers than people being forced to pay to park their cars. Little or no risk for them, more money for the insurers and the treasury through insurance tax.
allaway said:
If you are driving on your own policy in this way, then you are covered during your journey, even including possible short periods when you are out of the car. For example, this would include stopping to use a public loo, buying a newspaper or a packet of fags. It would not cover you for leaving the vehicle and going shopping for an hour or so.
When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
When the Police officer isn't happy with it & asks the court to decide.When does shopping 4 fags and a newspaper and a toilet break become shopping for half hour become an hour or so?
thehappyotter said:
I think remember when I was given a short training course to become authorised to recover vehicles under Section 165a of the Road Traffic Act that the insurance companies, when covering a driver for a vehicle other than the one in the policy, that it must be legally on the road in the first place.
If there is no insurance for the vehicle then nobody may drive it on another policy as it's not legally on the road in the first place.
That is off the top of my head and i'm not going to promise it's right but it does ring a bell.
It may be worth reading the small print of the policy, i'll have a look for the handout we were given tomorrow.
That isn't right, but it might just be the interpretation for a particular situation...If there is no insurance for the vehicle then nobody may drive it on another policy as it's not legally on the road in the first place.
That is off the top of my head and i'm not going to promise it's right but it does ring a bell.
It may be worth reading the small print of the policy, i'll have a look for the handout we were given tomorrow.
YOU can legally drive a car on your DOC cover, regardless of whether the car is insured or not. All that means is that YOU are insured at the time, so under S165A you wave the DOC and your license YOU are fine.
The problem is then what happens to the Owner/Registered Keeper, were they "using" the car at the time ? How much control (if any) do they need to have before they are using it ?
If YOU leave the car for 5 minutes, and it is then seized under S165A, can YOU get it back.
Well, the answer used to be Yes. Which was a bit pointless, anyone with DOC cover could pick up an uninsured car ! That is why DOC cover clauses are currently being changed (albeit slowly) to stop this.
Noger said:
....
The problem is then what happens to the Owner/Registered Keeper, were they "using" the car at the time ? How much control (if any) do they need to have before they are using it ?
If YOU leave the car for 5 minutes, and it is then seized under S165A, can YOU get it back.
Well, the answer used to be Yes. Which was a bit pointless, anyone with DOC cover could pick up an uninsured car ! That is why DOC cover clauses are currently being changed (albeit slowly) to stop this.
A couple of years ago there seemed to be a move from some insurance companies to stop DOC cover altogether, on the basis that it was being widely misused. It was only ever intended to be used briefly, perhaps, for example, to shift another car at a party that was blocking yours in where the owner had had too much to drive.The problem is then what happens to the Owner/Registered Keeper, were they "using" the car at the time ? How much control (if any) do they need to have before they are using it ?
If YOU leave the car for 5 minutes, and it is then seized under S165A, can YOU get it back.
Well, the answer used to be Yes. Which was a bit pointless, anyone with DOC cover could pick up an uninsured car ! That is why DOC cover clauses are currently being changed (albeit slowly) to stop this.
Separately, there's also talk of making 3rd party cover compulsory for all cars unless SORN'd. Not sure what's happened to that, though - I thought it was something that was coming in this year.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff