Neighbour is driving an uninsured car - advice needed

[StevenB]

As i understand it, (from insurance co 3 years ago). If you have driving other cars on your policy, you can with the owners permission, drive another car and be covered by your policy (third party insurance is the norm). If the car you "borrow" does not have it's own policy you can not leave it unattended on the road (so if unattended it must be left as if SORN) The car must not be registered in your name.

[jayfish]

buster1984 said:

you think the difference in costs of insurance between a 1ltr fiesta and a ferrari would only be 1k to most? also if you read my reply again slowly maybe you wont completely miss the point i was trying to make (P.S. not all Ferrari's are 150k my friend)

I know just making he point that you'd have tobe mad to own a car like that and not insure it, what if it got stolen?

[r129sl]

This thread shows the ignorance that surrounds the subject of insurance.

It is risk that is insured against, not cars and drivers. The risk that by law must be insured against is the risk of damage to a third party's person or property arising from use of any particular motor vehicle.

Anyone in the world can take out a policy of insurance against any risk you can think of, assuming a willing insurer counter party. The extent of the cover depends upon the wording of the policy.

Typically, motor insurance policies are taken out by either (1) the owner of the vehicle, (2) the lessee of the vehicle, (3) the keeper of the vehicle or (4) a driver of a vehicle or vehicles.

In cases (1), (2) or (3), the policy may limit the cover available under that policy when the vehicle is being driven to certain named drivers and/or for certain defined purposes.

Where a policy is a "comprehensive" policy, it may provide cover for the policyholder against third party risks when he is using a vehicle belonging to somebody else. That is the only insurance cover required by law: insurance against third party risks. In such a situation, the risk of damage to the vehicle itself will be uninsured under its driver's policy. The risk of damage to the vehicle may or may not be insured under any other policy, for instance, a policy held by the vehicle's keeper. However, there is no legal requirement to insure such risk.

At the end of the day, whether cover against third party risks is in place at any particular time all depends on the wording of the relevant insurance policy or policies.

[benjfrst]

Galsia said:

At one point a couple of years ago, I was the registered owner of two cars but only insured on one (the second one was sat on the drive not being used due to my housemate buying another car and giving his old one to me).

I called my insurer and asked if I was covered to drive the second vehicle because I had fully-comp insurance. They said that as long as I was driving the car it was insured. As soon as I got out of the car and parked it in a public place it would be uninsured and illegal.

I didn't take their word for it and just got another policy for it...

I havn't read all the replies but i have had this policy in the past, so has my brother, had it in writting too.

[buster1984]

jayfish said:

I know just making he point that you'd have tobe mad to own a car like that and not insure it, what if it got stolen?

Oh i completely agree with you there. you would be gutted. but i was just making a point. maybe it was a bad example?

[Ozzie Osmond]

benjfrst said:

Galsia said:

At one point a couple of years ago, I was the registered owner of two cars but only insured on one (the second one was sat on the drive not being used due to my housemate buying another car and giving his old one to me).

I called my insurer and asked if I was covered to drive the second vehicle because I had fully-comp insurance. They said that as long as I was driving the car it was insured. As soon as I got out of the car and parked it in a public place it would be uninsured and illegal.

I didn't take their word for it and just got another policy for it...

I havn't read all the replies but i have had this policy in the past, so has my brother, had it in writting too.

DVLA registration is as "keeper" not as "owner". They are two different things.

I have never seen any policy of private car insurance which allows the driving of multiple cars owned by the same paerson with only one of those cars being insured.

On the other hand it is/was quite common for people owning several motorcycles to be able to ride them all under one policy.

[anniesdad]

StevenB said:

As i understand it, (from insurance co 3 years ago). If you have driving other cars on your policy, you can with the owners permission, drive another car and be covered by your policy (third party insurance is the norm). If the car you "borrow" does not have it's own policy you can not leave it unattended on the road (so if unattended it must be left as if SORN) The car must not be registered in your name.

I agree with this. ^

OP, I take it that the owner of the car in question never drives the car, uninsured.

Driving Other Cars is open to abuse and should only be called upon in an emergency (think, you're out with a friend who is taken ill and you need to drive their car to get them to the hospital etc.). The moment you're not in charge of the car, the car is uninsured. Clearly the OP's neighbours are abusing the privilege but technically they are correct.

Obviously taxing the car will be impossible without a valid insurance document, but IIRC the dayinsure products will allow you to tax a car? Don't quote me on that though...

[RJDM3]

DOC ONLY applies if the vehicle is insured by another party.

This is the law and not open to choice by the insurers.

He is driving it illegally

[Noger]

r129sl said:

The risk that by law must be insured against is the risk of damage to a third party's person or property arising from use of any particular motor vehicle.

Nope, the risk is one of liability, not damage. The law requires that you are insured (or secured) against liability incurred, in respect of PD or PI, from use.

Pedantry I know

Oh, and my point on the other thread about the illegality of Marine Gambling Policies still stands. Again, pedantry, but on PH that matters

[anniesdad]

RJDM3 said:

DOC ONLY applies if the vehicle is insured by another party.

This is the law and not open to choice by the insurers.

He is driving it illegally

Can I refer you to page 2 of this thread and R1_Loon's comment(s).

[buster1984]

but IIRC the dayinsure products will allow you to tax a car? Don't quote me on that though...

yes they do. i bought a new car but stupidly forgot to tax my old one and changed over the insurance to the new model. i delivered the car to a friend so i put on two days insurance and got them to fax throught the cover note. i took it into the DVLA office and walked out with a new tax disc. as long as the cover note is valid the day you go in to tax it i think you're fine.

[poo at Paul's]

I thought as of Feb this year, every car that has a valid tax disc needs to be specifically insured, in its own right.
So, if it is taxed, and it is not specifically insured, the keeper is comitting an offence.

Now whether than means anyone using the car on the roads (ie not necessarily the keeper) is comitting an offence, (even if they have DOC cover per their policy) I dont know. Common sense would suggest it is, ie if the car is not allowed on the road per the new rule, no one should be driving it.

[SS2.]

poo at Paul's said:

I thought as of Feb this year, every car that has a valid tax disc needs to be specifically insured, in its own right.

The CIE legislation was commenced in February 2011, but it appears that enforcement will not begin until this June.

[RJDM3]

anniesdad said:

Can I refer you to page 2 of this thread and R1_Loon's comment(s).

You may, however read what the OP put and i will refer you to

"The extension does not cover anyone other than policyholder. This cover does not extend to include driving of other cars by the other named drivers on the policy"

[powwerr]

Not really looked at all the comments in this thread but how do you think a traders policy works?

You think a trader insures every car personally and declares them his and keeps them at his address (yes i know some do trade from home)

I have a traders policy for my work. As far as im aware it is (on my policy) the driver that is insured. Every vehicle i own/drive comes up as un insured whenever im stopped. "its a traders policy" And i get a ticket to produce my details at my nearest station. Simple.

Never had any problems or untoward questions about it. As long aas the cover alows the insured driver to take the vehicle home or commute then it can come home with me and be fully covered.

[hairykrishna]

RJDM3 said:

DOC ONLY applies if the vehicle is insured by another party.

This is the law and not open to choice by the insurers.

He is driving it illegally

This is incorrect and spouted as gospel every time this subject comes up. I have personally been stopped by traffic plod while driving a car without a policy, which obviously came up on ANPR. They were, eventually, happy that my policy covered it.

Edit; As R1Loon has pointed out in no uncertain terms.

[SS2.]

hairykrishna said:

RJDM3 said:

DOC ONLY applies if the vehicle is insured by another party.

This is the law and not open to choice by the insurers.

He is driving it illegally

This is incorrect and spouted as gospel every time this subject comes up.

Quite so.

That said, the point becomes somewhat moot with the commencement of CIE and vehicles needing to be either SORN'd or insured (for the most part).

[benjfrst]

Ozzie Osmond said:

benjfrst said:

Galsia said:

At one point a couple of years ago, I was the registered owner of two cars but only insured on one (the second one was sat on the drive not being used due to my housemate buying another car and giving his old one to me).

I called my insurer and asked if I was covered to drive the second vehicle because I had fully-comp insurance. They said that as long as I was driving the car it was insured. As soon as I got out of the car and parked it in a public place it would be uninsured and illegal.

I didn't take their word for it and just got another policy for it...

I havn't read all the replies but i have had this policy in the past, so has my brother, had it in writting too.

DVLA registration is as "keeper" not as "owner". They are two different things.

I have never seen any policy of private car insurance which allows the driving of multiple cars owned by the same paerson with only one of those cars being insured.

On the other hand it is/was quite common for people owning several motorcycles to be able to ride them all under one policy.

Sorry my mistake second car was not owned by me, this was six years ago mind.

My brother drove my then impreza which i was trying to sell for a couple months on his insurance even tho my impreza was no longer insured by me.

Insurance told him as soon as he left the car and parked in public it was uninsured.

He was stopped by the police ('on a routine check') the police rang his insurance at the roadside and were satisfied enough to leave him be. For a couple years after we drove together if one of us bought a car so the other could drive home insured. I let my policy go as it was getting expensive.

[r129sl]

Noger said:

r129sl said:

The risk that by law must be insured against is the risk of damage to a third party's person or property arising from use of any particular motor vehicle.

Nope, the risk is one of liability, not damage. The law requires that you are insured (or secured) against liability incurred, in respect of PD or PI, from use.

Pedantry I know

Hey, pedant's corner is mine. It's risk, surely? Under a contract of insurance, a risk is insured against, non?

Often this is by way of an indemnity against loss (where the damage is suffered by the insured) or liability (where the damage is suffered by a third party but is one in respect of which the insured is liable). But it is still a risk that is insured.

Thus, I could take out a policy of insurance on your life. When you die, the policy pays out not because I am under any liability, but because the insured risk has occurred. Further, a man cannot owe a liability to himself, yet comprehensive policies of insurance usually cover damage and loss to the insured's own property. The risk, not the liability, is insured.

A policy of comprehensive motor insurance is a contract under which the insurer agrees to meet all or part of the insured's own losses and/or his liabilities to a third parties in the event that an insured risk occurs and the other conditions of the policy are met.

The legal requirement of any driver (from memory under s.144 of the RTA 1988) is that there is a contract of insurance in place under which the risk of him causing loss or damage to a third party is insured against.

I'm intrigued by these marine gambling policies: I have never heard of them and will now waste some time learning.

[anniesdad]

RJDM3 said:

You may, however read what the OP put and i will refer you to

"The extension does not cover anyone other than policyholder. This cover does not extend to include driving of other cars by the other named drivers on the policy"

Maybe I missed that, but regardless, I fail to see how this applies as the OP has said the family own a number of vehicles if two of these vehicles are insured by the mother and father, as policyholders and both have driving other cars extension, they both have requisite cover. The owner of the car does not. Are you confusing policyholder with vehicle owner. The owner has no insurance according to the OP.