SORN, insured, can I still drive other cars?

[swiftpete]

Hi, I have a car that's insured but I am not using it at the moment as the MOT has just expired and it needs some repairs which I haven't got round to doing yet. My insurance covers me for driving any vehicle 3rd party. I have the use of another couple of vehicles, both with owners permissions. The tax on the car that I have is about to run out, as I'm not using it at the moment I was thinking of declaring it SORN rather than tax it and not use it. I am still insured on it and have no plans on cancelling the insurance as I will get it back on the road at some point. Will my insurance still be valid so I can still drive the other vehicles legally?
Cheers.

[U T]

Yes, but be aware your driving other cars extension only gives you third party only cover, regardless of the cover on your actual policy.

[swiftpete]

Yeah I know I'm only covered 3rd party on their cars, I'm just going to try not to crash them! Thanks a lot for your answer. Seemed a waste of money to tax something that is sitting in my garage.

[Welshwonder]

Make sure the other cars are insured by their owners/keepers though! You won't be covered by your insurance otherwise.

[B16JUS]

Welshwonder said:

Make sure the other cars are insured by their owners/keepers though! You won't be covered by your insurance otherwise.

Thats not true, its only when you get out of the car a law is broken if the car isnt insured. i.e your insured whilst in the car driving but when parked up your cover stops so the car has to be insured if its going to be left on a public road

[Fox-]

Welshwonder said:

Make sure the other cars are insured by their owners/keepers though! You won't be covered by your insurance otherwise.

This is not law - it simply depends on the insurer in questions terms and conditions. Some require the car is insured. Some do not.

[Jacobyte]

U T said:

Yes, but be aware your driving other cars extension only gives you third party only cover, regardless of the cover on your actual policy.

Some policies allow you to drive other cars fully comp, so it's worth checking the policy document thoroughly.

[saaby93]

Jacobyte said:

Some policies allow you to drive other cars fully comp, so it's worth checking the policy document thoroughly.

It's what the certificate says that counts.
Unless it refers you to the policy do what the certificate says .

[EV11NED]

B16JUS said:

Welshwonder said:

Make sure the other cars are insured by their owners/keepers though! You won't be covered by your insurance otherwise.

Thats not true, its only when you get out of the car a law is broken if the car isnt insured. i.e your insured whilst in the car driving but when parked up your cover stops so the car has to be insured if its going to be left on a public road

Depends on the insurer - mine (Allianz) say that the car must be insured by the owner.

[nigel_bytes]

saaby93 said:

t's what the certificate says that counts.
Unless it refers you to the policy do what the certificate says .

It does indeed.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...

[marky911]

Fox- said:

This is not law - it simply depends on the insurer in questions terms and conditions. Some require the car is insured. Some do not.

My insurers do not require the other car to be insured however, when I rang them to clarify they said "If the police pull you over because said car is not insured (therefore flagging up on their ANPR camera) and they want to be awkward we would not be able to back you up if it goes to court." I said that's fine, could I have the first bit put in a letter. I've still never received it, despite 2 or 3 calls to them.
In the end I figured it's too much of a grey area if you meet an awkward copper.

So basically make sure the car is insured or be a bit handy at arguing with the police in court...

[johnpeat]

EV11NED said:

Depends on the insurer - mine (Allianz) say that the car must be insured by the owner.

Direct Line - who trumpet their 'free third-party cover for other vehicles' cover quite loudly - only require that the vehicle is owned by someone other than yourself (e.g. you can't take out 1 FC policy and then drive all your cars off the back of it).

In fact I think it might say "yourself or someone else in your household" but I'd have to double-check that (so you can't register your fleet in your wife's name and duck it either)

As for the Police, if you're stopped because the car is uninsured on their database (which is notorious for being incomplete anyway) and you can show your policy offers third-party cover for other vehicles (e.g. it does not require the car to be insured by someone else) then I don't care how awkward they want to be, you're not breaking the law, they can get back in their car and fk right off.

The owner could be in deep st tho - if it's taxed it's supposed to be insured by someone directly (not on halo cover from another policy) - but that has the sum total of sweet fanny adams to do with you.

[saaby93]

johnpeat said:

The owner could be in deep st tho - if it's taxed it's supposed to be insured by someone directly (not on halo cover from another policy) - but that has the sum total of sweet fanny adams to do with you.

If its taxed but not insured it should be SORN before someone else uses their Driver only cover for it on road. Otherwise the registered keeper may have to answer some questions

[Noger]

nigel_bytes said:

saaby93 said:

t's what the certificate says that counts.
Unless it refers you to the policy do what the certificate says .

It does indeed.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...

The certificate counts for the purposes of stopping a constable impounding your car for suspect no insurance. It doesn't mean the certificate is the sole thing that means you are insured or not. That case is about impounding, not having insurance (as the claimant was insured).

[B4rker]

Be careful to check your policy wording along with your Certificate as some insurers say that the vehicle that you have your insurance on must be in a Road worthy condition or not be damaged beyond economical repair nor been stolen and not recovered.

Think this prevents people from getting their mate to buy them a nice car registered in the mate's name and then insuring an old nail that cant be driven and driving the nice car.

To be honest you would probably get away with it anyway but you know what insurance companys are like so it might be worth checking first.

Failing that you could probably be added on to the other vehicle for a week at a time for about £15 and be insured fully comp and in some cases if they already have a named driver on the policy around your age it might not cost anything.

[Kickstart68]

B16JUS said:

Thats not true, its only when you get out of the car a law is broken if the car isnt insured. i.e your insured whilst in the car driving but when parked up your cover stops so the car has to be insured if its going to be left on a public road

It is a bit of an oddity, as the offence is using a vehicle without insurance. But if you step out of the car are you actually using it? While I would strictly speaking you are not, I can also see it being decided by a court that you were.

All the best

Keith

[eltax91]

johnpeat said:

(which is notorious for being incomplete anyway)

Is it? I thought it was linked directly to the MID? When I did some moving and shaking of insurance policies last month, the askmid website (same source database) was very accurate, everything was bang-on within 24 hours of changes. Admittedly this is with a very large UK insurer whom I used to be part of their union.

[Noger]

Kickstart68 said:

It is a bit of an oddity, as the offence is using a vehicle without insurance. But if you step out of the car are you actually using it? While I would strictly speaking you are not, I can also see it being decided by a court that you were.

Use implies control. So...pushing it, standing next to it on the phone, paying for petrol. You are using it, there for the RK can't be using it.

[Noger]

johnpeat said:

As for the Police, if you're stopped because the car is uninsured on their database (which is notorious for being incomplete anyway) and you can show your policy offers third-party cover for other vehicles (e.g. it does not require the car to be insured by someone else) then I don't care how awkward they want to be, you're not breaking the law, they can get back in their car and fk right off.

Yes, that is the ruling in the case linked above.

If you wave your certificate at the nice man, and it says "can drive other cars", then they must accept that if they are to avoid a claim against the police for any damages etc.

Note, it doesn't mean "You are insured". It just means that the Police would be liable if they were to seize the vehicle despite you having produced the relevant document, even if they have reasonable suspicion.

[johnpeat]

eltax91 said:

Is it? I thought it was linked directly to the MID? When I did some moving and shaking of insurance policies last month, the askmid website (same source database) was very accurate, everything was bang-on within 24 hours of changes. Admittedly this is with a very large UK insurer whom I used to be part of their union.

There are differences between it and the MID due to data protection laws and other software gubbins apparently - and, as you suggest, some smaller insurers (and some types of specialist policy) aren't always reflected properly (on the MID or the Police systems).

If you have complex policies covering multiple vehicles or commercial policies for fleets or groups of named drivers it's likely the Police won't get anything back. When I did deliveries, I was stopped pretty regularly by Police who clearly weren't getting any insurer info back on the van (we had the paperwork in the sunvisor and it was very tatty from use).

Thing is tho, the Police are HIGHLY skeptical of paperwork because they assume that what a lot of people do is take cover, get the paperwork, cancel the payments - so expect them to be making phonecalls and or treating you like a criminal (nothing new there then).