Driving A Sorn Car To A Testing Station

[VDU 0]

I am planning to take my sisters old car to get an MOT. The car is currently SORN and no longer insured by herself as she has another.

 

Will the fact that the car is no longer insured by her stop me driving third party on my own policy?

 

The DVLA states 'adequate' insurance, however it doesn't say anything in my policy about the other persons car needing insurance only the 'owners permission to drive' bit.

 

Im still waiting on a reply from my online insurance company so not sure.

 

Andy

[pugpete1108 62 1 Cars]

The car you must have its own valid insurance policy for you to drive it on your insurance.

[marksorrento205 80]

As above the car would need to be insured.

[Tom Fenton 1,563]

Check your policy. Some will state 3rd party cover providing the vehicle has it's own insurance cover in place, other policies do not have this clause attached.

If still in doubt you can get day insurance cover via the Internet which isn't too dear.

[pugpete1108 62 1 Cars]

Yeah I got 24hrs insurance for like £12 or something silly like that.

[Slo 283 1 Cars]

if your policy DOESN'T say the 3rd party vehicle needs to be insured then you will be fine, ive spent hours on the phone about this very subject in the past.

[ALEX 98 1 Cars]

I'd chance it.

But I'm wreckless .

Besides the MOT station is less than 100 yards away from my house, I could probably push it there!

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

I'm sure the car does not have to be insured as if you crash it your claiming off your policy and not the owners so to speak, Best ring your insurance company up and ask them,

[rikky 37]

facts:

 

you can drive the car to and from ANY MOT TESTING STATION IN THE COUNTRY, BY LAW, without tax (SORN) or MOT, aslong as you are booked in and it can be verifed by the garage on request.

 

the car must be insured by yourself on a policy already, or insured on a full policy by someone else and you driving it TP only

 

there is no distance limit on MOT. the police can do whatever they want about you driving 300 miles to an MOT but it is perfectly legal and not a punishable offence to drive from one end of the country to another for an MOT

 

been there, done it all, got the nudie-pen

 

if the car isn't insured then you have problems. i don't know of any companies that cover you TP on a car that has no policy in force. TP only on it isn't enough i wouldn't think

 

although i did have an argument with a well known company about having a car on laid-up insurance and using it on another policy TPO, of which they actually "didn't know" (their own words)

Edited July 23, 2012 by rikky

[Tom Fenton 1,563]

the car must be insured by yourself on a policy already, or insured on a full policy by someone else and you driving it TP only

 

if the car isn't insured then you have problems. i don't know of any companies that cover you TP on a car that has no policy in force. TP only on it isn't enough i wouldn't think

 

Disagree, as I said above some companies will cover you on another car without requiring it to be insured in its own right. I have at least 2 policies like this.

[rikky 37]

fair enough, never had that though. who's that with? I've been with numerous companies like flux, Brentacre, performance direct, Chris knott, endsleigh, direct line, and all require the car to be covered already!

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

The reason I said that a mate went to court about the same thing, Abit 15 years ago so the law may have/had changed, He won the case much to the police force's dismay

[VDU 0]

My insurance company sent me this reply today:

 

'If the vehicle isnt taxed, MOT'd and uninsured, then you would not be covered to drive it'.

 

I was under the same impression that a vehicle needs its own insurance before you can drive it third party on your own policy. I thought this is to stop people paying for one cheap premium and then driving multiple other cars of a higher insurance group.

 

Ive requested a single day policy quote and probly head down that route, not worth the risk since the garage i use is the other side of the city.

[GilesW 41]

In my experiance the person on the phone at an insurance brokers tends to know very little about the exact policy wording of every insurnace they sell. And therefore just spew up the first 'defult answer' that they have. After all they done't care as it's a low risk answer to them.

 

However when properly challanged and show and discussed it's often a slightly different answer.

 

In years gone by I've been through this process several times and after I held their hand and walked them threw it (or they've bothered to actually talk to the underwriters) then it's often surprising what the answer is.

 

Anyhow - insurnace policeys are often different and all need to be checked indivually.

[Cameron 16]

Pretty sure I saw someone on Traffic Cops having their car towed because it wasn't insured, despite them having the 3rd party clause on their policy. The officer was saying that it's a common misconception that you can drive an uninsured vehicle if you have this clause on your policy, and that the vehicle does need to have it's own insurance.

[Anthony 1,003]

See Tom's answer above, spoken from experience and from reading the actual policy wording.

 

Heresay on the internet and what some bloke on the TV has said means nothing - the ONLY thing that matters is the exact wording on your particular insurance policy, and it's entirely feasible that is not the same as someone else's policy even if they're with the same insurer or underwriter as you.

[Tom Fenton 1,563]

As I also mentioned, if you are not sure and cannot get 100% decision either way from the insurance co, then cover yourself and buy the day insurance off the net for about £20/day. Google is your friend.

[chipstick 382 1 Cars]

It's all a bit grey though isn't it. Just because it doesn't state it on a particular policy, doesn't mean it's permisable without clarification from a phone call or similar. I wouldn't like to see people in trouble from asuming.

 

If it said 'You are covered to drive other vehicles third party without their own insurance' then I would be competent enough to 'risk' it.

 

I am not saying what is posted in above replies is wrong, or that I am correct - just throwing it out there for some clarity perhaps.

 

A policy that I read many years ago stated that the policy would be void if the car didn't have a valid MOT. Is that to say that a policy without this clause will allow you to drive to an MOT (in the OP's case), yet others with the clause would make having an MOT 'renewed' after expiry difficult?

Edited July 24, 2012 by chipstick

[VDU 0]

Just to show you guys the details of my policy and why its not so clear.

 

My insurance certificate says this;

Under the terms of section 2 of the policy - liability to third parties - the policy holder may, subject to the owner's express consent, also drive a motor car not belonging to the policyholder or hired to the policyholder under a hire purchase or lease agreement.

 

 

Section 2 of the policy:

 

Driving other cars

We will insure you whilst you are driving any other car within Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man providing:

1. The car does not belong to you or is not hired to you under a hire purchase agreement,

2. You are driving the car with the owner’s express consent,

3. You still have your car and it has not been damaged

beyond cost effective repair,

4. You are aged 25 or above, at inception or last renewal of this policy,

5. Your certificate of motor insurance indicates that you can drive such a vehicle.

Important Note: the cover provided whilst you are driving any other car is for Third Party only

Decided Im going to do some more digging on this.

[Anthony 1,003]

There should be no issue you driving the car then, providing that you meet all the criteria listed and that there are no other sections or exclusions elsewhere in the policy booklet.

 

The exclusion regarding needing an existing insurance policy on the vehicle is normally pretty clear.

 

If in doubt, the insurance company/underwriter should be able to confirm.

 

One thing to note however is that you're on very dodgy ground leaving the car parked/unattended anywhere that is covered by the Road Traffic Act, as the vehicle argueably ceases to be insured as soon as you leave the vehicle (there is an arguement that it is still in your charge, but certainly I wouldn't like to rely on that in court!).

[lagonda 42]

VDU, I don't see how the wording from your policy is unclear. As Anthony says, provided you comply, you will be covered.

I used to work in motor insurance, & I'm pretty certain (& perhaps your confusion) that the certificate is specifically worded to comply with the Road Traffic Acts. That means that PROVIDED you comply with the CERTIFICATE wording, you will be insured whatever...but only so far as is required by the RTA. That means Third party INJURY only...not damage to third party vehicles or other property. The policy cover will include third party damage, provided you comply with the policy requirements as stated.

Anthony makes a good point about cover whilst the vehicle is unattended. Can only say, make sure you don't, if the owner happened to be closer to the car than you....

[Cameron 16]

See Tom's answer above, spoken from experience and from reading the actual policy wording.

 

Heresay on the internet and what some bloke on the TV has said means nothing - the ONLY thing that matters is the exact wording on your particular insurance policy, and it's entirely feasible that is not the same as someone else's policy even if they're with the same insurer or underwriter as you.

 

LOL.

 

So the word of the law means nothing? Or does the hierarchy go: Law < Insurance Policy?

 

EDIT: I do not know the law, I am not stating the law, I am stating what "some bloke" - a policeman - said the law was.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Cameron

[Anthony 1,003]

The word of a single police officer that may or may not have been taken out of context for the TV means less than the exact wording of your insurance policy that explains in precise detail what you are and are not covered for, yes.

 

Look at it another way - if you end up in court, it's what your policy says that counts as that - and only that - dictates whether or not you are insured.

 

The law states that you must have insurance. The insurance policy says whether you're insured.

[S@m 156]

I have personal experience of this also, some years ago i made the error of thinking i was insured on a friends car because i had 3rd party other vehicles cover - sadly, because he didnt have a policy on the car i ended up getting done for driving without insurance.

 

Generally, it is correct that you cannot drive a car that has no insurance of its own on your fully comp policy, but as Tom says there are exceptions to this with certain policies - ths only way to be sure is checking your policy documentation.

 

Sam

[Tom Fenton 1,563]

Out of curiousity I have just checked my own policies. Red 205 does not have 3rd party extension at all. Green 205 states I may drive a car not belonging to myself or leased to myself, hired to myself or on hire purchase to myself, as long as I have the owners permission.

My admiral main car policy also says the same thing in slightly different wording. Interestingly none of them state that the car in question must have its own insurance in force, this is definitely something I have come across previously, but not on any of my current policies.