Driving A Sorn Car To A Testing Station

[Cameron 16]

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.

 

I think you're letting your personal allegiances cloud your judgement.

 

Go back and read Tom's post: he said that his cover does not specifically state that the vehicle needs to have it's own insurance, not that it will grant cover to vehicles without. These are two different statements with two very different meanings.

 

I would advise anyone to check what the LAW is, above anything in their policy documents. After all it's the POLICE who will tow & impound your car, not your insurance company.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Cameron

[Anthony 1,003]

The law is very simple - you must have insurance that covers third party risks for the vehicle that you are driving.

 

If you have that, the law is happy and you go on your way, and if you don't, the law is not happy and you're liable to be prosecuted and your car impounded.

 

Now, what dictates if you have the insurance that covers the third party risks as required by law?

 

....

...

..

.

 

That's right - the insurance policy that you have taken out, and in particular, THE WORDING ON THE INSURANCE POLICY

[Baz 421]

Phone your current insurer and say you need a day or two's cover on another car whilst yours is being repaired or similar, they should just mirror your policy onto that car, without costing much. Most companies have an option to do this unless a lot has changed in the last few years...

 

I used to have up to 90days pa and it cost around 50p per day dependant on the car (obviously) and length of cover.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Baz

[Masekwm 2]

Usually what happens on traffic cops is that matey forgets he has cancelled the other policy or that it didn't exist.

[Cameron 16]

SIGH.

 

Check the actual law, Anthony. Then I'll believe you.

 

Quote me the usual recycled internet opinions and I won't.

[S@m 156]

Check the actual law, Anthony. Then I'll believe you.

 

 

Whilst the law may take precedent over an insurance company, it is the policy document that dictates whether or not you have broken the law. If you were in court for such a situation they would be studying your policy documentation and wording - not the letter of the law. The law is simple as Anthony says, you must be insured against third party risks. Here is a pointless quote for no reason;

 

s143.It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force a relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act.

Road Traffic Act 1988 s143

[sport1901966 8]

The day-insure option is another one that isn't as simple as it first seems, all companies I have come across will not insure a car with any modifications. Which renders them useless for 99% of us on here. Has anyone got experience of companies that don't have this criteria?

[pugpete1108 62 1 Cars]

All I can add us that on all the policies I have had (and that's a lot of policies) not one has let me drive a car that does not have its own policy.

 

Police will check both personal insurance and that of the driven car, more that likely if they see no policy in place for the car then it will be towed and you will be in the crap.

 

Havjng said that They tried to say my wife was not insured to drive my car on her policy as we were married but the insurance company prooved them wrong on the side of the road and no charges were given.

 

So who knows what would happen in this situation?

[Cameron 16]

Thanks Sam. So the officer on that program was clearly talking s*ite then! Good to know.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

Well what happens when or if you crash, You hardly claim off the owners insurance it's you policy that will/would take the hit,

As said abit a few years ago this has been to court before and the driver won the case so it is hit or miss depending on insurance company

[GLPoomobile 958]

You can debate this until the cows come home.

 

But personally, I won't take the risk if I don't feel I've got a clear answer, certainly not when the alternative is paying £20 for a one day policy.

 

Put it this way - I think we all know/accept that not all police are infallible, and many don't know the law as well as they either think they do, or should do. So picture the scene - you get pulled over because their ANPR has picked up that the car you are driving has no insurance. You explain to them that your policy covers you third party for this situation. Even if they were willing to entertain this, rather than immediately dismiss this as the excuse given by yet another illegal driver (probably their hundredth that week), what happens if this occurs at a time (late at night) when your insurer is closed and can't be contacted to verify the exact wording on the policy?

 

Simple fact is, in most cases you can stand there and argue the toss and stamp your feet, but you are just delaying the inevitable conclusion, which is that the car will be towed. You may get it back later if you can prove them wrong. But is the hassle worth it?

[VDU 0]

Had another response from my insurance company today, just stating again what my poilcy already tells me.

 

However this time they have added the following:

 

You also need to be covered for that type of vehicle on your Certificate of Motor Insurance. And the car needs to:

• be 13 years old or less
  
• be worth £50,000 or less
  
• not have significant modifications unless they were fitted from new and declared in the car’s value, or were made because of a disability
  

None of this was stated in my original policy.

How they came up with the '13 years old or less' i dont know, but that completely rules out driving my sisters car anyway so i guess i have my answer.

 

Not happy they have left those details off my documents, i could well be driving around under the impression i was covered until bang!

[Cameron 16]

You can debate this until the cows come home.

 

But personally, I won't take the risk if I don't feel I've got a clear answer, certainly not when the alternative is paying £20 for a one day policy.

 

Put it this way - I think we all know/accept that not all police are infallible, and many don't know the law as well as they either think they do, or should do. So picture the scene - you get pulled over because their ANPR has picked up that the car you are driving has no insurance. You explain to them that your policy covers you third party for this situation. Even if they were willing to entertain this, rather than immediately dismiss this as the excuse given by yet another illegal driver (probably their hundredth that week), what happens if this occurs at a time (late at night) when your insurer is closed and can't be contacted to verify the exact wording on the policy?

 

Simple fact is, in most cases you can stand there and argue the toss and stamp your feet, but you are just delaying the inevitable conclusion, which is that the car will be towed. You may get it back later if you can prove them wrong. But is the hassle worth it?

 

Exactly. You only need to see what happened to the poor bloke on that TV show to know how true this is. Yes, you could argue in court about the wording of the policy and win, but you'll never win an argument with a stubborn police officer.

[lagonda 42]

VDU..those "new" requirements from your insurers sound like total guff to me! If the cover provided is Third Party Only, the value of the driven car is totally immaterial. In fact I'm wondering if the person at the insurer's is thinking of breakdown cover.

Regarding police; they're only human, & even on TV can get things wrong. One of my responsibilities was meeting police officers to provide a statement as to whether our policyholder was insured or not. In most cases, they were actually correct, but their pre-prepared statements were so riddled with inaccuracies that I refused to sign them & re-wrote the statements first.

[S@m 156]

Moral of the story - Don't trust the police (but equally don't assume they are wrong either), check for yourself before considering your course of action.

 

Sam