|
Yeah, \'cos no-one ever does more than a few mph over the limit.....
|
Mark RLBS may shoot this down in flames, but there seems to be a loophole whereby uninsured, uninsurable cars can legally be driven on the road as long as the driver never actually gets out of them.
It\'s the bit of many private car policies that allows the policyholder to drive other cars not owned by him. Many policies (such as Prudential\'s) do not insist that the other car is insured in any way. There are, however, other conditions, such as Chummy must be over 25.
But if Chummy is over 25 and drives a properly insured Group 1 FIAT Panda, he can also legally drive an 800bhp supercharged street racer to and from and at the cruise, or whatever. All he has to do is buy it via a trader who taxes it for a year on the trader\'s trade insurance and have it registered to a mate. The trader now has to verify the new owner\'s identity using form V959, but that does not stop Chummy from driving the taxed 800bhp street racer registered to his mate, on his Group 1 FIAT Panda insurance.
Over to you, Mark, to correct me if I\'m wrong.
HJ
|
apologies to tom&jerry as this is not a reply to your Q.
HJ: you said >>"Over to you, Mark, to correct me if I'm wrong.>>;
I belive you are right but remember that the insurance cover will normally be restricted to the minimum "third party" statutory requirement. Topic was similarly discussed in
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=18...0
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, part VI, to drive a vehicle in a place where the public have access, you only need the following:
143.?(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
|
|
|
>>All he has to do is buy it via a trader who taxes it for a year on the trader's trade insurance and have it registered to a mate. The trader now has to verify the new owner's identity using form V959, but that does not stop Chummy from driving the taxed 800bhp street racer registered to his mate, on his Group 1 FIAT Panda insurance.
Sorry, but no.
Firstly you have a duty to disclose anything relevant and/or material to either the risk or the assessment of the risk. Frequently driving another high-powered car is material. If you are in doubt as to whether or not something is material, then you should disclose it anyway. That means, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY DIDN'T ASK YOU, YOU HAVE TO VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION.
Secondly you need to understand how insurance works, particularily with regard to the relationship between the cover extended to you by your insurance certificate and the additional cover or restrictions emerging from your policy Ts&Cs.
In the situation quoted by HJ, then you would be more or less legally insured by your motor insurance certificate in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act. As such, you would not be likely to be prosecuted for no insurance.
However, you would find that such a non-disclosure would fall very foul of the policy document itself. Therefore, whilst they couldn't deny you cover under the RTA, they would have a right to recover their losses from you. Those could be very significant. Even clanging into someone these days is likely to cost you AD of £2k - £3k. Lob on a few days of loss of use, temporary car, excess, taxies, loss of wages etc. etc. and without goign anywhere near personal injury you are, in even small accidents, talking of a number of thousands of pounds. Add in a possible injury, damages, legal servies and the claim can ramp up horrifically - and you'll be paying back forever as well as finding yourself virtually uninsurable for anything less than a king's ransom.
"oh but" you say "how will they ever find out ?" - because they're not stupid, you're the 966,000th person to try it on this year and they're looking for just such a thing...
Who owns this car ?
How often to they lend it to you ?
Why ?
Who maintains it ?
Where is it kept ?
Oh really, well Mr. Trader/New best mate/whoever just sign here and bet your livelihood, freedom and bank balance that we can't catch you out or prove you're lying....
And by the way, even if we can't prove the fraud/lies driving a vehicle like this even once is a material part of the risk and you didn't tell us.
Unless of course the trader notified you as the owner, in which case they don't have to go to any trouble at all, just sue you.
And of course, while they're there, they could chuck in a few words with the local constabulary about fraud and intentions to deceive and everything else they can think of...
Now, if you never have an accident, your fault or not, and you never have to prove that the car is insured to a policeman who just decides to tell your insurance company what he stopped you driving, then you'll be fine.
But that isn't something I'd bet on.....
|
It's actually exactly how HJ described. When I first noticed DOC extension in my old CIS policy I specifically asked sales rep (in person) about any limitations in usage of the "Other Cars".
Yes, it is intended to be for occasional and emergency usage only, however, in case of most companies it is exactly what it says on the label - you can drive any car, of any size, with any modifications without limitations to mileage or time of use as long as the "Other car" doesn't belong to you full stop. So, yes, you may buy insurance on Fiat Panda and drive Ferrari registered to your wife, father, godmother, younameit. The keeper of the car doesn't have to have a driving license. There is no law that would prohibit even blind man from owning fleet of sport cars. In most cases the owner of the car you drive under DOC extension does not have to have insurance on his/her own. However you do have to be aware that once you close the door behind you to go to a shop it automatically becomes uninsured vehicle on public road. You also have to understand that should you loose control and smash this F1 into pieces or wrap it around a tree neither you nor the registered owner of the car will see a penny towards the Ferrari. That's the general idea behind TPO cover. What's even more funny - most insurance companies do not restrict ownership issue in any way, as in, you do not have to have a permission of the person registered as keeper. Technically it means that you can steal your neighbours Landrover and drive it into your own vehicle on you driveway and your own Third Party cover will pay you for damages to the said Panda in HJ's example. The hell might break loose, you might be sued and arrested, but in terms of your insurance cover you are still within T&C of your policy.
Dodgy ideas aside, it surely is an idea for those drivers that for one reason or another have no NCB, live in the city, in a zone classified as 6b and want to drive their family in safe but expensive to insure old 2 litre Volvo. The old banger is probably not worth £1700 of insurance quote, so this Panda example suddenly is not such a bad idea. Is it fair to do so? Perhaps not. But is it fair that insurance companies want £1700 for TPO policy just because you never had a car for more than a year and live somewhere in Hackney?
There is something else I asked few people and noone can provide answer. Perhaps you gentlemen can help my curiosity. What is the legal requirement to become insurance body? What I mean is - if for example Johns own wife wanted to become sole trading insurance company with John being her only customer. Could she do that? What would the requirements?
|
Oh dear.
>>it means that you can steal your neighbours Landrover and drive it into your own vehicle on you driveway and your own Third Party cover will pay you for damages
Not even slightly. You need to read the full policy document and not just the certificate.
>>so this Panda example suddenly is not such a bad idea
Its a b***** awful idea as I had hoped I'd explained.
>>What is the legal requirement to become insurance body?
at a guess.....
A large sum of money deposited as a bond
Registration and approval (both of which would come with a bunch of restrictions, rules and regulations)
Licencing (ditto)
|
Mark, I remember being told when studying insurance law a few years ago, that a perfectly legitimate alternative to buying car insurance was to deposit £100,000 with (I think) the Bank of England (or perhaps it was HM Treasury, can't really remember). This is, or was, apparently completely legal under the RTA.
Any idea whether this still applies, or whether my lecturer in 1996 or whenever was talking pink fluffy dice?
|
I don't know the current amount which applies, but the principle is still sound.
However, that is for self-insurance; extending insurance to another, albeit your husband as I think the example was, is more problematic.
|
|
|
|
Mark wrote:
Not even slightly. You need to read the full policy document and not just the certificate.
I have read the policy. If I could suggest you call an insurer offering DOC extension (for example CIS) and ask them. I have.
Its a b***** awful idea as I had hoped I'd explained.
I'm sorry Mark but you haven't explained the cons of such insuring beyond possible repercussions of not reading one's policy. But the rules really are simple and if the policy holder knows themand read the whole document and made sure he's within terms and conditions of the document then there is no room for misinterpretation. The DOC extension to many policies, believe me, is exactly that - drive other cars that don't belong to you, practically without real limitations.
|
However, the cover you are talking is what the insurance certificate gives you. So, as I explained, as far as the police are concerned you are insured.
In fact, if you had an accident, then the insurance company would pay out.
And, most probably, if it was a one-off drive of a super-car you'd be ok.
However, if you regularily drive another vehicle, especially one substantially higher risk than your own, you are in breach of your duty to inform your insurers of a material factor. As such, whilst they cannot refuse a claim which falls within the certificate, they are able to recover their losses from you.
>made sure he's within terms and conditions of the document then there is no room for misinterpretation.
Which, if you have not disclosed a material fact, you cannot possibly be.
Next time you ring your insurers, ask to speak to an underwriter or a claims assessor and ask them. If the customer service person has stated as you have said, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then get it in writing.
Something along the lines of HJ's example.
If you get it writing I'll courier you a pint, wherever you are.
You need to do whatever works for you; but for me, having worked as a motor claims assessor and a motor underwriter and seen simialr examples, and being qualified as such, I'll stick with my approach.
|
I hope you didn't take my replies as disrespect of any kind. I do trust your experience in this matter. I also have no doubts the insurers can "recover their losses". We are talking about insurance companies - the crooks that cancel policies and fail to pay people for accidents every day using small and unimportant details like unoriginal fuel filters or a roof spoiler that wasn't reported to them.
But even if there is a limitation to the conditions (upon which you should inform your insurer you intend to drive "other car" constantly) you would have to have two accidents involving the same car for the insurer to know and start "recovering their losses"? That kind of statistics surely still leaves the option just as attractive and wide open to grab?
|
>>I hope you didn't take my replies as disrespect of any kind
Not at all, hence the offer of a couriered pint.
>>you would have to have two accidents involving the same car for the insurer to know
Well, clearly that would give it away. But it really depends on your accident. If you go and bend someone else's bumper for £50 then the insurance company is going to pay it with only the briefest of thoughts. Essentially because its cheaper to pay than embark on an investigation which will be expensive and may not succeed anyway.
On the other hand, if you happened to lose control and mow down a bus queue containing Will, Gareth, Pete & Simon then they are going to investigate every tiny bit - and they already know all the scams, so they know what they are looking for.
Its a risk I wouldn't take, as much because the ramifications of messing up are so severe as anything else. I use the DOC extension for what it is intended - the occasional driving of another, not particularly special, car for which I am not otherwise insured and which I drive rarely and perhaps once.
And of course you are correct, it is possible to abuse and many people do. Hence the ridiculous price fo car insurances.
As a general point, and I don't aim this particularly at v0n, always get any discussion of coverage in writing. The people you speak to are normally customer service experts and are neither underwriters able to define the risk which will accepted, nor assessors able to determine which claim will be paid.
Always, always, always get it in writing. All too often you will get a simplistic, verbal answer without authority. At least if you get it in writing you have a leg to stand on if it goes pear-shaped.
|
|
|
|
|
Au contraire, SR... very many people, probably the majority, do a few mph over the limit, every day, in places where it feels fine to do so.
A small proportion exceed the limit by a large amount, even in places where they know it is dangerous even to go as fast as the limit.
A small proportion never, ever, ever exceed the limit, but they may still crash into things. And there's probability which can't be reduced to zero that they might do more damage:
What if the chap doing a few mph over the limit spots the hazard and gets his foot on the brake earlier than the chap who's still earnestly engaged in matching the pressure on his gas pedal against maintaining his speedo needle 1mph below the limit ?
One chooses one's cap... Or token halo...
|
tunacat,
The "many" people who do a few mph over the limit are not the main problem, and they are not the target of any enforcement. The problem is that if a few mph are allowed over the limit, some will take a few more, and a few more, and a few more....
If anyone has to concentrate so hard on maintaining a speed within the limit, they could always try going a bit slower to give room for error - or better still go and brush up on their driving skills.
I think the choice of token halo can be made by those who criticise all and sundry for being uninsured, untaxed, having faulty lights, but then demand the right to break speed limits because breaking that law happens to suit them.
Uninsured drivers can probably find a way of justifying their actions as well....e.g., "it's not my fault insurance is so expensive", "I'm safer than other drivers, so why should I pay just because I'm young". The fact that so many people do it is held up as a case for more enforcement, but the fact that so many speed is held to indicate the law should be relaxed.
Why shouldn't all laws be applied?
|
SR,
The many who do a few mph over the limit ARE the target of enforcement - by ruthless machines!
Where is the machine which automatically prosecutes a driver who is uninsured?
For that matter, where is the machine which automatically prosecutes a pedestrian crossing against a 'Don't Walk' sign?
Should someone receive a fine and points on their licence for parking on a side street (not a thoroughfare) for 30 seconds while they buy a paper, because that stubby dead-end street has double yellow lines?
A machine could do that already - I suppose it's now only a matter of time. Then we rusty-haloed will have another thing to grumble about while we wait rather longer for them to invent a machine which can automatically prosecute shoplifters and vandals.
Ooops! lunchbreak nearly over - must cease posting and get back to work before the machine squirts some more salt-water onto my headgear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
