Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Please Explain.
Is it a great idea to have car insurance even if you don't own a car? If yes, Please explain.
Answers
"One thing you can be sure of - the Insurance Company will make the small print as confusing as possible because then they can grasp any opportunity to decline a claim. They don't do Simple & Straightforw
16:14 Tue 10th Oct 2023
Interesting point in UK law. If I haven't insured my car somebody else can drive it if they are insured to drive any vehicle.
There is every chance they will be stopped as the ANPR will flag up the car as uninsured but producing proof of insurance will be an end of the matter.
Not for you it wouldn't be barry - and possibly not for the driver.
Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act (Keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements) requires all vehciles to be either insured or declared (and kept) off the road by way of a SORN. So you could be prosecuted under that section.
As well as that, most policies which provide a "driving other cars" extension (which are becomng incresingly rare) require the vehicle to be covered by insurance as made necessary by s144A. So the driver may well find he does not have cover and would be liable to prosecution under s143 (Users of motor vehicles to be insured).
The offence you would commit under s144A carries a maximum fine of £1,000 but no endorsement or penalty points, though it is usually dealt with by way of a fixed penalty of £100.
The offence under s143 carries an unlimited fine and a minimum of six penalty points (again, a fixed penalty is often the disposal, but this time £200 and six points). There is also the possibility that you would be prosecuted under s143 for "permitting" your car to be used uninsured. The penalty for you in that case would be the same as for the driver.
...my insurance did not stipulate that the car must be insured.
I did say "most policies", barry (and the number is increasing).
However, in your circumstances, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle will still be liable to prosecution under s144A (for keeping a vehicle that was not insured and not declared off the road). In practice such offences are usually prosecuted by the DVLA rather than the police.
There are only 4 instances where you don't need insurance:
you have a valid Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN)
your vehicle has been kept off a public road since before 1 February 1998
your vehicle has been scrapped, stolen or exported and you have given notice of this
your vehicle is between dealers or is being held in stock by an authorised dealer.
You still actually need to insure a vehicle if it is on your drive or garaged
I've just read the Patterson Law article and it is nonsense:
"The moment you get out of the car it becomes uninsured and if it is on a public road then the owner could be prosecuted for having use of the car without insurance. Whilst you are driving its fine – once you get out its not."
It certainly is not fine whilst you are driving. If the car is not insured in its own right then the Registered Keeper is guilty under s144A. It doesn't matter who is driving it, who is in it, what insurance cover they might have or where it is. It must be either declared SORN and kept off the road, or insured under a policy which mentions its registration number. A person driving it under a "Driving Other Cars" extension to his own policy does not alter that by sitting in the car. He may be insured to drive it (providing his policy does not stipulate that the car must be insured in its own right) but the car remains uninsured and the RK guilty of an offence.
Patterson Law continue to show their misunderstaing:
"Be warned that sometimes the police will stop you for driving a car that is not insured in its own right"
The chances of that happening are very high. The ANPR equipment the police use is linked to the Motor Insurers' Database (MID) and it will warn them it is uninsured.
The only problem is that officers sometimes don’t understand this point and stop people.
Police officers will not understand "this point" unless they stop the car and enquire. When they see a car that is shown as uninsured on the MID they have no idea that it might being driven by someone under a DOC extension on their own policy.
It is interesting that Patterson Law suggests that some police officers do not understand the law. That may be true but neither, it seems, do they.
Is there a simple explanation for having to insure a car that's kept off road?
It doesn't have to be insured if it is kept off the road, provided it is declared as such by way of a SORN.
The "continuous insurance" legislation was introduced in an effort to reduce the large numbers of vehicles (which is still running at about 5%) which were being driven uninsured. The legislation places no additional costs on a car owner who does not use his car bar five minutes of his time to declare it SORN (which he must do anyway if he wants to avoid paying the VED).
The idea is that the DVLA regularly runs a routine which compares all the vehicles which are not SORN with the MID. Penalty notices are then sent to the Registered Keepers of vehicles which are not SORN and which do not appear on the MID.
Keeping a car off the road places no additional need cost the owner nothing
TTT //so in oz, you can insure your car then let anyone drive it? Can't be right//
It used to be common in the UK. Back in the 80s when our daughter was learning to drive we had two cars, a big auto and a small manual. They were both insured for any driver and we checked with our insurance company that it was OK for her to drive them. The trouble was people started cheating so the insurance companies put a stop to it.
That's what people were doing, which is why it was stopped. It was intended for people to allow others to borrow their car occasionally but turned into a way for bad drivers to avoid paying expensive insurance. In those days car ownership was not as common as it is now and a car was someones pride-and-joy, not to be lent to someone who might even scratch it, let alone dent it.
