driving uninsured

[miah1234]

last night i was pulled over while driving my brothers car. i have an insurance policy which covers me to drive any other vehicle on third party cover. however the officer who pulled me over said i didn't have insurance to drive that car as it was registered under my name which i was unaware of. is there a case that i can fight here as i wasn't aware that the car was registered in my name as its not my car??? also what will be the most likely outcomes
any replies will be much appreciated

[New Judge]

Yes, Rollo is quite right. You need to seek proper legal advice.

And all this has somewhat missed the point that it is now necessary to continuously insure a motor vehicle in its own right to keep it on the road, whether or not it is driven.

The responsibility for this rests with the registered keeper. So the issue is not whether you drove the vehicle (for which you would be covered if you can show that the vehicle is not owned by you) but that you �kept� it on the road without an individual policy of insurance being in place.

You cannot escape this unless you use the defence that the vehicle was registered in your name without your knowledge.

[kempie]

With respect NJ, what does "continuously insure a motor vehicle in its own right" actually mean? Is the suggestion that the vehicle must be identified on the policy by its registration number?

There is currently no legal requirement for a motor vehicle to have its own insurance when being driven; it is the driver (and his use of a vehicle) that must be covered by a policy of insurance. Parking in a road/public place is another issue - whether the vehicle is being driven or not may have a bearing on its insurance status. This is contrary to the statement made in your second paragraph.

And if a commencement order for section 22 of the Road Safety Act 2006 should ever manifest itself (not the case since the last batch of provisions came into force 18th August) it will still be true that a vehicle may be covered by a policy for "any vehicle" owned by the named policyholder i.e. no identification of its registration number.

[New Judge]

Are you sure about this kempie? I�m now certainly not and the info you have kindly provided raises some issues.

I simply assumed that the provisions of the Act were in force. I must say I have imagined some difficulties with enforcement as it makes an offence of �keeping� a vehicle uninsured. Not least of these is the �any vehicle� policy situation which you mention. I know they are increasingly rare these days, but I�m sure they still exist. I also imagine that large companies do not provide details of all their vehicles to their insurers, but instead have a blanket �any vehicle� type of policy. This would mean that some individual vehicles are not identified on the insurers� database used by the police.

More to the point the police are routinely seizing vehicles which do not appear as insured on the database without checking whether the driver may have borrowed the car and has cover under any other policy (rather like the poser of this question). This suggests they believe there is an offence of �keeping� the vehicle uninsured regardless of whether anybody is insured to drive it.

This article:

http://www.msnmoney.insurancewide.com/article/ 2008/january/article_uk_motor_insurance_enforc ement_tightens_18428114.html

seems to suggest that the regulations are already in force.

I�ll do some further digging. But if you are right I am clearly wrong and apologise to all. It may mean that all miah1234 has to worry about is proving that he does not own the vehicle.

Perhaps he might tell us what his solicitor advises.

[kempie]

Over the past few years, and on numerous threads, I have raised the issue that Police powers to seize vehicles in regard of insurance contraventions were introduced far ahead of the legislation which codifies the offence and it is certainly the case that as of 18th August 2008 section 22 of the Road Safety Act 2006 had not received a Commencement Order to bring that section (which amends the Road Traffic Act 1988) into force.

So it is still the case that a vehicle legal in respect of insurance cover required by the RTA 1988 may "legally" be seized for contravention of that section of the Act.

[New Judge]

I�m very confused, kempie.

Whilst not doubting what you say is true, I have in my mind somewhere that I have seen prosecutions brought for �keeping� a vehicle uninsured. No driving was involved. I�ll have to check this out.

If police are seizing vehicles, they usually do this (as far as I know) because the vehicle is not shown as insured on the insurers� database. Again, only as far as I know, they do not trouble themselves to check whether the driver is insured under a policy not specific to the vehicle.

S143 of the Road Traffic Act (which deals with insurance requirements) clearly relates to �using� a vehicle, not keeping. So no offence is committed by a driver under that act if he has insurance via a non-specific policy.

As I said, I�m very confused and will make some enquiries over the next week or so. Thanks for the info you have provided.

[kempie]

A little more background to my claims can be found on this previous thread...

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Insurance/Quest ion510568.html

[harryt]

To insure something u must have financil interest in the item so your brother insuring your car is illegal as he has no financial interest. in the invent that he crashes your car his insured will not pay out as the policy has been void from inception:
A husband and wife car insure each others car as they have financial interest. but brothers dont sorry

[New Judge]

The very essence of this query harryt is that miah's brother does have a financial interest in the car as it is said that he owns it..

Miah is the resgistered keeper and may have difficulty proving that he does not own it, and that is the problem.