Car Insurance

[SMP]

We have just got a new vehicle. My old car is taxed and MoT'd but the insurance has run out. It is parked up waiting to be sold and will only be driven by whoever buys it. Am I legal re no insurance

[Electrochem]

If the vehicle is parked on the public highway you must have the minumum third part insurance. If someone hit you old car, you would be required to provide the usual documents to the police.

[Buenchico]

I have to disagree with Electrochem.

It's not the vehicle which has to be insured; it's the person driving it. If nobody is driving a vehicle then, irrespective of where it's parked, no insurance cover is required. As long as your vehicle is taxed, you can park it on a public highway. (No MoT or insurance is required).

Chris

[Scotman84]

Electrochem is correct.

[Buenchico]

I still disagree!

It's only an offence to 'use' (i.e. drive) the vehicle, not to leave it on the highway. See the Highway Code:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/28.htm#3
and Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198 80052_en_7.htm#mdiv143

Chris

[Gef]

I agree with Chris. If the car is parked it cannot cause any damage and so does not need to be insured.

[SMP]

Thanks everyone but problem solved............just sold the car. Great site this.

[fuggy]

sec 143 R.T.A.. the fact that the vehicle is parked on the road, for the pupose of the act constitutes that it is being used and that goes for the m.o.t as well unless it has been declared (sorn)
the only defence re the insurance is to take the engine out. then its not (used) fact, ( but said with tongue in cheek.)

[Scotman84]

Ok Ok - so my 26 years police service counts for nothing - nice to be appreciated. Say the car is parked on a hill and the handbrake fails, the car rolls away and hits several others - would Buenchico pay for the damage out of his/her own pocket !!!!! In the act the word 'use' includes parked !

[Scotman84]

Or what would happen if it was stolen?

[JudgeJ]

I usually agree with Buenchico in matters of law and he is nearly always correct. However, on this occasion, chris, I think you are wrong.

There are three terms used in connection with motoring law: �driving�, �using� and �keeping�. The definition of �driving� is obvious enough (though still sometimes open to interpretation). �Keeping� means having ownership or legal custody of a vehicle. �Using� is a much wider term and for a vehicle to be �used� it does not necessarily have to be driven. For a vehicle to be �used� it merely needs to be �in use� (as opposed to being laid up or out of use). Section 143 of the RTA (which provides for compulsory third-party insurance) clearly refers to �using� a motor vehicle. I would therefore suggest that if a vehicle is parked in a public place it is �in use� and must be insured.

There is currently a consultation document in circulation which proposes legislation to make it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such an offence would not require the police to prove that the vehicle was in use on the road. Subject to certain exemptions, the possession of a vehicle without valid insurance would be an offence. Liability would rest with the keeper of the vehicle. This would effectively make it compulsory to insure a vehicle that is being �kept� rather than �used�.

Finally, whilst I respect your experience as a police officer, Scotman84, your question concerning the theft of a vehicle is not relevant. As I�m sure you know it is not compulsory to insure a vehicle against theft, but only against Third Party liabilities.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't know whether the Judge is offering a personal opinion on the definition of "using" or what that is based on.

The CPS say:
It can often be vital to correctly choose between using, causing or permitting. For the definition of using, causing or permitting, (see Wilkinson's 21st edition 1.205).

http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.htm l

I guess it all hinges on that definition

I don't have access to Wilkinson's so I can't give a definative answer but if it is already an offence to own an uninsured vehicle on a public road I find it strange that there should be a consultation document out regarding proposed legislation for exactly that purpose.

[fuggy]

scotsman84.

re the handbrake. what about civil litigation?then the con & use regs would apply. def handbrake?

[fuggy]

jake-the-peg.

if you own a vehicle which is not insured for puposes of sec 143 rta and you ask a friend to do a job for you in the vehicle. then you are guilty of using, you do not have to be present. both you and you friend are deemed to be using the vehicle. without ins

[fuggy]

scotsman84
i am sorry about that. i aws still thinking about my tongue in cheek comment about the engine removal. you are 100% correct a cert of ins is required. i can only put it down to the time of night. my apologies.

[jake-the-peg]

Then fuggy it sounds like you are in disagreement with JudgeJ who seems to think that having it parked outside you house means you are using it

Where did you get your example from? is it from the official definition in Wilkinson's, your own personal opinion or another source?

[fuggy]

jake-the-peg

practical experience.

in a nutshell. if you are the owner of a motor vehicle and are responsible for that vehicle being parked on a road then that vehicle must have at least 3rd party ins.

i dont have access to wilkinsons or stones j m. i have to rely on memory.