Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
covered or not....?
Recently i was at court, having been stopped by police, for a minor traffic offence.
On the police check, it came to light that the m.o.t had expired ( 3 weeks earlier ) and i was not covered to drive the car ( insurance ) the policy holder was my g-friend ( only driver ) ,
the car was in-pounded on the spot...
I had car insurance to drive my own car and any one else's with their permission..
The car was released with my g-friends insurance and drivers licence.( and £ 150 )
The car passed the mot, no advisory notice given....
I was only the registered keeper and she was the owner and insured party only....Receipt from previous owner etc..
I pleaded 'not guilty' to the insurance, the court will now re-sit , i have to bring in my insurance cert ....was i covered or not.....? any one know......
On the police check, it came to light that the m.o.t had expired ( 3 weeks earlier ) and i was not covered to drive the car ( insurance ) the policy holder was my g-friend ( only driver ) ,
the car was in-pounded on the spot...
I had car insurance to drive my own car and any one else's with their permission..
The car was released with my g-friends insurance and drivers licence.( and £ 150 )
The car passed the mot, no advisory notice given....
I was only the registered keeper and she was the owner and insured party only....Receipt from previous owner etc..
I pleaded 'not guilty' to the insurance, the court will now re-sit , i have to bring in my insurance cert ....was i covered or not.....? any one know......
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by apollo-8. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I had car insurance to drive my own car and any one else's with their permission"
"was i covered or not"
well if you insurance states that you were covered 3rd party to drive another, insurered, vehicle, then yes you were insured. So get the insurance certificate that states you could drive another car and take it with you to court.
"was i covered or not"
well if you insurance states that you were covered 3rd party to drive another, insurered, vehicle, then yes you were insured. So get the insurance certificate that states you could drive another car and take it with you to court.
Yes, this is the short ,more direct version of events that occured....
Since the last post..,i went to court and pleaded Guilty to ,' no seat belt', ' no mot '
not guilty to no insurance, as i had insurance on my car, the court called a re-sit for a new date....the police officer has to attend the next sitting, i have to take in proof of a insurance certificate , which i have...he stated i had no insurance in his statement.The point is i was the registered keeper. He said i was trying to drive two cars on one insurance policy...? i have to prove i don't own the car..awaiting a verdict....
Since the last post..,i went to court and pleaded Guilty to ,' no seat belt', ' no mot '
not guilty to no insurance, as i had insurance on my car, the court called a re-sit for a new date....the police officer has to attend the next sitting, i have to take in proof of a insurance certificate , which i have...he stated i had no insurance in his statement.The point is i was the registered keeper. He said i was trying to drive two cars on one insurance policy...? i have to prove i don't own the car..awaiting a verdict....
' This is not proof of ownership ; V5c (log book )
' What is then...? - ' A receipt ..( Bill of sale )
' A person can be the owner of a car, but does not have to be the registered keeper
The R-K is responsible for the tax ,test etc....and gets notification of offences on that vehicle., We know all that....Now proving your not the owner....Again ,bill of sale..
The car being insured by the owner ' as a named driver only ' should allow anyone else to drive that car with his/her permission ,so long as they have insurance on their car...i.e. both cars insured...including the R-K....??? ( who owns a car and is insured )
' What is then...? - ' A receipt ..( Bill of sale )
' A person can be the owner of a car, but does not have to be the registered keeper
The R-K is responsible for the tax ,test etc....and gets notification of offences on that vehicle., We know all that....Now proving your not the owner....Again ,bill of sale..
The car being insured by the owner ' as a named driver only ' should allow anyone else to drive that car with his/her permission ,so long as they have insurance on their car...i.e. both cars insured...including the R-K....??? ( who owns a car and is insured )
Yes that is how fronting usually manifests itself.
I can also see that insurers may be concerned if, for example, A (who has a full NCD )takes out insurance on B's car (which is a high insurance group) and B (who is a higher risk) takes out insurance on A's car (which is low powered car), in order to minimise the combined premiums.
I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but maybe for some reason the police feel there is something unusual about the insurance arrangments here.
Let us know how you get on.
I can also see that insurers may be concerned if, for example, A (who has a full NCD )takes out insurance on B's car (which is a high insurance group) and B (who is a higher risk) takes out insurance on A's car (which is low powered car), in order to minimise the combined premiums.
I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but maybe for some reason the police feel there is something unusual about the insurance arrangments here.
Let us know how you get on.
There is the possibility that your Gf's insurance could have been invalidated during the period the car had no MOT, which would mean that your driving the vehicle under your own policy, as a vehicle not owned by you, would not be covered as the vehicle would not have any primary cover from the owner.
To the last answer ,yes that is correct on that point...no mot - invalid insurance...
The point is ' if it was mot'd and insurance was valid.
The insurance debate was brought up before ,the mot was mentioned and carries penalty points ...any way many people have their own idea's on the matter...
The V5c is not proof of ownership...it states that on the new document across the top.
If you have a car on hp ,you are the R-K ,but if you fail to keep up with the payments ,the company will take the car back, Because they own it ,till you pay for it...
The point is ' if it was mot'd and insurance was valid.
The insurance debate was brought up before ,the mot was mentioned and carries penalty points ...any way many people have their own idea's on the matter...
The V5c is not proof of ownership...it states that on the new document across the top.
If you have a car on hp ,you are the R-K ,but if you fail to keep up with the payments ,the company will take the car back, Because they own it ,till you pay for it...
1 to 19 of 19
