rtbarton Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 The insurance CANNOT refuse to cover you. It states in ALL policies that nothing contained within the policy will reduce the level of cover below that of the minimum required by the road traffic act.If you have valid insurance, its valid, regardless of whether the car has an MOT or not. I didn't realise that. So if you're driving an illegal car you're still covered for third party risks? Surely the new car will have to be on the policy though, unless it's "any car owned by the policy holder" cover. I suppose they could refuse to put the new car on if they knew you intended to bend the rules a bit. If you didn't tell them they could refuse to pay any claim on the basis of you not disclosing material facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 The point is that not disclosing material facts is not a reason for them to be able to revoke the cover in the event of a third party claim. Even if you were to fail to mention you had points or convictions, or the car no longer had a 1.0 12v motor and now had a 6.5L V8. They may well come after you in a civil case to get the money back that they've had to pay out or something similar (fraud charges perhaps?), but you wouldn't be getting done for no insurance. As for the new car being covered under "drive any car" that only works if the car doesn't belong to the policy holder. So if you've just baught it, and your driving it home with your "drive any car" cover from another vehicle you own, then you wouldn't be covered, and that would be classed as driving without insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ........As for the new car being covered under "drive any car" that only works if the car doesn't belong to the policy holder. So if you've just baught it, and your driving it home with your "drive any car" cover from another vehicle you own, then you wouldn't be covered, and that would be classed as driving without insurance. Yes, that's what I thought. The last car I bought the test-drive ended at my house and I didn't buy it until it was parked on my drive. I seem to recall from the dim and distant past you could only drive another car on your insurance if the other car was covered by its owner's insurance. Is this true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco_al Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 You can only get a vehicle off a SORN by getting an MOT Surely you mean by taxing it? as the SORN relates to the road tax, not mot. personally speaking it's just not worth the risk for all the reasons mentioned - £200 for a transporter is bound to be cheaper than £60 fine, plus the potential for all sorts of other complications and fines etc if you manage to rearrange the rear end of a eurobox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 ^^ MOT is halfway house, as you've got to have an MOT to Tax it and thus then end SORN Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes, that's what I thought.The last car I bought the test-drive ended at my house and I didn't buy it until it was parked on my drive. I seem to recall from the dim and distant past you could only drive another car on your insurance if the other car was covered by its owner's insurance. Is this true? Some policies stipulate it others dont, i'm not 100% sure on the legality, but i think if a vehicle is parked on a public highway it needs valid insurance (it could for instance roll away and take someone out), so if the vehicle wasnt insured itself, but your in it driving it, it seems to be a bit of a grey area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiWhite Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I seem to recall from the dim and distant past you could only drive another car on your insurance if the other car was covered by its owner's insurance. Is this true? We won't seize cars for not having insurance IF the driver is named on another fully comprehensive policy AND they are not the registered owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 We won't seize cars for not having insurance IF the driver is named on another fully comprehensive policy AND they are not the registered owner. What I meant was would I be covered if I drove Fred's car on my insurance (any car with permission cover) but Fred didn't have a current policy for that car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I think the answer is yes, however fred might get into trouble if his car is then left parked somewhere without you in it, as its then parked on the road with no insurance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco_al Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 it usually stipulates for fully comp that you are covered to drive any vehicle not belonging to you that has it's own insurance policy, in which case you are only covered third party - which is the minimum standard. What I meant was would I be covered if I drove Fred's car on my insurance (any car with permission cover) but Fred didn't have a current policy for that car. no, you wouldn't be covered, because the owner of the car does not have a policy on that vehicle. a good site to go to for temp cover is www.tempcover.com who specialise in supplying anything from 1 day upwards - quite pricey, but useful to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 it usually stipulates for fully comp that you are covered to drive any vehicle not belonging to you that has it's own insurance policy, in which case you are only covered third party - which is the minimum standard. Hmmm mine doesn't have the clause in italics above. When I got my present car my insurers (Saga ) gave me a month's free cover on it whilst still covering my old car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retroanaconda Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Also dependant on age. My insurance for my Focus is full comp, has been for the last 3 1/2 years, but I don't get the 'third party on other cars with owner permission' benefit until I turn 25 I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 My mums insured the Disco TPFT and has the drive any cars clause on it, so its not just a fully comp feature either. It also doesnt have the clause about the "other" vehicle having insurance of its own, just says a motor vehicle not owned by or hired to the policy holder, as long as the vehicle owner has given permission for it to be driven. LV also did the overlapping cover when i changed cars with them many years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J@mes Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 neither of my insurance policies have *vehicle must be insured by someone else la de da de da" or anything like that. It just means that you cannot leave the vehicle unattended in a public place, because as soon as you leave the drivers seat it is no longer insured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicTheOrange90 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 neither of my insurance policies have *vehicle must be insured by someone else la de da de da" or anything like that. It just means that you cannot leave the vehicle unattended in a public place, because as soon as you leave the drivers seat it is no longer insured. Not that it matters, but the actual offence is "It is an offence for any person to use or cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person, or that other person, a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiWhite Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 no, you wouldn't be covered, because the owner of the car does not have a policy on that vehicle. You would be covered 3rd Party if you have a fully comp policy on your car, even if the borrowed car was uninsured..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Just to clarify one point, having fully comp does NOT mean you can drive any car. You can get fully comp policies without that entitlement (usually if your under 25) and you can get TPFT policies with the entitlement as in my mums case with the disco, and my financees case with the TPFT policy she had on her old fiesta. Its a seperate part of the insurance, which usually is included by default on fully comprehensive policies, but its not guaranteed to be there, so check your policy wording before assuming either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missingsid Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 You can only get a vehicle off a SORN by getting an MOT.You can only get VEL if you have a valid MOT. I would suggest that driving to a pre-booked MOT without VEL and while SORN would be acceptable. Take the garage's phone number in case you get stopped. The only way DVLA would find out it was being driven while SORN is if a report is submitted by the Police, which they shouldn't do as you will be able to demonstrate that you are on the way to your MOT. Thanks for the reply Simon, are you an serving/recent Traffic Cop or just more knowledgeable than most others? Sorry for the delay but I had some family issues which has kept me away from the computer. Marc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacks906 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 cheers for all the replys for my bit got it covered now but have to change the disc's an pads on a mates TD5 an he'll pop down for it the only welding is it needs the n/s outrigger changing/replacing. with only being 24 me renting a transporter was going be £568 for the day apparently it's something to do with the insurance coz its so pricy and a local tow guy wanted just under £300 for a towing it regarding insurance mine stats that they dont need the car to be MOT'd not sure about tax tho, but they encourage me to get it checked out at a garage. also alot of insurance companies wont cover your any car bit till your over 25 dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiWhite Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Thanks for the reply Simon, are you an serving/recent Traffic Cop or just more knowledgeable than most others? The former Always glad to help out with some real world experience... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Si - you've been warned before, bringing credible facts into an otherwise entertaining discussion. I tell ye, one more transgression and you're Actually, since I'm the one with a truck with no MOT which is conceivably being kept on the public highway (I've no idea where the road stops and my rented driveway begins, it's all just block paving to my eye...) I might just duck out of this discussion quietly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan kemp Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Have you got RAC membership Woooshh.. definately the way to do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbarton Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Woooshh.. definately the way to do it I bet they'd refuse to recover a vehicle unless it was at least taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ye i'd imagine they'd want to see a tax disk too. Checking for MOT and insurance might be more difficult for them at the roadside though, so i dunno if they'd bother checking those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missingsid Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Ye i'd imagine they'd want to see a tax disk too. Checking for MOT and insurance might be more difficult for them at the roadside though, so i dunno if they'd bother checking those. Why? The RAC used to offer off road and motorsport recovery or did this only cover road vehicles used for motorsport? I may have just answered my own question. Doh! Marc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.