Insurance / sorn

[rtbarton]

I thought the rule was that you can drive any other insured car, but you are covered 3rd party only. So the case of the man who drives his wives car uninsured makes no sense to me. .......

As said earlier, depends on the policy. If the guy's policy allowed him to drive any car regardless of its insurance status (like mine does) he could drive his wife's car, with permission and covered for third party only.

[reads90]

It might vary on a case by case basis but I was advised by my broker that I can only drive another car on my insurance if that car carries it's own policy

Yes it does vary, my Saga policy allows me to drive other cars and it doesn't mention that they need to have a current policy. I must have the driver's permission except in a motoring emergency, and only then for an absolute minimum distance, like moving a car from the carriageway to a laybay &c.

The car has to have it's own insurance. You will find it in the small print of your insurance . If you don't the police that stop you will find it for you when they charge you with no insurance :-)

They do this so you can't own several cars and insure one and drive them all on the one insurance

[rtbarton]

They do this so you can't own several cars and insure one and drive them all on the one insurance

I should clarify, I'm only allowed to drive another car that doesn't belong to me under those terms, and I need the owner's permission, not the driver's - sorry for any confusion!

If you OWNED several cars then you wouldn't be driving a car that doesn't belong to you.

[rtbarton]

The car has to have it's own insurance. You will find it in the small print of your insurance . If you don't the police that stop you will find it for you when they charge you with no insurance :-)

The copper only looks at the certificate, not the policy, and the certificate doesn't have any small print.

[Bowie69]

In summary : check with your insurer, not a bunch of guys over the internet as to whether your insurer covers you in a certain situation.

I can't see the bad side in all of this TBH, seems pretty sensible.

[Night Train]

It seems sensible all round but it still can't catch a car that in uninsured, has a photocopy tax disc and is on cloned plates.

It will, probably, catch those with a vintage car in the shed being restored but still on the old green logbook.

[landroversforever]

I can see some logic in what they are doing, but as always with things like this, the bad guys are just going to keep doing what they want.

[nickwilliams]

I thought the rule was that you can drive any other insured car, but you are covered 3rd party only.

It's not a statutory requirement that insurers include cover for any other vehicle, and they now seem to be removing this from most policies, I guess because it buggers up the continuous insurance setup.

Like it or not, the main reason the legislation is being structured in this way is to make it possible for APNR systems to automatically flag an uninsured vehicle without the police having to manually initiate a check, so they want to be able to assume that if the vehicle itself does not appear on their insurance database then it's not insured. That's why I referred to continuous insurance as a horlicks yesterday - rather than moving to the continental system where the insurance is unambiguously attached to the vehicle rather than to the driver, they are developing a bugger's muddle which is neither one thing nor the other. How very British.

I recently had my renewal papers from NFU, and I notice even that policy no longer automatically provides cover for a loaned vehicle. They will give you temporary cover if you ask for it easily enough, but you can't just take it for granted, which was a right PITA when the office in Bakewell was shut by snow just before Christmas.

So, don't assume that you are covered for any other vehicle just because you were previously - you actually need to check what your current policy says.

Nick.

[rtbarton]

the main reason the legislation is being structured in this way is to make it possible for APNR systems to automatically flag an uninsured vehicle without the police having to manually initiate a check

My insurance runs out at the end of June, my tax at the end of September so for July, August and September I can drive with no insurance and not get picked up by APNR?

The current APNR system checks tax, MOT and insurance automatically by cross-referencing the various databases so nothing is gained by this legislation. It would have been far simpler to combine these three elements into one database, the Government has a lot of IT expertise and nothing could possibly go wrong.

This legislation is just another tripwire for the people who keep a taxed car of the road and don't insure it. They said on the radio that provision would be made for people who were in hospital or on holiday when the insurance expired. More bureacracy because if you get a ticket you'll have the hassle of appealing.

[nickwilliams]

OK, I should have said "make it even simpler" not "make it possible" (cos it already is possible).

And it's ANPR, of course, not APNR!

Nick.

[rtbarton]

And all this comes at a time when the government said "we want to end the war on the motorist." They said this when they lifted Central Government's control over city centre parking fees, instead giving local councils a free hand in deciding what they charge.

So no doubt we will see parking charges tumble.

[Night Train]

In theory I could get my elderly dad to insure my car for limited miles and social use only and then go about my business as usual and not get picked up by the APNR system.

Cool! Not!

[UdderlyOffroad]

I think we’re getting away from the OP’s question here, which is, will forthcoming legislation require SORN’d vehicles to be insured?

The various news websites seem to offer conflicting information, such as this doozie from the Beeb*

Which states at the beginning:

"Under the new system, it will be an offence to keep an uninsured car."

But further down the article it quotes Mike Penning as saying:

"If anybody has a vehicle they're not going to use on the road, they can declare that off the road and that will be absolutely fine,"

Which is it? To me it looks like sub-standard reporting combined with a half-baked policy idea.

Time for a letter to Mike Penning methinks asking for clarification. Not that I would expect to get a response.

*now is not the place to rant about how we’re forced to cough up £150 a year for the BBC and they can’t even be arsed to phone the DfT for clarification of this story and instead just regurgitate everyone else’s articles…

[rtbarton]

.......

But further down the article it quotes Mike Penning as saying:

"If anybody has a vehicle they're not going to use on the road, they can declare that off the road and that will be absolutely fine,"

Which is it? To me it looks like sub-standard reporting combined with a half-baked policy idea.

If you're SORNd you don't need insurance.

[Superpants]

I'm finding this quite worrying- a basically sound idea to try and catch some of the uninsured drivers out there (which has got to be a positive move- particularly having been involved as a passanger in an accident with an un-insured vehicle) has turned into a hypothetical discussion about loopholes.

There will always be ways of getting round the law, but if this closes some gaping holes and reduces the number of uninsured vehicles on the road I'll be happy.

Likewise I would not like to ever be involved in an incident off road with someone driving a car that had been technically scrapped, had no MOT and no level of insurance. The paperwork and court case resulting from that would be pretty nasty, potentially leaving us all worse off as it could seriously affect how event organisers would obtain insurance in the future.

[Bowie69]

Which is it? To me it looks like sub-standard reporting combined with a half-baked policy idea.

Welcome to the BBC's reporting.

Another article this week on how electric cars don't have good range, and then demostrating it by trying to get to Edinburgh in it :smackshead:......

What we pay them for I do no know...

[UdderlyOffroad]

If you're SORNd you don't need insurance.

Yes that's currently the position. That's not what OP or I am asking. We’re interested in the proposed legislation that the minister has talked about

The mixed messages coming out of the media seem to imply that, under the proposed new system, even a SORN’d vehicle would require some form of insurance. However the same article(s) then immediately contradict themselves by quoting Mike Penning as above. I guess it could be argued that we’re worrying about nothing as the minister has stated on the record that “If anybody has a vehicle they're not going to use on the road, they can declare that off the road and that will be absolutely fine"

But:

a) forgive me if I don't trust him or any other politician (regardless of political colour) to keep to their word on that

b) He didn't actually say "they can declare it off the road and keep the vehicle uninsured, and that will be absolutely fine"

[cideray]

what i read is if your insurance runs out you have to surrender your road tax and sorn it if not you will be fined

[rtbarton]

If you have SORN you will not need insurance.

That's how it is now, that's how it will be after the new legislation comes into force.

That's what the bloke interviewd on "You and Yours" said. Listen to it on "Listen Again" if you don't believe me.

[missingsid]

Yes that's currently the position. That's not what OP or I am asking. We’re interested in the proposed legislation that the minister has talked about

The mixed messages coming out of the media seem to imply that, under the proposed new system, even a SORN’d vehicle would require some form of insurance. However the same article(s) then immediately contradict themselves by quoting Mike Penning as above. I guess it could be argued that we’re worrying about nothing as the minister has stated on the record that “If anybody has a vehicle they're not going to use on the road, they can declare that off the road and that will be absolutely fine"

But:

a) forgive me if I don't trust him or any other politician (regardless of political colour) to keep to their word on that

b) He didn't actually say "they can declare it off the road and keep the vehicle uninsured, and that will be absolutely fine"

Sorry but the current level of accuracy in the UK media is probably at an all time low. The BBC are porbably the worst for sensationalism and do not worry about the truth at all.

I have been hit twice by uninsured drivers to the point of being told that another would leave me uninsurable. The last git was let off by the judge as he had been told off already for giving false details (which actualy equates to failure to stop I believe), bless him it wasn't his fault that he was a scroat.

Unfortunately the standard government strategy (any government) is to hit the non-lawbreakers as the scroats are too difficault to catch but at least they can lie about their efforts to the public (60,000 asylum seekers disappeared but the government want to stop immigrants who are here to help the NHS survive).

Sorry ranting again.

Marc.

[Disco-Ron]

The below text is copied from a vintage car forum i belong to...... and would appear to be straight from the DVLA's mouth.......

Below is an extract from the FBHVC's December Newsletter which includes the full text of an e-mail to the Federation from Ian Davies at the DVLA on the subject.

Bottom line - if a vehicle is taxed (even at the nil rate applicable to pre-1973 vehicles), it must be insured, whether in use or not. The Motor Insurance database of insured vehicles will be compared with the DVLA's database of licensed vehicles. Keepers of vehicles that appear on the latter but not the former will receive letters advising them of the action they need to take. Failure to comply within a reasonable time will incur penalties. This requirement will NOT apply to vehicles that have not been on the road since the beginning of 1988 or those to which a SORN has been made.

CONTINUOUS INSURANCE ENFORCEMENT

Stay insured: new penalties for vehicles without motor insurance

Ian Davies, Communications & Stakeholder Management, Continuous Insurance Enforcement Project 2, Change Delivery Portfolio, DVLA.

A new law is being introduced next year that will require taxed vehicles to be insured at all times, not just when in use on the road.

Background

In July 2004 the Government published a report called ‘Uninsured Driving in the United Kingdom’ that highlighted that the level of uninsured driving was amongst the highest in western Europe. One of the recommendations of the report was to introduce a record-based means of identifying uninsured vehicles. Following a public consultation in 2009 the Government decided to introduce a means of identifying uninsured vehicles by comparing records held on the Motor Insurance Database (MID) with those held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

From early 2011 a new law will give the DVLA and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), who administer the Motor Insurance Database, more powers to deal with registered keepers of vehicles that are taxed but not insured, through the introduction of Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE).

Continuous Insurance Enforcement

Uninsured vehicles will be identified by comparing the Motor Insurance Database with DVLA’s Vehicle Database. Where a vehicle is taxed, but apparently uninsured, the MIB will issue an ‘Insurance Advisory Letter’ to the registered keeper advising them of the actions they need to take:

• If not insured, insure immediately;

• If they believe they are insured, contact their insurance provider immediately to check that the Motor Insurance Database has been updated with the correct information;

• Make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) to DVLA so that the vehicle is not included in CIE;

• If they no longer have the vehicle, notify DVLA in writing.

If the keeper fails to undertake one of the above actions and the vehicle remains taxed but not insured, then DVLA will issue the registered keeper with a £100 Fixed Penalty Notice (reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days). Failure to pay the penalty and insure the vehicle could result in court prosecution with a fine of up to £1,000, and the vehicle being wheelclamped or impounded if found on the public road.

CIE does not replace the laws of driving whilst uninsured; that will continue to be enforced by the police.

This new motor insurance law only applies to England, Scotland and Wales (vehicles registered in Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man are excluded from this law as they have their own registration authorities).

For more information on CIE, please visit http://www.direct.gov.uk/stayinsured

When is CIE being introduced?

The exact date cannot yet be given, but will be in early 2011. Announcements will be made in the press before CIE becomes law.

Historic Vehicle Owners

For historic vehicle owners there are a number of important things to remember.

• SORN – if a SORN is made and the tax disc surrendered because the vehicle is not in use, then the vehicle will not be subject to CIE;

• Pre-SORN vehicles – vehicles which have been kept off-road before SORN came into force on 1 February 1998 are exempt from CIE unless they are brought back into use, in which case they would need to be insured or a SORN made;

• Vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1973 – though the vehicle may have a ‘nil value’ tax disc, it is classed as being ‘taxed’ and a SORN should be made if uninsured and not in use;

• askMID – if you want to check your vehicle is recorded as ‘insured’ on the Motor Insurance Database, visit the free service at http://www.askMID.com.

[JJB Serenity]

I cannot stress this enough: an insurance policy has terms and conditions which can be found in the policy documents (often separate to the Certificate of Insurance). It is important that you read the policy documents before accepting the policy. It is important that you know what obligations both yourself and your insurer are subscribing to. It is also important that you do this each time the policy is renewed as it does not have to be, and quite often is not identical to the previous policy.

Everyone's policy is bespoke. Each will contain 'don't's and cannot's' that vary from another person's policy.

I have so many clients who fail to read and understand their insurance policies (admittedly these are not car insurance policies but are for homes and buildings) and when something goes wrong and they find themselves without protection they always say the same thing: "Well I assumed...."

Don't assume, know. Please read your policies.

End of lecture

[missingsid]

Continuous Insurance Enforcement

Uninsured vehicles will be identified by comparing the Motor Insurance Database with DVLA’s Vehicle Database. Where a vehicle is taxed, but apparently uninsured, the MIB will issue an ‘Insurance Advisory Letter’ to the registered keeper advising them of the actions they need to take

This fills me with total belief in the system. I was stopped by the police as my vehicle did not show on the insurance database, luckily I had a mate in the car who also had the ability to drive other peoples cars. Yes my car was fully insured but the database was plop.

Marc.

[UdderlyOffroad]

That's what the bloke interviewd on "You and Yours" said. Listen to it on "Listen Again" if you don't believe me.

Right, thanks for that. It’s in the episode broadcast on the 10/01/11, about 2 minutes in.

And thanks Discoron for managing to provide some from-the-horses-mouth information.

So we can rest easyish for the time being.

Easyish because as missingid said, databases are always accurate, aren't they? Though at least you can check at www.askmid.com.

Without wishing to get too political, this will of course not make one scrap of difference to the problem of uninsured drivers. ‘Uninsured’* drivers already get ‘red-flagged’ by ANPR – and presumably pulled over by plod for a word in their shell-like, just the same as untaxed/SORN’d vehicles. It will not catch the real scroungers who do not register their vehicles, much less tax or MOT them.

So it’s a revenue raiser designed to catch the normally-law-abiding.

All this coming from a minister who recently told us that we can no longer afford a properly-funded coastguard with stations, you know on the coast, yet we can afford this massive increase in administrative burden at the DVLA.

/Rant

*by this I mean vehicles not showing up as insured on MID

As a practical step to ensure one's backside is covered when purchasing insurance:

Get them to confirm, in writing:

1) that fully comprehensive entitles you do to drive other people's (insured) vehicles, with the owner's permission (if purchased, though 3rd party only is usually more expensive these days).

2) that your vehicle will (from the point the cover starts) appear as insured on the MID.

[rtbarton]

that your vehicle will (from the point the cover starts) appear as insured on the MID.

Intersting point. When I changed my car Saga said the insurance auromatically switches to the new car as soon as I sit in it to drive it home.

Clearly MID wouldn't know this.

AFAIK sometimes it can take a couple of days for MID to be updated, which is why coppers ring your insurance company for confirmation before booking you.

This new scheme will eliminate that step, so you could be automatically done for no insurance from an APNR hit.

How long before DVLA has everyone's credit card details and you get fined automatically by the computers.