Re: Mandatory insurance

#21

Christian McArdle wrote:

Quote:

So if it's taxed and MOTed but not specifically insured you can't
drive it on an 'any other vehicle' policy.

This has always basically been the case.

The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road, then the
keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be "using" it, and hence it needs
to be insured. So, not only does the driver need insurance, but the
keeper does, too.

Unless it is kept off the public road.

Quote:

As it is basically impossible to get any car cover on your own
vehicles, this requires the keeper to have an insurance policy in
force for the car in question. Obviously, there are many loopholes.

See above...

Quote:

The new law effectively codifies what is already the situation de
facto and removes those loopholes to make prosecution and detection
more assured.

It's a change. I wish they'd decide whether they want the car or the driver
to be covered.

I'd love to have, say, 'any car up to Group 15' policies available, or 'this
car, any fully licensed driver'.

#22

In news:nsSdnQ6-nt-EXVXZRVny2Q (AT) brightview (DOT) com,
PC Paul said:

Quote:

Christian McArdle wrote:
So if it's taxed and MOTed but not specifically insured you can't
drive it on an 'any other vehicle' policy.

This has always basically been the case.

The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road, then the
keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be "using" it, and hence it needs
to be insured. So, not only does the driver need insurance, but the
keeper does, too.

Unless it is kept off the public road.

As it is basically impossible to get any car cover on your own
vehicles, this requires the keeper to have an insurance policy in
force for the car in question. Obviously, there are many loopholes.

See above...

The new law effectively codifies what is already the situation de
facto and removes those loopholes to make prosecution and detection
more assured.

It's a change. I wish they'd decide whether they want the car or the
driver to be covered.

I'd love to have, say, 'any car up to Group 15' policies available,
or 'this car, any fully licensed driver'.

Sadly it's not the vehicle which poses the main risk.

#23

Quote:

It's a change. I wish they'd decide whether they want the car or the
driver
to be covered.

Basically, the driver must be covered and the keeper must be covered for the
specific car.

Quote:

I'd love to have, say, 'any car up to Group 15' policies available,

These are actually available to some extent. However, they are expensive and
often limited to motor traders. It is this sector of the market where the
new rules will impinge most, as it will presumably now be a requirement to
register each car on the computer.

Quote:

or 'this car, any fully licensed driver'.

These are certainly available, although you may need to find a specialist
insurer for anything much bigger than a city car, if you want any driver
from 17, rather than 30 or 25.

Christian.

#24

"PC Paul" wrote in message

Quote:

Christian McArdle wrote:
So if it's taxed and MOTed but not specifically insured you can't
drive it on an 'any other vehicle' policy.

This has always basically been the case.

The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road, then the
keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be "using" it, and hence it needs
to be insured. So, not only does the driver need insurance, but the
keeper does, too.

Unless it is kept off the public road.

As it is basically impossible to get any car cover on your own
vehicles, this requires the keeper to have an insurance policy in
force for the car in question. Obviously, there are many loopholes.

See above...

The new law effectively codifies what is already the situation de
facto and removes those loopholes to make prosecution and detection
more assured.

It's a change. I wish they'd decide whether they want the car or the
driver to be covered.

I'd love to have, say, 'any car up to Group 15' policies available, or
'this car, any fully licensed driver'.

Just like Norwich Union used to do for motorcycle rider's policies. You were
covered for as many bikes as you owned up to a certain size engine. The
bigger the maximum engine size the more expensive the policy. I don't
suppose that type of policy exists any more.

Ian

#25

PC Paul wrote:

Quote:

Christian McArdle wrote:

The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road,
....

Quote:

Unless it is kept off the public road.

Eh?

#26

The message <1154001993.379283.161200 (AT) m79g2000cwm (DOT) googlegroups.com>
from "John" <johnmanders (AT) freenetname (DOT) co.uk> contains these words:

Quote:

Provided that the keeper of the vehicle has made a Satutory Off Road
Notice (SORN) declaration to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency
(DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place
while the SORN declaration remained in effect."

End quote.

The letter is from Stephen Ladyman who has Ministerial responsibility
for Government policy on this issue.

It seems to have escaped Ladymans notice that cars that have been off
the road since before SORN was introduced not only do not need to be
SORNed but are unable to be SORNed.

--
Roger Chapman

#27

Willy Eckerslyke wrote:

Quote:

PC Paul wrote:

Christian McArdle wrote:

The courts judge that when a vehicle is parked on the road, ...

Unless it is kept off the public road.

Eh?

Try not snipping so much.

When it's on the public road, yes it needs to be explicitly named on
somebody's policy.

The discussion was about the fact that in some circumstances, such as when
it is kept off the public road, it is currently legal to drive it on 'any
other car' insurance, but it wouldn't be after these changes.

#28

PC Paul (urd (AT) munge (DOT) org.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Quote:

When it's on the public road, yes it needs to be explicitly named on
somebody's policy.

Not necessarily.

Explicitly COVERED, yes, but not explicitly named - a policy may be in
force which covers all vehicles owned/leased to Company <X>. If it's a big
fleet, keeping that list up to date just isn't feasible - think of BT or
the Royal Mail, for example.

#29

Adrian wrote:

Quote:

PC Paul (urd (AT) munge (DOT) org.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

When it's on the public road, yes it needs to be explicitly named on
somebody's policy.

Not necessarily.

Explicitly COVERED, yes, but not explicitly named - a policy may be in
force which covers all vehicles owned/leased to Company <X>. If it's
a big fleet, keeping that list up to date just isn't feasible - think
of BT or the Royal Mail, for example.

I know, I know. I was trying to avoid having 75% of the post being caveats
and corner cases...

#30

In article <a5bf7$44c8b81f$3e18e6cb$29378 (AT) news (DOT) vispa.com>, Richard
Polhill says...

Quote:

PC Paul wrote:
John wrote:
The letter is from Stephen Ladyman who has Ministerial responsibility

So if it's taxed and MOTed but not specifically insured you can't drive it
on an 'any other vehicle' policy.

Which makes sense.

Not if you're a motor trader with a blanket cover policy.

--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: Mandatory insurance

Classic Cars (UK) Classic Cars in the UK (uk.rec.cars.classic)

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 08:31 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 08:42 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 08:43 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 08:45 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 09:13 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 09:16 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 09:53 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 10:04 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 10:06 AM

Re: Mandatory insurance - 07-27-2006 , 10:11 AM