Legal Bods

Your covered mate. The police find it hard to understand.

*You’re

One of the SMB legal eagle gobshites find it hard to understand

I wouldn’t the call centre people find it hard to understand as well.

If everyone other than you finds it hard to understand it mught well point to the fact that it is you who is finding it hard to understand, just saying.
 
Last edited:


Being insured to drive other people's cars is one of the biggest assumptions going. Not saying that you aren't though.

Having a completely uninsured vehicle in the mix might make things easier.
 
143(1)(a) of the RTA refers to the policy being in place in relation to the use of the vehicle rather than the vehicle itself. It’s likely that, if the insurance was valid, then you are covered.
 
The car wasn’t insured
*You’re

One of the SMB legal eagle gobshites find it hard to understand



If everyone other than you finds it hard to understand it mught well point to the fact that it is you who is finding it hard to understand, just saying.
He was insured.

143(1)(a) of the RTA refers to the policy being in place in relation to the use of the vehicle rather than the vehicle itself. It’s likely that, if the insurance was valid, then you are covered.
Exactly mate. Like I said polis find it hard to understand that it’s a win win if you crash another persons car as they don’t have to pay out.

*You’re

One of the SMB legal eagle gobshites find it hard to understand



If everyone other than you finds it hard to understand it mught well point to the fact that it is you who is finding it hard to understand, just saying.
Might*
 
Last edited:
You're a named driver for your car on your insurance and can drive as an unnamed driver third party in another vehicle, but surely that vehicle has to be insured by a named driver to validate an unnamed driver to use it.
 
Thanks folks, i've looked my offence up and it states this.

Offence code: RT88191

Offence wording: Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance

I had third party insurance. I'll check with the Insurers before I go up there to get the car back but hopefully I've got a case.

You're a named driver for your car on your insurance and can drive as an unnamed driver third party in another vehicle, but surely that vehicle has to be insured by a named driver to validate an unnamed driver to use it.

Cheers, I'm not contesting the lack of insurance for the car, but hopefully I was insured 3rd party to drive it.
 
Last edited:
The car wasn’t insured

He was insured.


Exactly mate. Like I said polis find it hard to understand that it’s a win win if you crash another persons car as they don’t have to pay out.


Might*

He wasn’t. To use driving other cars cover (which not all policies have now anyway) the car needs to have a policy taken out on it in its own right. It was brought in about 10 years ago to stop people insuring the cheapest car possible then using DOV cover to drive higher group car.

Most policies will also state that you can’t drive a car this way that you are the owner or R/K of for the same reasonand some policies exclude vehicles owner or registered to your partner or spouse.

The only issue I can see with the whole thing is I am not sure the car should have been seized as the siezure is not intended to be a punishment in its own right but used to prevent the offence reoccurring. For example a taxi driver without for carriage of passenger insurance and just ordinary insurance, once the passengers are out of the vehicle then he would be correctly insured so no need to seize.

*At least mine was a typo

Thanks folks, i've looked my offence up and it states this.

Offence code: RT88191

Offence wording: Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance

I had third party insurance. I'll check with the Insurers before I go up there to get the car back but hopefully I've got a case.



Cheers, I'm not contesting the lack of insurance for the car, but hopefully I was insured 3rd party to drive it.

You didn’t. There needs to be a policy in place on the vehicle for your insurance to be valid
 
Last edited:
He wasn’t. To use driving other cars cover (which not all policies have now anyway) the car needs to have a policy taken out on it in its own right. It was brought in about 10 years ago to stop people insuring the cheapest car possible then using DOV cover to drive higher group car.

Most policies will also state that you can’t drive a car this way that you are the owner or R/K of for the same reasonand some policies exclude vehicles owner or registered to your partner or spouse.

The only issue I can see with the whole thing is I am not sure the car should have been seized as the siezure is not intended to be a punishment in its own right but used to prevent the offence reoccurring. For example a taxi driver without for carriage of passenger insurance and just ordinary insurance, once the passengers are out of the vehicle then he would be correctly insured so no need to seize.

*At least mine was a typo



You didn’t. There needs to be a policy in place on the vehicle for your insurance to be valid

Just for clarity, am i insured or the car? If it was the car then surely anybody can drive that car without the DOV caveat? If its the driver who's insured then as soon as i stepped into the car the car became insured? I'm not contesting them taking the car, the car had no insurance and did not have a sorn certificate, I'm just trying to find a way of not getting stung with £400 and 6-8 points.

I can't see any exemptions on my policy which states the car needs to be insured, it can't be a spouses car and i'm not R/K.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarity, am i insured or the car? If it was the car then surely anybody can drive that car without the DOV caveat? If its the driver who's insured then as soon as i stepped into the car the car became insured? I'm not contesting them taking the car, the car had no insurance and did not have a sorn certificate, I'm just trying to find a way of not getting stung with £400 and 6-8 points.
Your insurance company wouldn’t state that the “other” car must be insured as that is the law not a stipulation of the policy.
 
We had the same thing last year.
Wife drove her old car, which was uninsured.
Although her new one was, the other car was not. She thought it was
All cars must have their own insurance policy, you can’t carry it over.

Wife got six points and a hefty fine.

The penalty is way over the top as there, like you, was not any intent. But it has been ruined by all these pricks driving around uninsured.

Sorry mate
 
He wasn’t. To use driving other cars cover (which not all policies have now anyway) the car needs to have a policy taken out on it in its own right. It was brought in about 10 years ago to stop people insuring the cheapest car possible then using DOV cover to drive higher group car.

Most policies will also state that you can’t drive a car this way that you are the owner or R/K of for the same reasonand some policies exclude vehicles owner or registered to your partner or spouse.

The only issue I can see with the whole thing is I am not sure the car should have been seized as the siezure is not intended to be a punishment in its own right but used to prevent the offence reoccurring. For example a taxi driver without for carriage of passenger insurance and just ordinary insurance, once the passengers are out of the vehicle then he would be correctly insured so no need to seize.

*At least mine was a typo



You didn’t. There needs to be a policy in place on the vehicle for your insurance to be valid
Look mate the fact that you can’t get over poor grammar tells me all I need to know. Why would it make a difference. You buy a cheap car drive a Ferrari on said insurance and crash the Ferrari ain’t covered mate. The same crash in the cheap car cost the insurance company more to the amount the cheap car is worth. You are right though not all policies cover this but it must clearly say. Twice I’ve been up for this once recently and twice the magistrates have rolled their eyes and kicked it out.

We had the same thing last year.
Wife drove her old car, which was uninsured.
Although her new one was, the other car was not. She thought it was
All cars must have their own insurance policy, you can’t carry it over.

Wife got six points and a hefty fine.

The penalty is way over the top as there, like you, was not any intent. But it has been ruined by all these pricks driving around uninsured.

Sorry mate
Totally different. Wife owned both cars.
 
Incredible how many are saying the was insured. The car itself needs it's it' insurance.

Think about it logically, people that own two vehicles would otherwise only insure one fully comp and then just drive the other third party.

I have a moped and a car and both need insuring separately.

I not contesting that lack of insurance of the other car and will pay that fine, but my offence code states, "Offence wording: Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance" I had insurance. I know i'm screwed just clutching at straws really.
 
Thanks folks, i've looked my offence up and it states this.

Offence code: RT88191

Offence wording: Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance

I had third party insurance. I'll check with the Insurers before I go up there to get the car back but hopefully I've got a case.



Cheers, I'm not contesting the lack of insurance for the car, but hopefully I was insured 3rd party to drive it.
If vehicle has no insurance, Your insurance doesnt cover you.
 
Incredible how many are saying the was insured. The car itself needs it's it' insurance.

Think about it logically, people that own two vehicles would otherwise only insure one fully comp and then just drive the other third party.

I have a moped and a car and both need insuring separately.
Wrong if you own the other vehicle you won’t be insured it’s on every policy.
 
My mate had a similar situation. Genuinely hadn't realised his insurance had been cancelled and ended up stopped.

He went there and explained the situation. Did say that he thought he fucked himself over when he said "listen, you can reword the same questions as many times as you want, I'm telling the truth so my answers will all be the same". Got let off :lol:
 
If vehicle has no insurance, Your insurance doesnt cover you.

But there nothing in my policy documents which says the car needs to have its own insurance and the RTA only states that any car used on the road must have third party insurance, which it did as soon as i stepped in it.
 
But there nothing in my policy documents which says the car needs to have its own insurance and the RTA only states that any car used on the road must have third party insurance, which it did as soon as i stepped in it.
If they push it plead not guilty. It should state on policy. It tells you you can’t own or hire the vehicle. You can also claim for wrong impounding. It’s a drawn out process and not worth it in monetary terms.

Also there is insurance companies who offer great deals on just enough insurance to get your car back from the impound as it has to be the owner.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top