SORN and insurance

[x Alex x]

Just to clear this up. As I work in the industry

DoC (Drive other Car) is a third party extension to your policy which allows you to drive a vehicle which is already insured by someone else and with their permission to drive it at the level of Third Party Only.

If the vehicle is not insured at all, look forward to getting an IN10 and 6 points for the pleasure. If you are confident enough about your insurer, why don't ou go find an ANPR van to drive by to test the theory

as John says, there's nothing to say the car itself needs it's own insurance, and you work in the industry?

the car i'm driving is my dads that doesn't have it's own policy, i've said i'm gunna sell it 'cos i'm selling it for him to a mate.

i just can't be bothered to justify myself and explain the far end of a fart to everyone on here, i know im legal to drive it on the road, yeah i might be breaking the sorn and insurance rule but that doesn't mean i'm driving without insurance.

 

[LeighJet150]

as John says, there's nothing to say the car itself needs it's own insurance, and you work in the industry?

the car i'm driving is my dads that doesn't have it's own policy, i've said i'm gunna sell it 'cos i'm selling it for him to a mate.

i just can't be bothered to justify myself and explain the far end of a fart to everyone on here, i know im legal to drive it on the road, yeah i might be breaking the sorn and insurance rule but that doesn't mean i'm driving without insurance.

If your so confident, give me your details, ill report you and then we will see how you go then eh. People like you are the reason why insurance prices are going up each year.

The new rule which requires a vehicle to be either SORN'd or insured at all times does means that all vehicles being driven under DOC will already be insured by the registered keeper. If they are legal that is.

I think you will find that this proves my point. I don't work in the past, I work in today's industry. Alex, I hope your car gets seized, impounded and you get everything that is coming to you.

 

[x Alex x]

If your so confident, give me your details, ill report you and then we will see how you go then eh. People like you are the reason why insurance prices are going up each year.



I think you will find that this proves my point. I don't work in the past, I work in today's industry. Alex, I hope your car gets seized, impounded and you get everything that is coming to you.

i've rang my insurer, i asked if i'd be insured on a car on a 3rd party basis even if the car wasn't insured by it's owner, they said yes, before this i even went into the police station and asked at the desk, the cop said if it isn't a term of your insurance that you need the owner needs their own policy on that vehicle you should be fine, but double check with your insurer, that's what i did.

I guess you prove the point John made earlier about people at insurance companies not knowing what they're on about.

and i'm not the reason insurance is going up each year, i've got 4 years no claims and i've never once made a claim.

 

[x Alex x]

http://www.parkers.co.uk/News/News/Is-your-insurance-valid/

Driving another car with 'D.O.C'

Most policies do not require the third party car to have its own insurance but it is worth checking

that's what i did, and mine does not require the 3rd party car to have it's own insurance, like John said, as did my insurer and the cop i asked at the station.

 

[sludgeguts]

And this thread could have been over sooner had you told us the car was your dad's instead of implying it was yours.

 

[x Alex x]

And this thread could have been over sooner had you told us the car was your dad's instead of implying it was yours.

I already knew I was insured doc, we were talking about doc parking, remember? I'd already said I was insured to drive it 3rd party didn't think I'd have to go into the fine details for some people to beleive me.

 

[johnw]

I think you will find that this proves my point. I don't work in the past, I work in today's industry.

It certainly proves that you have a limited understanding of motoring law. To spell it out :-

If a driver drives a car, not hired to him, not belonging to him and with the permission of the owner under DOC on a policy that does not require the car to have other insurance, he is not be liable to be prosecuted for no insurance.

The fact that the new SORN/insurance rules require any car not SORN'd to have insurance is a matter for which the registered keeper is liable.

 

[dave]

but if the regestered keeper hasnt done his bit dont that mean the car isnt legal? you can only drive a car on doc if its legal

 

[Eklipze3k]

The way I understand it there are 2 legal standpoints: Either the registered keeper knowingly let someone else drive their car, in which case the registered keeper is at fault and liable for a fine (but the driver would still be insured 3rd party in the case of an accident if their DOC cover does not require the vehicle to have it's own insurance policy). Or the car is stolen, which of course would mean the driver would be at fault.

 

[LeighJet150]

It certainly proves that you have a limited understanding of motoring law. To spell it out :-

As dave said, for a car to be road legal, it needs the following; MOT, Car Tax and Insurance (on the registration of the car, doesn't need to always be the registered keeper, but price is usually sky high if they are not in the same family address, for private car insurance anyway.)

If you are missing even 1 of those 3 legal obligations on the car, the car is declared unfit to be driven on the road as its not roadworthy. It does not matter if your DOC covers it or not. This will always be an exclusion for any insurance policy, which will void your insurance if caught, which means no insurance.

 

[johnw]

The way I understand it there are 2 legal standpoints: Either the registered keeper knowingly let someone else drive their car, in which case the registered keeper is at fault and liable for a fine (but the driver would still be insured 3rd party in the case of an accident if their DOC cover does not require the vehicle to have it's own insurance policy). Or the car is stolen, which of course would mean the driver would be at fault.

That is my understanding too.

 

[dave]

As dave said,

I was asking not telling

 

[johnw]

As dave said, for a car to be road legal, it needs the following; MOT, Car Tax and Insurance (on the registration of the car, doesn't need to always be the registered keeper, but price is usually sky high if they are not in the same family address, for private car insurance anyway.)

If you are missing even 1 of those 3 legal obligations on the car, the car is declared unfit to be driven on the road as its not roadworthy. It does not matter if your DOC covers it or not. This will always be an exclusion for any insurance policy, which will void your insurance if caught, which means no insurance.

Having no tax does not void insurance unless the policy has that as a condition. I have never seen that condition. Any body else ever seen it?
Perhaps you could explain why you think the absence of a tax disc would make a car unroadworthy. I can see why a bald tyre would do that, or excessive rust or a duff shock absorber but not a tax disc.


Having no MOT does not void insurance unless the policy has that as a condition. I have seen a few with that condition. As far as I know every policy has a condition the the vehicle must be in roadworthy condition. Which is not the same as having an MOT.

If you bother to check on any of the official government sites you will see it clearly stated that a current MOT does not mean that the car is roadworthy.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022109

 

[johnw]

but if the regestered keeper hasnt done his bit dont that mean the car isnt legal? you can only drive a car on doc if its legal

depends. If a car has an MOT and tax but no insurance, then its legal to drive it under DOC (subject to the limitations of not owning it, not renting it, not parking it and leaving it and having the owners permsion). The registered keeper will be liable under the SORN or insurance rules as that is a paper exercise done on the database and does not need the car to be stopped by police.

If a car has no MOT or tax you can still drive it under DOC without committing a no insurance offence (unless your DOC conditions require MOT and/or tax ) but you would be liable to face a charge of using a vehicle with no MOT. The registered keeper could face a permit use with no MOT. Both of those carry a small fine and no points.

I am not sure who would be liable for the no tax fine in those circumstances. The registered keeper would certainly be liable for any back tax and it may be that both would face the no tax charges as is the case with the MOT. I am not sure because I have never seen this particular set of circumstances arise in court. Where there is this sort of multiple document failure and potential insurance charges the police tend to seize the car and it all gets dealt with by fixed penalties and/or crushing the car so doesn't get to court.

 

[Kier]

How much of a leeway do you get? I completely forgot about this and swapped my insurance over on Sunday, meaning my Focus is uninsured on my drive. Selling it tomorrow to someone though. Is this too long?

 

[cc1]

If It's off the road I would not worry. I would expect some thing like 7 days grace before being pursued.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

If It's off the road I would not worry. I would expect some thing like 7 days grace before being pursued.

I wouldn't bet on It though.

 

[Kier]

Read on MID, that you get a warning letter first, then a fine. So I'm safe (hopefully!)