Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy B]

......
Providing I have your permission, your car has every right to be back on the public highway while it is in "my custody & keeping".

This has come up loads of times before, and as I understand it, the car has to have some kind of insurance on it before your suggestion will legally work.

[KillerWatt]

......
Providing I have your permission, your car has every right to be back on the public highway while it is in "my custody & keeping".

This has come up loads of times before, and as I understand it, the car has to have some kind of insurance on it before your suggestion will legally work.

Only if the policy states as such.

A lot of companies did get wise to the fact that people were insuring matchbox cars and then driving 300BHP behemoths, and subsequently introduced that clause.
There are still a few though (Equity Red Star being one) that do not have that particular clause where driving other vehicles is concerned.

PS
There is also the traders policy, £400 a year and you can drive it regardless of whether your name is on the log book or not.

[El33t]

That's how I understand it to. A car needs to have insurance attached to it, in some form or another, before even a third party with comprehensive can drive it.

This debate has been had on another forum I visit and I am currently trying to find the exact answer given by a copper himself!

[Danny S]

In holland we can check every car we want legally
You can check if its insured,if its got MOT,type of car,what engine it is etc,etc....

Very handy if you wanna buy another used car

grettings,Danny

[El33t]

AskMid aside, this is the whole "car/driver insurance" debate answer I was searching for, from a traffic copper himself...

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy. Only the driver gets punished if they mess up though...

The mantra that police apply at the roadside is:
"is this driver insured to use this vehicle for this purpose in this place at this time?"

So not only vehicle and driver, but also purpose of use and location or time may be relevant.

[KillerWatt]

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy.

That says what I have said all along, there is still no mention that the car has to be insured in it's own right (ie, a policy exists that is tied to that particular car).

[Andy B]

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy.

That says what I have said all along, there is still no mention that the car has to be insured in it's own right (ie, a policy exists that is tied to that particular car).

As I suggested ...... what about a company's 'pool car'  available for use by anyone?

[Gareth Lewis]

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy.

That says what I have said all along, there is still no mention that the car has to be insured in it's own right (ie, a policy exists that is tied to that particular car).

As I suggested ...... what about a company's 'pool car'  available for use by anyone?

I used to have to manage the car "pool" in a previous existance. What you will find is that all drivers details (ages, convictions, etc) of the people who can drive the car (i.e. employees) are logged with the insurance company under a Company Policy at the time of renewal.

Any changes to circumstances (e.g. more points on an employees licence) must be advised to the insurance company during the life of the policy.

We got caught out because one employee had a crash and didn't advise us that he had collected an extra 6 points on his licence using his own car which we obviously hadn't been able to imform the insurance company about as we didn't know.

Technically the insurance company could have refused to cover us but as these were the first 6 points he had we got away with it.

[KillerWatt]

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy.

That says what I have said all along, there is still no mention that the car has to be insured in it's own right (ie, a policy exists that is tied to that particular car).

As I suggested ...... what about a company's 'pool car'  available for use by anyone?

What about it?

If it is a company car then it will already no doubt be insured, and I expect the agreement will be based on "anybody who holds (or has held) a full license and is not disqualified from driving" will be allowed to drive it if so authorised by the company.

Unless I am missing something, I was under the impression that the discussion here was whether a vehicle needs to be specifically insured in it's own right before anybody can use it.

It's the insurance company who decide what cover they are prepared to offer the driver (and if that cover involves any extra clauses), not the police.

[Andy B]

......
What about it?

 ......
Unless I am missing something, I was under the impression that the discussion here was whether a vehicle needs to be specifically insured in it's own right before anybody can use it.  .......

Which is what I was on about. It's possible to have cars that are insured for any driver, & not specifically Joe Bloggs having his own insurance to drive any vehicle.

You can climb down off your horse now!  :-?

[KillerWatt]

......
What about it?

 ......
Unless I am missing something, I was under the impression that the discussion here was whether a vehicle needs to be specifically insured in it's own right before anybody can use it.  .......

Which is what I was on about. It's possible to have cars that are insured for any driver, & not specifically Joe Bloggs having his own insurance to drive any vehicle.

I never said otherwise, it was you who called in to question my statement about the car not having to be insured in it's own right >HERE<

[El33t]

Both driver and car need to be covered, even if that is by sole virtue of the driver's policy.

That says what I have said all along...

Well, this is what you originally said...

The reason it is worthless is quite simple, it's the driver who needs to be insured....not the vehicle.

So you can understand the confusion!

[rawsondsr]

From what i can see the database is useless - one of my vehicles according to that is uninsured, yet i have the certificate- 2 months old in my hand....

[Vamps]

From what i can see the database is useless - one of my vehicles according to that is uninsured, yet i have the certificate- 2 months old in my hand....

Yes, but have you paid the latest instalment........

[Vamps]

There has been great debate recently about this. you can only drive another car, on  your insurance if the car has insurance in it'w own right, otherwise the moment you leave the car, then the said car is uninsured, and if on the road could be towed away.