Temporary Insurance

Anything about BXs
User avatar
Way2go
Over 2k
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: RCoBerkshire
x 2

Post by Way2go »

Kitch wrote:Thats a ridiculous rule! ..................The police stop it all taking place. They ask you to step out of the vehicle. Now you've left an uninsured car on the road and you're liable.

Or what if you get pulled for a "random" breath test? Get asked to step out of the vehicle and bam!
The point is that the car itself is not insured anyway, It is the policyholder that is insured against loss, maybe F&T, maybe comprehensive risks.
The car type & reg is only mentioned because the premium is calculated on the assessed risk in association with that particular & actual vehicle.

If the policyholder is insured to drive "other" cars it is only on a third-party basis which indemnifies the policyholder against action resulting out of his/her use of the car in respect of damage to other persons or their property.

Should the car itself be damaged while in the charge of such a policyholder utilising this clause then no reimbursement/repair would be made to the driven car BUT if the owner had F&T or comprehensive cover then a claim could be made for that on that owners policy as covered on that. If the car is uninsured by the owner, losses to the actual car would not be covered.

I think that the confusion has crept in because you have to show your insurance now to tax the car. You didn't use to have to do this and this was brought in so that it was more visible to plod if you didn't bother with insurance. You need tax to keep the vehicle on a public road but to get the Tax your insurance only has to be valid for the day you buy it. If it lapses the day after, the vehicle can still remain static on the road for the duration of that tax period assuming that it is parked in an allowed location.
1991 BX19GTi Auto

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

I see some of the points there, but I still don't understand how what you're makes it ok to drive a car that isn't covered to be on the road.
If you yourself were driving a car and the basic TP cover some companies provide on driving all cars, this covers you should you be involved in an accident (ie your own claims, personal or otherwise). But surely the vehicle needs to be covered to be on the road in the first place? (by the registered owner/keeper). I think if the rule happens to be that as soon as you leave the vehicle unattended its madness, as it's just so vague!

I took a car for an MOT a while back which wasn't insured, although it was taxed. I put it on the truck at work and we ran it down there. I told them it wasn't insured and parked it on their land. When I went to collect it after it passed, it was parked on a side road around the corner. Where does that stand? Obviously it doesn't need cover on their land, and if they were to move it then they have their own cover to drive cars of business, but the minute they step out its not covered?

I actually work in a bodyshop and deal with insurance engineers often, so I might ask them their view. Did the same a while back with regards to undeclared modifications and was fairly surprised at the laid back attitude insurers have, so maybe it'll be the same again? :lol:
CCC BX monthly column writer bloke thingy - bx@citroencarclub.org.uk

The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga) - 1987(E) GTi 16v (Noir) - 1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)

User avatar
Way2go
Over 2k
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: RCoBerkshire
x 2

Post by Way2go »

Kitch wrote: I took a car for an MOT a while back which wasn't insured, although it was taxed. I put it on the truck at work and we ran it down there. I told them it wasn't insured and parked it on their land. When I went to collect it after it passed, it was parked on a side road around the corner. Where does that stand? Obviously it doesn't need cover on their land, and if they were to move it then they have their own cover to drive cars of business, but the minute they step out its not covered?
Kitch, you still are not taking on board that the only legal requirement is that the DRIVER has to have applicable insurance covering him/her for THIRD PARTY RISKS and on that there is NO insurance related to DAMAGE/LOSS of the driven vehicle itself whether he is in it or outside it.
Cover for the vehicle itself is by purchasing OPTIONAL cover extensions to the policy for Fire & Theft or Comprehensive risks but these are at your own discretion and are not mandatory.
1991 BX19GTi Auto

User avatar
DavidRutherford
BX Digit man!
Posts: 2705
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:07 pm
Location: Placing comments on YouTube.

Post by DavidRutherford »

Kitch wrote:They ask you to step out of the vehicle. Now you've left an uninsured car on the road and you're liable. Or what if you get pulled for a "random" breath test? Get asked to step out of the vehicle and bam!
You miss the point. Yes, you've left an uninsured vehicle on the road.... but there is no legal requirement for that vehicle to be insured while parked. The legal minimum is that the vehicle is insured for 3rd party risks while being driven, which is true.
MULLEY wrote: it makes sense that you can only be insured 3rd party on another persons car as long as that car is insured, otherwise everyone would be insuring a panda & driving a ferrari cheaply.
Some people were indeed doing this, claiming that the ferrari (or whatever other powerful car) belonged to their brother/sister/mother/hamster. Of course when the situation was looked into a little further, it was obvious that the car was indeed their own. This is also the reason that 3rd party extension is not offered to drivers under 25 any more.
this might be a signature

User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Post by Kitch »

So you're saying that a car doesn't legally have to be insured if it's parked on the side of a public road, unused?
CCC BX monthly column writer bloke thingy - bx@citroencarclub.org.uk

The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga) - 1987(E) GTi 16v (Noir) - 1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)

User avatar
MULLEY
Over 2k
Posts: 8406
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: Derbyshire
x 8

Post by MULLEY »

I guess as long as its taxed, then its road legal & can sit on a public road, however you wont be legally allowed to drive it if you dont have insurance....& if someone crashed into your car, no payout as not insured....

jeremy
Over 2k
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Hampshire UK

Post by jeremy »

Time for some law:

The requirement for insurance:

8-1560 143. Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part (b) of this Act—
(a) a person must not use (c) motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit (c) any other person to use (d) a motor vehicle (e) on a road unless there is in force (f) in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance (g) or such a security (h) in respect of third party risks (i) as complies (j) with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence (k).
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.


Use, Caue and permit (abbreviated)

-6 Using.—A motor vehicle is "used on a road" where it has been placed on a road, with battery removed, and incapable of being driven (a); but it is otherwise if the vehicle is completely immobilised (b). Similarly, where a vehicle with locked steering and seized up brakes which prevented the wheels turning was towed by being dragged along the road, it was held, on the facts of that case, that as the vehicle was incapable of being controlled because the mechanisms by which a motor car is normally controlled were all inoperative, the vehicle was not "used" on the road (c). Even if the defendant had no intention of using the vehicle he may still be held to have "used" it, for "use" is to be interpreted to mean "to have the use of the motor vehicle on the road" (d).
A passenger not driving or controlling a car but acting in concert with others as a joint enterprise (e), or being driven for his own purposes by another person (f) may still be using the vehicle. If the owner's employee in the strict sense of the master-servant relationship is driving the vehicle, the employer can be regarded as being vicariously responsible (g).


8-7 Causing, permitting, etc.—Many provisions of the Road Traffic Acts in this title penalise one who causes or permits an offence. "Intention to commit a breach of the statute need not be shown. The breach in fact is enough. To cause the user involves some express ot positive mandate from the persons 'causing' to the other person, or some authority from the former to the latter, arising in the circumstances of the case (Redhead Freight Ltd v Shulman [1989] RTR 1). To permit is a looser and vaguer term. It may denote an express permission, general or particular, as distinguished from a mandate. The other person is not told to use the vehicle in a particular way, but he is told that he may do so if he desires. However, the word also includes cases in which permission is merely inferred. If the other person is given the control of the vehicle, permission may be inferred if the vehicle is left at the other person's disposal in such circumstances as to carry with it a reasonable implication of a discretion or liberty to use it in the manner in which it was used"

So in my view a car parked by the side of the road needs to be covered by a policy of insurance.

User avatar
DavidRutherford
BX Digit man!
Posts: 2705
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:07 pm
Location: Placing comments on YouTube.

Post by DavidRutherford »

The interpretation here is whether a car parked at the side of the road is in "use". My belief is that it is not.
this might be a signature

User avatar
Way2go
Over 2k
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: RCoBerkshire
x 2

Post by Way2go »

DavidRutherford wrote:The interpretation here is whether a car parked at the side of the road is in "use". My belief is that it is not.
I agree with you David. And anyway what can a static car "do" that would initiate a payout liability to a "third party" when legally parked in a safe on road spot not causing an obstruction to other road users.

If anyone wished to be doubly sure then they could attach their own wheelclamp and then the car is immobilised within the meaning of the law and so is fully "out of use".
1991 BX19GTi Auto

ellevie
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Southampton

Post by ellevie »

Jeremy, could you please supply a reference for this ?

David
David

BX19TRS 118K E Reg 1992-2008
BX19TRS auto abs 96k F Reg
BX19TXD 150k K Reg

User avatar
DavidRutherford
BX Digit man!
Posts: 2705
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:07 pm
Location: Placing comments on YouTube.

Post by DavidRutherford »

I think the other issue that is worth mentioning is that the law makes consideration for the likelyhood of a vehicle being used... this is where the whole "being in charge of a vehicle" for drink-driving offences come from. You don't actually have to be caught driving, just that a police officer finds you "in charge"... Ie if you have the keys and are likely to drive.

The same issue is true here. If you were found to be "in charge" of a vehicle with no insurance on it (your own vehicle) then if it's parked on the road, there's a fair chance that you may drive it, and so it's "in use," and you might well be liable for prosecution (although I've never heard of that happening)

However, with 3rd party extension this isn't relevant, as although the vehicle is uninsured when parked, when I get into it it's then insured, meaning it's insured when in used, and not insured when not in use.
this might be a signature

jeremy
Over 2k
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Hampshire UK

Post by jeremy »

Its section 153 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - as printed in an ancient edition of Stones Justices Manual that happened to be handy. The text on using and causing and permitting as well as the footnotes to the section come from Stones.

The act is published here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/uk ... 80052_en_1

ellevie
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Southampton

Post by ellevie »

The insurance policy I had a few years ago said that I could drive someone else's car providing that they had it insured. Now I'm with Saga and it says I only need the owners permission. I suppose the moral of the story is if you intend to borrow some one else's car or lend your own, make sure you read your own policy and any amendments to it.

A while back I needed to keep one of my BXs on the road with tax but no insurance, so I phoned the Police on two separate occasions for advice --- one said it was ok and the other said it wasn't. I doubt if there have been many prosecutions for this, but this could change when it becomes a requirement to display an insurance disc as well as a tax disc.

It's not difficult to envisage situations where leaving it parked in front of your house could present a risk to the public. For example, if you live on a hill and a toddler finds his way into the car and lets it roll down the hill. I know of a case where this happened. I also know of a case where some kids were playing in an unused car and set fire to it. The car next to it also caught fire.

The Law is a blunt instrument --- it attempts to cover most situations with as few words as possible.
David

BX19TRS 118K E Reg 1992-2008
BX19TRS auto abs 96k F Reg
BX19TXD 150k K Reg

jeremy
Over 2k
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Hampshire UK

Post by jeremy »

Display of insurance details on vehicles will never happen as the insurance business will never be able to do its paperwork quickly and efficiently and get the things issued on time.

Look how long they take to get covernotes and policies out. They can take money quickly but that's about all they can do in a hurry.

ellevie
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Southampton

Post by ellevie »

David

BX19TRS 118K E Reg 1992-2008
BX19TRS auto abs 96k F Reg
BX19TXD 150k K Reg