"Can I have a go" insurance

This is interesting as a follow up to a thread a few months back
regarding whether I could drive a transit on the 'any other vehicle'
clause in my policy.

I recall that there was no definitive answer (to my satisfaction) in
the thread, and I drove it, got tugged by the police, showed them my
ins policy doc, told them explicitly that the van did *not* have a
policy directly associated with it, and they sent me on my way.

Googling finds this
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2949603,
from which the relevent bit would appear to be:

"144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance
requirements
(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and
Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the
person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an
offence.
(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance
requirements if—
(a)it is covered by a 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)either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3)The first condition is that the policy or security, or the
certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies
the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by
the policy or security.
(4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy
or security because—
(a)the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a
particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the
policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security
which relates to it, and
(b)the vehicle is owned by that person.
(5)For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy
of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in
force in relation to the use of the vehicle."

The language is a bit opaque, but it would seem to me that your plain
English interpretation is correct.

Which means I should have got nicked in that van. Glad I didn't

 

You can't. You need to read the law. See Champ's post.

 

The fact they don't say it doesn't make it any less true.

 

The Insco is wrong. The car has to be named on a policy somewhere. See
Champ's post.

 

Thank you. Even opaque legalese will reveal itself with sufficient
application.

Small beer compared to your later exploits anyway.

 

That bit's new information, which does tend to support your view, yes.
Odd that in previous discussions nobody's been able to quote it
before.

 

It is, which is why I picked up on it.

I guess no one googled sufficiently well.

 

Not so!

I lifted yesterday's post from one I made on 28th March.

URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.motorcycles/msg/54d343b266754127?hl=en

 

The legal stuff that was quoted seemed to say that an offence is committed
by the registered keeper if they keep a vehicle not specifically insured. It
did not say that another person could not drive it if they were suitably
insured?
At least, that's how I read it. Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer!

Mike

 

Unless I'm looking at a different 144A(5), it simply says "For the
purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance
or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in
relation to the use of the vehicle. "

 

The "continuous insurance" scheme they are rolling out in 2011 is
designed to force you to either SORN a vehicle or else get insurance. So
this entertaining grey area will soon be a thing of the past.

 

Exactly. Which if you cut out all the guff, translates as 'a vehicle is
insured if there's a policy in place covering the *use* of that
vehicle'. My policy covers me to drive your car, so for the purposes of
144A(5), there would be a policy in place covering my use of your
vehicle.

 

I've had to decipher a few statutes in my day, and my interpretation is
the same as Colin's. The use of the word 'the', rather than 'a' is
significant IMO, and refers back to the conditions to be met listed in
(3) and (4) for a policy held by the vehicle owner.

A case law precedent search is required, but it won't yield much unless
a relevant case has been appealed to a higher court.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster [ SPACE ! ] Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

It's simply explaining what "covered" means in relation to this
section of the Act. It says nothing whatsoever about the extent of the
cover, which is the issue in question.

 

As I said before, I'll believe it means something else when I see
evidence of a prosecution. Until then, the only real world case I know
of was Champ & his van, & he wasn't prosecuted.

 

Average plod in "doesn't know the exact current law" non-shocker. Did
they bother to check MID I wonder, and if they did was it still showing
up as insured by the (previous?) owner ?

As Colin hinted, probably worth a punt, if you are sure you won't end up
ploughing in to a bus queue. Plus it appears that this specific section
makes it an offence committed by the person who is the registered
keeper, not the driver at the time.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster [ SPACE ! ] Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

He was stopped due to ANPR flagging up no insurance iirc, & as he said
up there ^^^, he told them the vehicle itself wasn't insured.

 

Which isn't quite what I said!

Indeed. You have an insurance company saying the other driver is
insured and a law saying the car isn't. My money would be on the law.
Hence my advice to frag not to chance it, but to avoid bus queues if
he did.

 

Granted ;-)

Quite.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster [ SPACE ! ] Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+