car insurance on a scrapped car?

Will your car crash because of a blown bulb? No. Stop being a prick.

sPoNiX is so convinced he is right, that he's closed his mind to any argument or fact that may indicate otherwise. He's made his own interpretation of policy conditions, and nothing you or I say is going to persuade him that his interpretation is wrong. Mike.

I do not for one moment believe that the fines are a deliberate attempt to catch motorists out.

They are an attempt to pressurise them into doing what the law says they must do.

Yes, some will forget. I've done that myself, and only remembered to re-tax a vehicle three weeks after it was due (fortunately, I was not caught before that :-)

But I do not believe that is the purpose of the fines.

Rubbish.

Without compulsory SORN, they would not know whether the owner had simply forgotten to re-tax a vehicle, or whether it was off the road.

Now they know that the owner has failed to do something, and can send reminders (and fine them of course). They don't have to wait until they catch the vehicle on the road.

This should work to reduce the overall number of untaxed vehicles on the road, and will also make it more obvious when somebody who is caught without tax is deliberately evading it, or whether they have just forgotten

I agree with that. I don't see why they should start charging additional fees on top of the road tax.

You're the one being a prick.

This is uk.*legal*. Legally, a car is unroadworthy if it has a non-functioning compulsory light.

And while it may not make the car crash, it *may* help cause another vehicle to crash into it (particularly if it is an indicator light).

Of course, this is irrelevant to the point here, since insurance is not invalidated if your car is unroadworthy (although they may only pay out third party).

The message from Alex Heney contains these words:

It's also uk.rec.cars.maintenance - where we ain't quite so anal.

Oops. Missed the cross-post.

Years ago, when I was insured with CIS, the broker/rep told me that the cover included MLR - Minimum Legal Requirement cover - for ANY car. So I could insure a Ford Fiesta and drive a Lambourghini. Legally. With Third party, or rather, MLR, cover. Difference? MLR doesn't cover your passengers so you can be sued.

I wasn't keen to test this theory out.

Richard

For now.

Richard

Cornhill were one of the last companies offering a 'driver policy' - essentially a trade policy, but you were covered for any vehicle - your premium however was based partially on the car you had been quoted on IIRC.

Very sensible, but also, very much abused.

Richard

Not necessarily. I had 6 points telling me otherwise when the car owner's "trade policy" was in fact a load of bullshit.

Richard

So if that's the case, why are they wasting taxpayers' money on road tax cameras, and wasting police resources on catching people driving untaxed cars when a letter in the post would do the trick?

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

This is a crossposted message. This is also uk.rec.cars.maintenance.

Why would lack of an indicator light cause a crash? Lack of brake lights maybe, but indicator light?

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Because "a letter in the post" would not do the trick.

All that would do is pick up those who have just forgotten.

Yes, I'd already said (in another post) I missed that.

Unlikely, I'll grant you.

But you might be indicating and expecting others to react appropriately, while they will not know because the light isn't actually working.

Of course, with most modern vehicles, you should know it isn't working, because the dashboard repeater will not flash normally if a bulb is blown. So you *shouldn't* be in a position where you think you are indicating but it isn't visible.

That's exactly the point. They are making owning a vehicle, keeping it off the road and not declaring it as SORN into an offence, when there's no reason why it needs to be. All this smacks of is blatant profiteering. Yes, they have the power to do this, but it doesn't make it a fair rule.

So not replacing an expired tax disc, having already been sent a reminder, can be put down to simply forgetting to do so, but with the SORN system in place, someone who forgets to renew, and also hasn't made a SORN declaration, is all of a sudden deliberately evading it? Riiiiiiiight.

They've been sending letters out reminding that their tax is due to expire shortly for years.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

No.

Somebody who makes a SORN declaration, then uses the vehicle is clearly deliberately evading the tax, while it is *possible* they had just forgotten otherwise.

They will generally get prosecuted if caught, either way. But penalties are likely to be more severe where they are clearly deliberately evading tax.

Yes. Your point?

All that sending a letter out to those who have not declared SORN or retaxed would do is pick up those who have forgotten.

Anybody deliberately evading tax is likely to have filled in the SORN declaration, and can only be caught by being found with the vehicle on the road.

All true - like you say, someone who's made a SORN declaration and then drives on a public road without tax is clearly deliberately evading tax. But with a measure in place for people to officially declare a vehicle off-road, if someone is deliberately avoiding paying their road tax, they would have to be completely and utterly thick as shit (in fact, even slightly more stupid than that) to officially declare the vehicle off the road, and then go and drive it on a public road.

If they wanted to drive without tax they'd be better off just not making a SORN declaration and carrying on driving regardless - that way they could potentially have just forgotten to renew it, rather than declare the vehicle off road and carry on regardless.

No they're not. As I have said above, anyone deliberately evading tax is more likely not to make a SORN declaration, as it means that they could possibly be conceived as "just having forgotten", hence the SORN system is a big load of bollocks.

At the end of the day, the only way to prove that someone has been driving an untaxed vehicle on a public highway is to catch them in the act. That fact remains, whether or not the SORN system is in place.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

It seems that the main point raised by posters is that a clause relating to a borrowed vehicle is not mentioned in a policy. Insurance co work on the principle that it is not allowed if it is not specifically mentioned and it is allowed if mentioned (with suitable get out clauses.)

Common sense will tell you that a car to be legally on a road, it has to be insured, taxed and MOt'ed (if over 3 years old) You will not get a car taxed if it does not have insurance etc and if it is not taxed then it is not insured for road use. It can be kept off road and insurance cover would be maintained without road tax, provided that a SORN form is forwarded to DVLA.

Certain large organisation post a bond and act as their own insurance company. Its worthwhile for them as any claims would probably be less than the amount of premiums paid for all their vehicles.Any driver can then drive any vehicle and be legally covered and the vehicle itself is covered by their insurance.

Your insurance cover applies to you driving the car because usually the vehicle cover is restricted to named individuals. Therefore in the event of an accident etc., the claim is against the driver's insurance but for the vehicle to be legal it has to be insured as well.

I sometimes drive a vehicle, not owned by me, with cover for any driver. My own third party cover would not apply in the event of a claim as the vehicle policy would accept that I was entitled to drive the car.

I would really like my insurance cover for my main car to cover my second car - fat chance. If it did, this would mean that I could take out insurance for my second car, get it taxed, then cancel the insurance and drive on my main car insurance.

Study your policy as much as you like but I for one would never take a car out on a road unless I knew it was legal, and that includes valid insurance cover for the vehicle.

Any car you drive that is not your own, unless you have stolen it, is borrowed. The statement that the policyholder can drive anyone else's vehicle and be covered against third party risks would be meaningless if borrowed cars were excluded. If the insurance co. had only intended to cover you for driving vehicles which their owners themselves had cover to drive, it would be simplicity itself to state this in the policy.

|| Common sense will tell you that a car to be legally on a road, it || has to be insured, taxed and MOt'ed (if over 3 years old)

The law only requires that the driver of a car that is being driven, as opposed to being parked up, be insured. The existence of any other insurance in respect of the car is irrelevant. If the car is parked up, iow not being driven but being used, the onus is then on the keeper to show that he has cover to allow his use of the car on the road, just as as if he was driving it. Most ordinary policies do not cover vehicles, they cover drivers, named or not.

|| Study your policy as much as you like but I for one would never take || a car || out on a road unless I knew it was legal, and that includes valid || insurance || cover for the vehicle.

You would have valid insurance cover, by virtue of the policy on your own car.